View Full Version : Palestine
Yup. He has died. For real this time. After 2 false alarms.
A very contraversial figure of international politics. A terrorist or a peacemaker? You be the judge. I just remember him as a man with the scarf who's been around since FOREVER. My first memories were like around 1982 and I remember him from THEN even.
I don't think this will be good for the middle-easter peace process though. Arafat was at least a reliable Status Quo, who knows what might happen now. There's are even been talk about the possibility of Hamas taking over.
Little Squirrel
11-11-2004, 05:37
im glad hes dead!
I could never say that about anyone, Little Squirrel ! I think this could lead to further chaos in the Middle East ...
QueenBee
11-11-2004, 11:56
Wow... :none: There's been some talk about him here lately, and it's really too bad that he's dead. Okay, so I know NOTHING about politics, nor him, but still.. Who knows what's gonna happen now :eek:
May he rest in peace.
:newyear:
He always fought for his people who have been oppressed for decades, without him there wouldn't even be a Palestinian resistance, the occupied territories would have been annexed by Israel a long time ago if he hadn't led Palestinians to fight Israel.
He fought against incredibly superior forces and escaped several assassination attempts, he will remain a hero for his people who will continue to fight in his name.
The future looks gloom for Palestinian though now that he's gone.
PowerPuff Grrl
11-11-2004, 18:49
The man gave up many opportunities to have an independent Palestine and deliberately burned bridges with neighbouring Arab countries that were kind enough to help out in the cause. He is a corrupt ass-face that exploited the plight of his people for power and wealth.
He hasn't had much influence over Palestinians for quite some time now, his death will probably have a symbolic impact over Palestine, I don't think anything will happen inside of Palestine. The only problem will be who will succeed Arafat in terms of who will represent Palestine to the international community.
The man gave up many opportunities to have an independent PalestineIsrael don't want an independent Palestine, there was never an opportunity for Palestinians to get an independent state, and there never will be.
Israel don't want an independent Palestine, there was never an opportunity for Palestinians to get an independent state, and there never will be.
There was an opportunity... the offer was on the table in 98/99. The handshake with Rabin, the negotiations, Clinton pushing the issue. It was on HIM to accept it, yet he wasn't satisfied with the deal and eventualy got nothing. There COULD have been an independant Palestine today.
There was an opportunity... the offer was on the table in 98/99. The handshake with Rabin, the negotiations, Clinton pushing the issue. It was on HIM to accept it, yet he wasn't satisfied with the deal and eventualy got nothing. There COULD have been an independant Palestine today.
Soem deal that would have been. With Israeli negotiator 4 years dead and all. Must have been quite a smell there. No wonder he refused.
There never was opportunity. After Oslo Israelis continued to build settlements. During their incursions they destroyed Palestinian security infrastructure then blamed Palestinians for failure of their security forces to stop terrorism. :rolleyes:
:newyear:
There was an opportunity... the offer was on the table in 98/99. The handshake with Rabin, the negotiations, Clinton pushing the issue. It was on HIM to accept it, yet he wasn't satisfied with the deal and eventualy got nothing. There COULD have been an independant Palestine today.No way, Israel never offered an independent state to Palestinians, at best it could be called "bantustans" like in South Africa during the appartheid since Israel was offering Palestinians 6 or 7 pockets inside the West Bank not connected between each other... Is that a state?
In the original UN plan for Palestine, 50% of the territory was supposed to go to Israel and 50% to the Palestinians. Right now Israel is made up of 80% (!) of the original territory and it occupies the other 20%. Even the more moderate israelis don't plan to let those remaining 20% to Palestinians, maybe half of it at best.
What people on Earth after being invaded would agree to a settlement where you get less than 10% of your original territory, those 10% being divided in a dozen pockets not connected between each other and inclosed in the invader's state?
Again, this is exactly like South Africa and its black bantustans.
However, this is what is going to happen, the withdrawal of the Israeli from the Gaza Strip creates the first bantustan, after that Israel is going to annex East Jerusalem and the West Bank, except for maybe a dozen small pockets that will be left to Palestinians. That's fair. :rolleyes:
Little Squirrel
12-11-2004, 00:05
i am christian and have nothing against any religion but you are acting very racist haku
Where exactly has Haku been racist Little Squirrel?
Only God knows how this death will effect the politics around Palestine and Israel. :( I hope people won't have to pay with their lives, though...
I can not beleive some of these threads !
Is this the same Yaser Arafat that is responsible for recruiting teenagers to blow up commuter buses?
He is a pillar of wisdom?
come on.....
marina, I, for one, think he's a terroist -- nothing more.
Hey, ppl, no names calling here, okay? Arafat is dead and that's the end of his story. If you want the thread to hang around open so my suggestion is to discuss the possible effect of his death on the future development of the situation in Palestine.
The problem is that what Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat at Camp David in 2000 was certainly not generous, despite what the Israelis and the Americans say. If Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton thought itwas 'generous' to offer Gaza and four Palestinian cantons on 60% of the West Bank with the roads between them under Israeli control, unlimited Israeli settlement in the rest of the West Bank, agreement to Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem, no right of return for Palestinians driven from their homes, no compensation and not even an apology for driving most of the Palestinians out in 1948, then I shudder to think about what Ariel Sharon will consider 'generous' in any future negotiations.
However, the Geneva Accord, agreed in 2003 between Israeli Labour politicians and the Palestinians, set out much better terms - a Palestinian state in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem; the Old City shared between the two sides, with international monitors; compensation to Palestinians for loss of property in 1948. It's still not fair - the Palestinians will still have lost 80% of their homeland - but it's a practical solution that broadly follows UN resolutions, except for the Palestinians accepting compensation rather than a right of return, and accepting sharing of the Old City, rather than getting it all back from Israel.
If Barak had offered that at Camp David, the Palestinians would almost certainly have gone for it. The problem is that there's no sign the Israeli public is prepared to withdraw the settlers and allow a real Palestinian state. Without Arafat, Sharon will think of more excuses not to offer the Palestinians anything acceptable.
Terrorist or resistance fighter... It's the same old story, you are called a terrorist by your enemy, and a resistance fighter by your people, the way you'll be called in history books depend on who's going to win the fight.
If Germany had won WWII, French resistance would be called terrorists.
Some people seem to have forgotten how the state of Israel was created, how its creation was accompanied by acts of violence from Israeli organizations like the "Irgun" and others. You don't know what the Irgun is? You can check their resume here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun).
Irgun members were of course never tried for their actions, quite the contrary, they were celebrated as heros even though they committed the same kind of violence as Palestinian organizations will several decades later. The difference? Irgun won the fight, which make them resistance fighters instead of terrorists.
A few quick facts for people who have forgotten how the state of Israel was created:
At the end of WWI, Palestine became a British protectorate, Jews were 10% of the population, Arabs were 90%.
At the end of WWII, Jews were about 1/3 of the population (650,000), Arabs were about 2/3 (900,000). Jews owned about 7% of the land, Arabs the rest, the reason being that Jews were more "urban people" (and were new immigrants) while Arabs were more "rural people" (and had been there for centuries).
In 1947, a UN plan divided Palestine between Jews and Arabs, was it a fair plan? Not really.
Jews got 57% of the territory, the Jewish territory had 550,000 Jews but also 400,000 Arabs.
Arabs got 43% of the territory, the Arab territory had 400,000 Arabs and only 10,000 Jews.
The partition cut the Arab population in half! Half of them ending up in the territory of the other group.
(At that point Jerusalem didn't belong to any group, it's an international territory with 100,000 Jews and 100,000 Arabs)
Neither Jews or Arabs were satisfied with this plan, Jews because they wanted Jerusalem and didn't want Arabs in their territory, Arabs because they didn't want their population cut in half and didn't understand why they only got 43% of the territory when they were 2/3 or the population and owned 90% of the land (what people would have agreed to such a plan?)
This inevitably led to war in 1948.
To make it short, Jews won. They secured 60% of the original Palestine and the 400,000 Arabs who lived in this part were expelled. Jewish organizations like the Irgun and others had a good tactic to make Arabs leave. They would take an Arab village at night, kill everyone except a couple of people who would be sent to other Arab villages to tell them that if they didn't leave immediately, the same thing would happen to them the next day. This worked very well, almost all Arabs fled the Jewish territory which had now become the state of Israel, a purified Jewish state.
The rest is well known, in the following years Israel expanded again to the current 80% of the original territory, Arabs living in those newly conquered territories were also expelled, it is believed that a total of 900,000 Arabs have been expelled from their land since the creation of the state of Israel.
Is that fair? Is it a surprise that those people are pissed and desperate? I don't think so.
In a concrete way, Haku, which new distribution of the territories between Israël and Palestine would you propose to arrive to a peaceful conclusion?
You have here several maps or you could create one (think it's easier to get an idea with maps)
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/mideast/stories/history.maps/index.html
And which status would you give to Jerusalem, please (independant, divised into two parts, Palestinian or Israelian... ?)
It would be nice that you explain that to us for we understand better your vision of the best...thanks
It would be nice that you explain that to us for we understand better your vision of the best.I don't think there is a best solution left, only a less worst one.
The best solution would have been the first map (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/mideast/stories/history.maps/mandate.html), it would have been to create a single state combining Palestine (the grayish area) and Jordan (the green area) with Jerusalem as capital, a single large state for both Jews and Arabs with equal rights and a single government.
An alternative would have been to create a federal state also combining Palestine and Jordan, with Palestine being a state with a majority of Jews and a government in Tel Aviv, Jordan being another state with a majority of Arabs and a government in Amman, and Jerusalem the federal capital. Both Jews and Arabs would have been citizen of the federal state though, free to settle and work in Palestine or Jordan as they wish.
But this is not what happened, instead it was decided to divide Palestine in two parts, which was totally stupid because impossible, this has caused the world and the region over half a century of unnecessary instability and thousands of people have died for nothing because of a stupid idea.
I don't have a "good" solution for the current situation, it's too far gone now, Palestinians have lost, it's over for them. Most palestinians live outside Palestine now (mostly in Jordan), and they will never come back. Dividing Palestine (or Jerusalem) never was, and never will be a viable option.
Here's what i think is going to happen in the future:
Israel will annex East Jerusalem and the West Bank, a few Palestinian Bantustans will be created inside the West Bank, those Bantustans will be surrounded by walls and officially "autonomous". Life conditions will become so bad in those Bantustans that Palestinians will continue to leave Palestine for exile.
When enough Palestinians will have left, Israel will annex the Bantustans. In the end, Palestine and Israel will be the same thing, except there won't be any Palestinians living in it, the state of Israel will cover 100% of the original Palestine.
Jordan will become the de facto New Palestine since almost all Palestinians will be living there.
Ultimately, we will be back to the original map (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/mideast/stories/history.maps/mandate.html).
The grayish area (formerly Palestine) having become Israel (100% Jewish) with Jerusalem as capital, and the green area (formerly Jordan) having become New Palestine (100% Arab).
A total ethnic separation.
Thanks Haku...
But don't you have with the present territories (without Jordanie) a proposition of equal repartition? I mean with the bases of the present situation, please ?
Hey, ppl, no names calling here, okay? What are you refering to? :ithink: And just a note: It's "name-calling", without the "s" at the end of "name". :heh:
Thanks Haku...
But don't you have with the present territories (without Jordanie) a proposition of equal repartition? I mean with the bases of the present situation, please ?Equal partition? There can no longer be an equal partition. Israel is 80% of the original Palestine, Gaza Strip and the West Bank are the remaining 20%... It's not equal at all. Israel will *never* let a part of Jerusalem to Palestinians, never, and at best Palestinians will get half of the West Bank. So that's what? About 10% of Palestine for the Palestinians? That's ridiculous.
Here's a map (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/mideast/interactive/refugee.map/frameset.exclude.html) of where Palestinians are living now. Most of them live in exile, how are all those people suppose to live in 10% of their original land? They will never come back.
Like i said, Palestinians have lost, it's over for them, they've been screwed by history, they've lost their land and will never get it back.
What are you refering to?Me being called a racist out of nowhere.
coolasfcuk
13-11-2004, 00:03
Ok, please understand that I am giving you a link in a very un-biased manner, meaning I am not doing it to support any one side, I am simply doing it just so that we not only have arguments from the furthers, lets say left, but also from the furtherst right as well :gigi:
haku, once again, I am putting it because you are super polarized (nothing personal again) ... its just that such polarized arguments arent good, so:
When I typed 'palestine israel history' in google for the hell of it, this is one of the first sites that came up:
http://www.masada2000.org/ - surelly the thing is super biased, might maybe even be considered offensive/disrespectful to someone here-or-there on that website - but it is an article polarized to the other side.
Now, if i am someone that know NOTHING about the subject, and im one of those 'type it in google and read' type of erudites - what do I believe
:confused:
haku, That's the biggest problem - I mean the historic aspect. Israelians claim that they lived there for centuries before and Jesus promised them the land, etc. It became Palestinian property much later. Both parties have the truth on their side. Now USA bought themselves and practically built the entire country to have the trusted access point in the Middle East, which is supplied with all modern military technology including nuclear heads. There's no solution in this conflict because the forces against Palestinians are too great. There'll be a war on all possible levels until some one will surrender and I don't see the States doing it.
If I am to predict the future, I'd say that Arabic countries don't have a chance as the world will gradually be devided into two big camps - Arabic countries vs literally, the rest of the world. Asia will go with the States as USA has already "bought" themselves in there. So we have a so called quartette (USA, Russia, EU and FN) who will work for peace in the Middle East. Peace in their understanding where everyone will try to get a better piece of the cake. It's all about the money and power. Don't look for any justice there, as justice is a question of morality and morality is not a constant definition, where money and power are more real.
Adds:
The war in Iraq is just the next step in the process of "spreading the democracy" in the world. More wars to come after. People will be protesting, journalists will write their chronicles and the governments of the powerful countries will continie doing their business.
coolasfcuk
13-11-2004, 00:15
forre, :done:
and my last words are: ignorance, ignorance is the key to power and success :gigi:
http://www.masada2000.org/Great site and interesting read... "Arabs are a cancer that needs to be removed"... I can see where it's a counterpoint to my point. So you think i'm as left wing as those people are right wing... wow, ok.
That must be the way i come across since sunwalk also compared me to French communists in the "US Foreign Policy" thread...
So, what does that make me? A true French communist, i guess. :gigi:
Lol, being considered "true French" and "left wing" is rather amusing for me since i'm really not a typical French and really not at all "left wing". Maybe sometime i'll post a few facts about me in the "Introduce Yourself" thread to show how typically French and left wing i am (not).
That must be the way i come across since sunwalk also compared me to French communists in the "US Foreign Policy" thread...
So, what does that make me? A true French communist, i guess. :gigi:
Lol, being considered "true French" and "left wing" is rather amusing for me since i'm really not a typical French and really not at all "left wing". Maybe sometime i'll post a few facts about
Haku , your sentence was enough "hard" , don't you think so ?
I'm not surprised that a US foreign minister said that everything was Arafat's fault and Israel was totally innocent. The US has always had a totally biased appoached to this conflict, Israel is good, Palestinians are evil, Israel want peace, Palestinians want war
That Bush was absolutely not competente and had no idea about the Middle-East problems and mentalities, I could absolutely admitt it ..but to generalize your sentence to ALL American governements of ALL the times, and even to generalize your sentence to all Americans in general, seems a little hard to me, I mean without concession or modulation (my point of view)...
And you know, the image of "true French" could have evolved a little....it's not necessary , always the French with his beret and his bread undeer arm... ;)
But it isn't our problem here...
Equal partition? There can no longer be an equal partition. Israel is 80% of the original Palestine, Gaza Strip and the West Bank are the remaining 20%... It's not equal at all. Israel will *never* let a part of Jerusalem to Palestinians, never, and at best Palestinians will get half of the West Bank. So that's what? About 10% of Palestine for the Palestinians? That's ridiculous
So may be it's my fault, and i formulated badly my question; so I do it again in another way:
in an utopic world , You , Haku , you have to decide of the new repartition of the territories between Palestine and Israël (including Jerusalem): 1/so, you dispose from the present territories (without Jordanie) and 2/ you don't have to take care about "who is where"....Okay?...you have ONE territory and you have the choice to place the Palestininas and Israelians WHERE you want....
What would you do ?
Would you keep your previous proposition (WITHOUT Jordanie) in "mixing" arab and jewish peoples or woud you have another proposition?
If you keep "mixing" Arab and Jewish people , what would be the name of this country please ?
Just , i try to understand what would be your "ideal" repartition ...I'm serious.
Here's a map of where Palestinians are living now. Most of them live in exile, how are all those people suppose to live in 10% of their original land? They will never come back.
Are you sure this comment is very solid? Where was Jewish people before it arrives to Israël to become Israelians?
EDIT:Okay , my goal isn't to fight , and surely not to fight with you Pat. I was just exchanging ideas with you, I thought it could be interesting....
You seem hurt by what I've said so I apologize to have hurt you and I say "Bye Bye" to all those political threads...:bye: :) ..
If people just prefer to think there are just The bad and the Good in the world, it's their right...(I absolutely don't say that for you Pat...I think you are intelligent that 's why I was very surprised by your position in just one "direction").
I return to listen the Russian songs... :p
haku, That's the biggest problem - I mean the historic aspect. Israelians claim that they lived there for centuries before and Jesus promised them the land, etc.
I think it was God's gift to Abraham.
If I am to predict the future, I'd say that Arabic countries don't have a chance as the world will gradually be devided into two big camps - Arabic countries vs literally, the rest of the world.
Perhaps. But Arafat had one weapon. He refused to surrender. No matter how much pressure was on him he refused to surrender. If next Palestinian leadership can do same it's different question.
:newyear:
I think it was God's gift to Abraham
:newyear:
Yes, yes .. that doesn't change the situation though.
ypsidan04
14-11-2004, 01:46
(From the Sydney Morning Herald):
Dawn at the gates of heaven. "This is a tough one, Archangel," said St Peter, scrolling down the morning applications. "Do we let Yasser Arafat in?"
Gabriel shrugged. "Don't ask me. I do trumpets and hosannas. You do admissions. Coffee?"
It was going to be another one of those days. St Peter grimaced. These controversial requests for eternal paradise were enough to try the patience of a saint. Had been for millennia, especially with these so-called world leaders, when you had to decide whether the applicant was the revered father of his nation or a homicidal brute. The row over Napoleon Bonaparte had gone on for decades. Ho Chi Minh was still in purgatory, decision pending.
"Myself, I'm inclined to let Arafat in," said St Peter. "But I expect there'll be hell to pay. Abraham and Moses will go ballistic over in the Jewish section. They'll try to stop it at board level."
The Archangel sipped his coffee. Latte, no sugar. "You could do a deal with them," he said. "Offer to fast-track Ariel Sharon when he carks it. That can't be far off. What are you doing about the virgins?"
Advertisement Advertisement
"Virgins?"
"Arafat will want 72 virgins as a reward for martyrdom." Gabriel sniggered, less than angelically. "Have we got 72 virgins?"
"Lord knows. And if we do I don't suppose they'll exactly be queuing to hop into the tent with him. Omar Sharif he ain't. I'll have to refer that upwards."
Peter scowled again. Decisions, decisions. And more coming, by the look of it: a seraph fluttered into the office and dumped a computer printout on the desk. "VIP prayers," said the seraph. "St Paul's off sick today - he says can you sort them out for him. There's one from George Bush asking for a quick victory in Iraq."
The Archangel Gabriel slapped a thigh and chortled, spilling his coffee. Peter the fisherman threw back his head and laughed, a great rumbling convulsion that rattled the pearly gates on their foundations and, quite by accident, set off a small earthquake in Hokkaido.
"Tell George," he said, tears streaming down reddened cheeks, "tell George he got his election win last week. One miracle is enough."
Buoyed by his re-election and the successful capture of the Iraqi insurgent stronghold of Falafel, President George W. Shrub today foreshadowed a new war on Iran.
The President returned to Washington from a weekend break spent strangling chipmunks in Sciatica, North Carolina, and revealed to a White House news conference that plans to widen the war to Iran were well advanced.
"Those folks have got weapons of mass destruction, including an ongoing nuclear capability capacity acquisition program," he said. "As always, our intelligence is very clear on that.
"But freedom is on the march. We're gonna bring democracy to Iran just like we done for the good people of Iraq."
White House officials said the President had been initially reluctant to attack the hardline leadership in Tehran, in the mistaken belief that Iran was located somewhere north of Greece, which would have meant an unacceptable conflict on two fronts.
But the National Security Adviser, Dr Combination Fried Rice, and Defence Secretary Donald Rumskull had explained that Iran was actually next door to Iraq, the sources said. The war there could be expanded relatively cheaply, especially if it could be contracted out to the Israelis or perhaps Halliburton.
Meanwhile, the commander of the assault on Falafel, General Lucius K. Cheeseburger, has denied reports of heavy civilian casualties.
"We have had some collateral damage issues," he said. "But only with carefully targeted laser-guided ordnance. Folks don't mind so much being killed by precision weapons."
coolasfcuk
14-11-2004, 01:54
Okay , my goal isn't to fight , and surely not to fight with you Pat. I was just exchanging ideas with you, I thought it could be interesting....
You seem hurt by what I've said so I apologize to have hurt you and I say "Bye Bye" to all those political threads...:bye: :) ..
If people just prefer to think there are just The bad and the Good in the world, it's their right...(I absolutely don't say that for you Pat...I think you are intelligent that 's why I was very surprised by your position in just one "direction").
I return to listen the Russian songs... :p
:D :done:
That's exactly what I want to say (exept the listening to Russian songs :gigi: )
:rose: for you, Pat. See you in the other threads :D
On this theme, I read a couple of interesting articles over the weekend.
One by Harry Siegman in the New York Review of Books, explaining Sharon's plan to unilaterally withdraw from part of the Occupied Territories and create a Palestinian 'state' that is just a group of giant prisons for the Palestinians:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17591
The other is an article by David Aaronovich in the Observer, stating why the only option that both sides might be able to live with (the Israelis will never accept a binational one-state solution) is something like the two-state solution nearly agreed at Taba and set out in the Geneva Accord. He says that the man who might be able to make peace with the Israelis is Marwan Barghouti, the intifada leader currently in an Israeli jail.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1351029,00.html
Aaronovich says: 'Two-state solutions may be distressingly retro, but without one every year's colour will still be blood-red worn against organ-pink.'
Khartoun2004
17-11-2004, 03:57
I cannot express enough how glad I am that mother fcuker is finally dead. Now maybe the peace talks can actually move forward. He was totally the leader of Hamas if not literally, then at least in spirit.
You seem hurt by what I've said so I apologize to have hurt youAwww, sunwalk, i hadn't seen you had added this off topic comment. There is really no need for you to apologize, you didn't hurt me, really. There's no problem. :rose:
This is a political debate, so of course people have different ideas, i have no problem with that. Anyway, we weren't really arguing here because i admit that Israel is going to win the conflict.
in an utopic worldIn a utopian world, Palestine would be a single laic state where Jews and Arabs can live together as equal citizens, but that won't happen, those people don't want to live in a laic state, they both want a theocratic state with only one ethnic group.
So the one state solution is impossible.
Dividing Palestine between Jews and Arabs is no longer possible either, because there isn't simply enough land left for Arabs. 10% maximum of the original Palestine could be given to Arabs to create a state, that's not enough, that's not viable, and as we all know, Israel will never give back annexed territories to Arabs.
So the two states solution is also impossible.
Of course, there will be a Palestinian "state" at some point, Israel needs it, but like i've said before it will be nothing more than "bantustans", those territories will be officially "independent", but in reality they won't.
Israel needs a Palestinian state because Israel has a big problem: the Arab-Israeli citizens (the "cancer" mentioned by the web site posted by coolasfcuk). The Arab-Israelis have much more children than the Jewish-Israelis, in a few generations there will be more Arab-Israelis than Jewish-Israelis, this is a situation that Israel can't and won't tolerate. This is why Israel needs a Palestinian state, once the Palestinian state exists, Israel will one day decree that since there is now an Arab state, there is no reason for Arab-Israelis to keep the Israeli citizenship and their right to vote in Israel. Israel will simply declare that Arab-Israelis are now citizens of the Palestinian state and will get rid of an annoying problem.
The Palestinian state/bantustan is of course only a transitional solution for Israel, in the long run it will disappear, once enough Palestinians will have fled the catastrophic living conditions that will inevitably exist in those territories.
Like i've said earlier, Palestinians have lost the conflict, they can choose between imprisonment, death, or exile, but they don't have any other options. That's why violence is going to continue, because a lot are going to choose death instead of imprisonment or exile.
GAZA PULLOUT
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/21/gaza.pullout/index.html
Sharon has said He will make it and he did it. I'm enough surprised that it happens so quickly...even, of course if it's just a begining.
I never was a fan of Ariel Sharon but I have to admit that he had taken the risk to lose all chances to be elected again, and has acted in a very dangerous way about his image in relation with his own people....so i have to say...that it's the first time I see a CONCRETE EVOLUTION in the palestino-israelo conflict..so Respect Mr Sharon...and Respect to the PRESENT Palestinian Authority who has tried to controle the blaster men for this present accord won't be cancelled.
I'm sorry to come back to my first intuition , but it really feels as now than Mr Arafat isn't anymore at the head of the Palestinian Authority , the attemps and bombings seem more controlled to not cancell systematicaly the Peace Negociations as before.... :rolleyes:
Just hope the Palestinians will take a good care about the restitution of Gaza Band and will try to rebuilt a decent and correct life (I think than , even if they asked to destroy all the buildings, the Worl money Helps wiill be enough important to rebuilt correctly.....if this time they arrive to the good destination and aren't dropped in the private count of Mr.Arafat..)..
Just hope they won't let use Gaza as a Bombers Ghetto...
Really Hope it will work.
All this would happen a long time ago if Yitzhak Rabin wasn't assassinated. He was the only one who could get through to Arafat. All it took was some good will on both sides and he understood that. Then HIS OWN people killed him. Sounds awfully like the story of Jesus doesn't it? :p
That being said, Sharon really has balls to do this despite his whole goverment opposing his decision. Don't think he'll lose the elections because of this though - the majority of the voters is still on his side. 70% or so. The other 30% are extremists with no grasp on reality.
So it's a sweeping victory for the Hamas in the Palestinian elections (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4650788.stm)… Iran is ruled by Shia conservatives, the Shia Islamic party just won the elections in Iraq, and now the Hamas wins the elections in Palestine, anyone else see a pattern and a regional alliance emerging?
It's a sad irony because so many people who suported the war in Iraq were saying that once democracy and free elections would be held in the region, people would choose moderate parties that want peace… Yeah, right. In reality it's of course the opposite that has happened, people have put extremist parties in power. :rolleyes:
Oh and Israeli soldiers must have been pissed by the results, they shot a 9 year old girl dead, that's gonna help. :rolleyes:
Oh and Israeli soldiers must have been pissed by the results, they shot a 9 year old girl dead, that's gonna help. :rolleyes:That's sick. :(
Anyway, can't say I'm surprised by all of this, but I'm sure they're gonna regret it. They're gonna regret it when lots of countries refuse to deal with them or help them out in anyway due to their connection with suicide bombing. How can someone take people like that seriously? Living in the UK I find it quite amazing how a bunch of people like this can be elected. But hey, I'm nieve. :rolleyes:
Wow. This is like a final nail in the coffin of the so called truce opportunity after Arafat died. It's all over now. A terrorist organization wining the elections... that's just wrong. A terrorist organization who's initial goal is annihilation of the jewish state, no less. Yeah... huge chance of the peace process continuing. :rolleyes:
I think this victory is not as much hamas's achievement as it is fatah's incompetence and utter dellusion of the palestine people that they'll get their own country by banging their heads against a brick wall.
PowerPuff Grrl
27-01-2006, 07:21
Maybe I'm an optimist but I totally see this as a good thing.
Now that Hamas has earned an officially recognized platform they no longer need to resort to violence to draw attention and resist the occupying forces of Israel. Rather than having the world listen to a car being blown up, Hamas can just announce their grievances and the world (Israel, at least) will be forced to listen. Sure they may be crazy fundamentalists to us but to Palestinians they are also providers of many social services like medicine and sanitation.
Not only that, but Hamas will have to take a more centrist position now that they are elected, or at least be relatively less extremist than what they are like now. They may not want to but they'll have to if they want to be elected again. They're going to be accountable for shit, they can't just hide behind the elusive banner of "Hamas." If they fail they'll be voted out.
These kind of organizations aren't just created out of a vacuum. Terrorism and religious extremism are the only channels of opposition in that part of the world only after a repressive regimes shuts down every other channel. Once you offer other means for parties to exist then can you expect peace.
And it isn't just in the Middle East, even Canada (of all places) had its little bout of violent extremism with Quebec Separatists only because of the Federal Government's repression of the French in the province. Once a party was born out of all of the chaos then peace ensued.
How can you confront a terrorist group when you barely know who is involved?
With this election, not only are people identified and brought into the spotlight but confrontation can take place in conference room rather than a battlefield... or blowing up an apartment complex to rid the leader while "accidently" killing everybody else who just so happened to live there as well.
But then again, I am an optimist.
Just hope the Palestinians will take a good care about the restitution of Gaza Band and will try to rebuilt a decent and correct life (I think than , even if they asked to destroy all the buildings, the World money Helps Will be enough important to rebuilt correctly.....if this time they arrive to the good destination and aren't dropped in the private count of Mr.Arafat..)..
Just hope they won't let use Gaza as a Bombers Ghetto...
Really Hope it will work.It's a sad irony because so many people who supported the war in Iraq were saying that once democracy and free elections would be held in the region, people would choose moderate parties that want peace… Yeah, right. In reality it's of course the opposite that has happened, people have put extremist parties in power:rolleyes:
Read in a better way my posts Amber...
I've written "I hope".....does it mean "I'm sure"?........ I hoped it for them, I wished it for them......but I never thought it will become truth....
Just because I'm not a dreamer, just because I don't think I have a such wrong perception of Arabic mentality as you should wish ... ;)
Have you noticed how did they manifest their joy when territories were given back ? They took all their guns and shotted in the sky , everywhere during hours....
Of course it belongs to the tradition but it isn't an "optimistic" way to see the future.
I think IT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY for them.....they didn't catch it....so now it's their problem!
Like in Iraq. They have made a choice. They have to assume the responsibility of their choice now.
What is important for me is the FACT THEY COULD VOTE FREELY, in a DEMOCRATIC WAY.
It's very important. They could do it under Saddam.
Now people vote as they feel and not as WE WISH.
I'm sorry to tell you that but you see the situation with a very occidental eye and state of mind.
They have an absolute different way of thinking.
All the values are different. Honor is more important than Democracy or even Life.
About Israël, I've deeply wished the best for them. If they have stayed in a peace process they would have got colossal subventions from Europe and even States.
They could have rebuilt a decent country.
They have made another choice. But they have made this choice in voting in a correct vote with no cheating (apparently).
What I deeply thought is just it will happen what has always happened before: I remind you how Israël has extended its territories: each time an accord was found and each time Israël gave back territories , Israël was attacked again!!! and replied and got more territories....it happened 3 times by the past...so why not a fourth time!
Just because they don't know to STOP.......instead to taking what is given and try to improve it and try to get more further by negotiations including respect of peace ...they want ALL, EVERYTHING....and prefer play to the terrorists and guerilleros....okay ...that's their choice......and they will cry again after that 's so unfair....and it will begin again.....vicious circle....
So I really think that Palestinians won't accept a such accord and will never try to stop to attentats/ terrorism acts and they will never stop cause they just want EVERYTHING , including the destruction of the Israël State.
So I guess the result will be a new offensive of Israël and the lost , for Palestinians, of Everything!
It's impossible to get a peaceful situation without concession. Like in real life, like in a couple. It's the same. If you want everything and just the things that you desire for you , you lose everything.
By the way, I've grown up in Morocco, I shared 6 years of my life with an Arabic Muslim person, I've a lot of Arabic Muslim friends, so I don't think I'm so blind or dumb or idiot in my perception of Arabic Muslim mentality.
If you just look at the situation just with European or even judeo-Christian eyes, I'm not sure you could get everything....so try to look at with Arabic mentality and you'll see that the chances of peace are very small and very far.
PS: Rachel , you think it's amazing compared to UK .....
Don't you think neither it's amazing that Imams could freely call to the Holly War and to murder in English mosques without having problems?
England is a huge refuge to this callers to murder and a great place to collect, in the mosques, huge money which is sent to buy Weapons to liberate Palestine.
I agree with PowerPuff Grrl,...this result is just an Officialisation of the Hamas which was ALWAYS there ,under Arafat....even if this last one officially denied it for diplomatic reasons.
They may not want to but they'll have to if they want to be elected again. They're going to be accountable for shit, they can't just hide behind the elusive banner of "Hamas." If they fail they'll be voted out.
Are you serious ? All terrorist acts will now be carried out by "splinter groups" or *nothing to do with hamas fractions* while the HAMAS leaders speak with forked tongue to gullible fools and they'll get 110% next elections....why ? because someone turns up twice , to be on the safe side, not to get yourself and family into the death trouble ! Fear.
They might become less extreme as they rise to power, since there's a matter of being in the spotlight not only with the people of Palestine but also the international community, which probably won't respond very kindly to talk about wiping-out Israelis. After all - fatah started out as a full-out terrotist group sponsoring guerrila attacks and whatnot, yet they still managed to mellow out in time. However my concern is how Israel of all people will be able to see them as partners in peace negotiations. The same party that threatens them with annihilation. It'd certainly be a huge bitter pill to swallow for them - and I wonder if they're capable of it (EVEN if Hamas tones down it's extremist views). Israeli minister of finance Ehud Olmert was frightningly determined yesterday in saying there will be no negotiations with Hamas, ever. What next? Complete diplomatic isolation? I hope not... but who knows.
Read in a better way my posts Amber.Ooook. :spy: I was actually talking of the politicians who tried to justify the invasion of the region by saying that after a good bombing and free elections, every country turns into a new Switzerland. I was not targetting anyone who posted in this thread as i did not reread it and did not remember by heart what was said a year ago, but whatever.
Just because they don't know to STOP.......instead to taking what is given and try to improve it and try to get more further by negotiations including respect of peace ...they want ALL, EVERYTHING....and prefer play to the terrorists and guerilleros....okay ...that's their choice......and they will cry again after that 's so unfair....and it will begin again.....vicious circle....Yeah, but the land *was* Arab and was taken from them by force. People are blaming Arabs for not giving up *their* land, it's not a negociation when the terms are "Give us your land and leave", that's called conquest.
so try to look at with Arabic mentality and you'll see that the chances of peace are very small and very far.I never said otherwise, i remember saying somewhere that Israel will continue to expand and colonize adjacent territories.
ypsidan04
24-02-2006, 02:41
Alright, I just got this email:
Last night the Palestinian movie "Paradise Now" won the Golden Globe award.
The movie shows the route that two young Palestinians take to become suicide
murderers, up until the minute they board a bus in Tel Aviv filled with
children. The movie looks professional. It was made with great attention to detail, but
it is extremely dangerous not only to the Middle East, but to the whole
world. My son Asaf, almost 17 years old, was a high school student in the eleventh
grade who loved computer science. One day after school he boarded a bus home,
as usual. Along the way, a suicide murderer from Hebron, 21 years old, a
computer science student at the Hebron Polytechnic, exploded on the bus. 17 people were killed, 9 of them school children aged 18 or less. My son Asaf was killed on spot. I watched the movie "Paradise Now" trying to understand what it is trying to say, what message it carries?
That the murderer is human?
He is not. (I would differ, but anyway)
That he has doubts?
He has none.
After all, he is willing to kill himself along with his victims
That the Israelis are to blame for this brutal killing?
Are the Israelis to blame for the Twin Towers in New York,
the night club in Indonesia
the hotel in Egypt
the shop in Turkey
the restaurant in Morocco or in Tunis
the hotel in Jordan
the underground in London
the train in Spain?
and the list goes on and on.
What makes this movie award-worthy?
Would the people that awarded this movie the Golden Globe do the same if the
movie was about young people from Saudi Arabia who learn how to fly airplanes
in the USA and then use Islamic rituals to prepare themselves for their holy
mission, crashing their airplanes into the Twin Towers in New York City?
Would this movie get an award then?
This movie tries to say that suicide murder is legitimate when you feel you
have exhausted all other means. But a suicide murderer who boards a bus kills
15 or 20 innocent people, so how about a suicide murderer who walks into a
city with a biological bomb and kills 10,000 people or 100,000 people?
Is that still legitimate?
Where does one draw the line?
I believe that the world should draw the line at one person. The killing of
even one person is not legitimate. My son was almost 17 years old, he loved
surfing, he loved loud music. Now he is gone because a suicide murderer
decided it's legitimate to blow himself up on a crowded bus.
Granting an award to this kind of movie gives the filmmakers a seal of
approval to hide behind. Now they can say that the world sees suicide bombing
as legitimate. By ignoring the film's message and the implications of this
message, those that chose to award this film a prize have become part of the
evil chain of terror and accomplices to the next suicide murders â?“ whether
they kill 17 people or 17,000 people.
Name: Yossi Zur
I did watch that award show, and I wasn't so much annoyed as to them winning, I was annoyed as to the award going to "Palestine". The award may as well have gone to Rumplestiltskinstan. Neither are on the map. If the producers were from Jordan, say Jordan. If they were from the West Bank or Gaza, then say West Bank or Gaza (even though neither of those are states either, but since they used Palestine, this would be no worse). The best International film should go to a country that actually exists. Or it should just go to a group of people with no country name attached. Despite what the Golden Globes says, there is no middle ground. It's not like I am against the formation of a Palestinian state from the current West Bank and Gaza, that would probably be a good thing. But until that time comes, if it comes, don't act like it exists when it doesn't. :rolleyes:
Also, why would they give an award to a movie that has to do with terrorism in this day and age, in fact one that shows terrorism in at least a neutral light, no matter how well it was done?
PowerPuff Grrl
24-02-2006, 03:20
Considering the fact that Palestinians aren't allowed to have an army, I think it is quite understandable why they would go for terrorist tactics. Not acceptable to kill innocent people of course, but understandable. Their current image is also a creation of the West, when you start attacking a group of people with ruthless efficiency, they tend to get more dangerous.
And you, or the person who wrote the letter, shouldn't really lump Palestinian terrorist with Islamic extremists; two completely different things. The Palestinian fight is political, Palestinian Christians are involved too. When you have your home consistently bulldozed over and live in refugee conditions in your own land for over 35 years, you tend to get kinda pissed. That's a hell of a lot different than getting offended by the slightest difference from your own culture and instinctively yelling "Allah wu Akbar" and then blowing shit up. I think its important to show that distinction because although a lot of people don't agree with the suicide bombings, people can at least sympathize, or in my case empathize, with the fact that the Palestinian people live in constant humiliation under Israeli occupation. I think that reasoning can expalin why people like to refer to Palestine as a country. That and they are kind of turned off by that Israeli hubris you're displaying right now.
Yesterday, the Israeli press (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/778767.html) has revealed that the colonization of the West Bank has been continuing steadily. "reveal" is a big word since everybody already knew it.
This map (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/Settlements2006.jpg) of the West Bank (it's from the UN so it's not biased) shows the extent of the colonization, the light and dark purplish colors indicating the areas colonized by Israel (and the map is from january so the colonized areas are larger now).
The colonization follows a logical and strategic pattern.
The Jordan valley is almost entirely colonized, creating a territorial continuity between the northern and southern parts of Israel, and isolating the Arabs within the West Bank from Jordan.
A corridor extends from East Jerusalem to the Jordan valley, cutting the Arab territories in two.
And another west-east corridor is being formed in the northern West Bank which will end up cutting the Arab territories in three.
So let's be realistic here, given the extent of the Israeli colonization in the West Bank, it's now become impossible to create a Palestinian state. You can't create a state with three small enclaves (4 if you count the tiny Gaza strip) not connected to each other, with no possible international exchange, with no access to water and energy… It's just not viable.
I can see how those three enclaves surrounded by walls will be declared 'autonomous' while the rest will be annexed to Israel in the near future, it's a clever plan, Israel will obtain territorial continuity along the Jordan while not gaining any more Arab citizens.
But that can only be a medium term solution, you can't keep people in three holes surrounded by walls forever, the living conditions in those enclaves will keep degrading.
I can now only see two options in the long run:
1. Israel annexes the entire West Bank and grants citizenship to everybody living there, including Arabs.
2. Israel annexes the entire West Bank and relocates Arabs outside of Israel.
Just a couple of days after i made that post about Israel annexing the West Bank and be done with it, the Israeli government added a far-right party to its coalition (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6098310.stm), what a coincidence. The leader of this far-right party is now vice-prime-minister, his party supports among other things the relocation of Arabs outside of Israel, so the Israeli policy is obviously going to take a radical turn.
US vetoes UN resolution on Gaza (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6139968.stm)
Democrats or republicans, makes no difference.
And the casualty figures reveal how very one-sided Gaza's conflict is.
In the past nine days alone around 80 Palestinians have been killed. And altogether, close to 400 have died - many of them civilians - since the Israeli army intensified operations in late June.
Over the same period, on the Israeli side, there have been three deaths. They were all soldiers, and one of them was killed accidentally in friendly fire.BBC: Gazans debate response to killings (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6135912.stm)
Israel vows revenge for rockets (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6152514.stm)
Hmmm, it's the first Israeli civilian dead in over a year, somehow i would have thought that the 19 Palestinian civilians killed last week by Israel (not to mention the 400 Palestinians killed in the last 3 months) would be a good enouh preemptive revenge… Exactly how many Palestinians have to die so 1 Israeli dead will be considered properly avenged?
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.