Author Topic: Gates or Bin-Laden?  (Read 4078 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sandwich

  • Got Screen?
  • 213
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
    • Brainzipper
Quote
Originally posted by karajorma


I don`t think so. Everyone knows that Sharon going to Temple Mount would cause problems. Even the CNN report seems to agree with that. If it wouldn`t have made Sharon look like a hardliner I doubt he would have done it.



You may not think so, but an excuse it was. Besides, where is it written that only Moslems can access the Temple Mount without fear of causing an uproar?

And I'm a bit blurry on the definition of this term "hardliner". Can we get a definition here?


Quote
Originally posted by karajorma
Now that is interesting. I`ll have to read that in more detail later.


That kind of stuff is what I mean when talking about media slant and mis-portrayal. The incident itself made headline news the world over - and rightly so. But once the investigation came to a close and reached the conclusion it reached, how many of those news networks carried that report?


Quote
Originally posted by karajorma
Nope that wasn`t the problem. As you say security related issues can`t be released. Heres the quote

[q]The attitude of Israel (92nd) towards press freedom is ambivalent. Despite strong pressure on state-owned TV and radio, the government respects the local media's freedom of expression. However, in the West Bank and Gaza, Reporters Without Borders has recorded a large number of violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which guarantees press freedom and which Israel has signed. Since the start of the Israeli army's incursions into Palestinian towns and cities in March 2002, very many journalists have been roughed up, threatened, arrested, banned from moving around, targeted by gunfire, wounded or injured, had their press cards withdrawn or been deported.[/q]


Ok, first of all, it isn't security related? Looks like it to me - all the reported problems are in the West Bank and Gaza, which are largely PA-controlled areas. The security situation there is quite different from the rest of Israel, as you can see by that bar chart I posted earlier with the number of terrorist attacks in each area; "The Home Front" is everything aside from Gaza and the West Bank.

Second, I really would like to find out more about these allegations of man-handling journalists. I know that I've had to personally restrict a journalist's entry into an area due to a security situation currently taking place, such as cars being shot at on a highway, etc.

But I do admit that there is no lack of soldiers who prefer to physically force/prevent journalists and/or Palestinians from going into currently off-limits areas after a simple verbal warning doesn't work. The IDF - both officially and unofficially - does not allow such behavior, and clamps down hard with disciplinary action on those who take to such means.

That, unfortunately, covers the "roughed up, threatened...{and} banned from moving around" aspects of those allegations. The rest, all of which is considerably more serious (arrested... targeted by gunfire, wounded or injured, had their press cards withdrawn or been deported), sounds more like the PA offhand. But again, I'd like to read about specific examples before going into this further.

Quote
Originally posted by karajorma
Nope. Not even then. Flatten all the buildings you want you`ll never have peace, you`ll just make people hate you more.
 If you feel the need to flatten buildings go ahead but that can`t be all you do. At the moment that is the sole responce of the Israeli government and it's plain to see that it doesn`t work. Instead look at Northern Ireland where two sides who hate each other have been made to sit down and talk. That's what you need to do and when Israel was doing that it did make things better. Flattening buildings alone has no effect.


:rolleyes: I never said that was the only action being taken in our war on terror. We also use targeted assasinations (which probably has the highest number/ratio/whatever of deaths from collateral damage :o) arrests, and widespread security checkpoints (which employ *gasp* racial profiling!! *gasp*).

But simply eliminating terror will not bring peace. Like Mr. Vega said, the hatred needs to be dealt with. As long as the Arafat-led Palestinian Authority inculdes hate-filled material in it's educational system, there will be no peace. Encouragement to become a "martyr" (suicide bomber), teaching hatred of Jews and Christians, etc - it's all being pumped into their children's minds. Heck, the most widely sold book in the PA is Mein Kampf (sp?). :doubt:

And no one can say that Israel wasn't willing to sit down, talk, compromise, etc. We did that, under Mr. Barak. While at the time I despised him for it, he offered Arafat 98% (I think - it was in the high 90's somewhere) of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. It doesn't get better than that. But Arafat, in a move criticized even by most Islamic nations, refused, thereby proving to anyone willing to see that it wasn't about the land. It is about pushing the Jews into the sea, plain and simple. Always has been, and always will be. And if you need proof of that, I can dig up some - just say so.


Quote
Originally posted by karajorma
Arafat on the other hand isn`t percieved that way by the public. If you depose him and set up a government by election you`ll simply get someone even more hardline than he is. If you simply install someone you like You'll soon find that the Palestinians don`t respect them and view them as your puppets. Most likely anyone you put in place would be assassinated before the end of the year.


ACtually, we hear from those Palestinians who have the freedom to speak out (those who have, for example, married Israeli Arabs and are now Israeli citizens, no longer under Arafat's rule) that they had things much better before Oslo and the PA, under Israeli rule.

Quote
Originally posted by karajorma
The problem is that Israel view this as a problem that can be solved by force and it isn`t. Yes you need to use force to keep the terrorists at bay but you can`t solve this problem through military channels alone. While you continue to think you can you`ll never have peace.


You're right that it can't be completely solved be force, but you're wrong that Israelis think so. Yeah, we could "wipe them out... all of them...", but what kind of a sick, Hitler-esque solution is that?

At the moment, Israel's official stance is that Arafat is no longer a valid partner for peace talks. He's been given plenty of opportunity, but keeps on encouraging terrorist attacks "behind the scenes", in arabic-language broadcasts that aren't translated or monitored by the mainstream media. So now Israel is looking for the Palestinians to elect someone else - and then we'll see.
SERIOUSLY...! | {The Sandvich Bar} - Rhino-FS2 Tutorial | CapShip Turret Upgrade | The Complete FS2 Ship List | System Background Package

"...The quintessential quality of our age is that of dreams coming true. Just think of it. For centuries we have dreamt of flying; recently we made that come true: we have always hankered for speed; now we have speeds greater than we can stand: we wanted to speak to far parts of the Earth; we can: we wanted to explore the sea bottom; we have: and so  on, and so on: and, too, we wanted the power to smash our enemies utterly; we have it. If we had truly wanted peace, we should have had that as well. But true peace has never been one of the genuine dreams - we have got little further than preaching against war in order to appease our consciences. The truly wishful dreams, the many-minded dreams are now irresistible - they become facts." - 'The Outward Urge' by John Wyndham

"The very essence of tolerance rests on the fact that we have to be intolerant of intolerance. Stretching right back to Kant, through the Frankfurt School and up to today, liberalism means that we can do anything we like as long as we don't hurt others. This means that if we are tolerant of others' intolerance - especially when that intolerance is a call for genocide - then all we are doing is allowing that intolerance to flourish, and allowing the violence that will spring from that intolerance to continue unabated." - Bren Carlill

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
You may not think so, but an excuse it was. Besides, where is it written that only Moslems can access the Temple Mount without fear of causing an uproar?


There are some things you don`t do because it isn`t allowed while there are others you don`t do because it isn`t wise. Sharon knew that going to Temple Mount would cause a lot of problems. Even if it was an excuse (as you claim) why give the other side an excuse?

Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
And I'm a bit blurry on the definition of this term "hardliner". Can we get a definition here?


Quote
: advocating or involving a rigidly uncompromising course of action

Basically someone who follows a course of action even though logic shows you shouldn`t. It's a term used often to cover those who still advocate communism in Russia etc.
 Sharon went to Temple Mount to show he wasn`t scared of Palestinian opinion. He wanted to prove that unlike Ehud Barak he wouldn`t be giving away any of the Gaza strip etc. And his gambit worked because he did get himself elected even though from what I can see Ehud Barak was doing a better job of solving the problems in the area.

Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
Second, I really would like to find out more about these allegations of man-handling journalists. I know that I've had to personally restrict a journalist's entry into an area due to a security situation currently taking place, such as cars being shot at on a highway, etc.

But I do admit that there is no lack of soldiers who prefer to physically force/prevent journalists and/or Palestinians from going into currently off-limits areas after a simple verbal warning doesn't work. The IDF - both officially and unofficially - does not allow such behavior, and clamps down hard with disciplinary action on those who take to such means.

That, unfortunately, covers the "roughed up, threatened...{and} banned from moving around" aspects of those allegations. The rest, all of which is considerably more serious (arrested... targeted by gunfire, wounded or injured, had their press cards withdrawn or been deported), sounds more like the PA offhand. But again, I'd like to read about specific examples before going into this further.


The Reporters San Frontiers site has plenty of examples. Click here for their annual report

I was going to include some more examples but the RSF website seems to have gone down while I was writing this.

Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
And no one can say that Israel wasn't willing to sit down, talk, compromise, etc. We did that, under Mr. Barak. While at the time I despised him for it, he offered Arafat 98% (I think - it was in the high 90's somewhere) of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. It doesn't get better than that. But Arafat, in a move criticized even by most Islamic nations, refused, thereby proving to anyone willing to see that it wasn't about the land. It is about pushing the Jews into the sea, plain and simple. Always has been, and always will be. And if you need proof of that, I can dig up some - just say so.


Got a link for that? I suspect I know Arafat's reasons but I`d prefer to read more about it before I comment.

Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
ACtually, we hear from those Palestinians who have the freedom to speak out (those who have, for example, married Israeli Arabs and are now Israeli citizens, no longer under Arafat's rule) that they had things much better before Oslo and the PA, under Israeli rule.


That's no surprise. The problem with new governments is that they can rarely get anything to work as well as the people that they've just gained freedom from. If you`ve got any actual evidence of a reign of terror by Arafat I`d like to hear it.


Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
You're right that it can't be completely solved be force, but you're wrong that Israelis think so. Yeah, we could "wipe them out... all of them...", but what kind of a sick, Hitler-esque solution is that?


There are forceful solutions other than wiping them all out. Israels tactic of hitting a police station every time there was a bombing is one example of this. I doubt that it helped anything.

Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
At the moment, Israel's official stance is that Arafat is no longer a valid partner for peace talks. He's been given plenty of opportunity, but keeps on encouraging terrorist attacks "behind the scenes", in arabic-language broadcasts that aren't translated or monitored by the mainstream media. So now Israel is looking for the Palestinians to elect someone else - and then we'll see.


But you know full well that the Palestinians will end up electing someone far worse than Arafat. I read a report that support for Hamas was up to 95% after Jenin. Whoever replaces Arafat will almost certainly be as big a hard-liner as Sharon is and things will get far worse.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Stryke 9

  • Village Person
    Reset count: 4
  • 211
Sandwich: Yeah, I caught the Jenin/West Bank thing about five minutes after I'd posted that, but I was off by then and busy with something else. My only excuse is that it was posted at 1AM and I was more occupied with why the computer kept locking up. And that same aerial picture is used by both sides of the argument, with scales ranging from 50m to "three football fields". Personally, I'm inclined to consider any specific number horse****, as they invariably turn out to be- a lot of people were killed, a lot of houses were destroyed. That's about it.

Kara: Yeah, Arafat refused on the second try. Partly because he'd heard that same deal before and it never happened, partly because by that point he had no control at all over Hamas and preferred to look strong rather than peaceful- after all, all he really has any more is the illusion of control, and once that's wiped by a bombing he didn't publicly condone he's finished.


This argument is pretty pointless, though. I've noticed the trend that trying to convince an Israeli that not all Palestinians are out for their blood is about the same as trying to convince a Palestinian that Israelis don't just want them all rounded up and gassed. Since shortly before the beginning of the most recent intifada, both sides have become close enough to being right to make me jealous, though- that kind of clarity rarely comes to politics. :rolleyes:

Of course, there's still the illusion of a solution to the whole deal to be contended with, but hey.

  

Offline Sandwich

  • Got Screen?
  • 213
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
    • Brainzipper
Gah - way too tired to reply AATM - not after a four and half hour talk with a friend tonight. All I will say for now is in reference to the whole journalisim thing. Just like Israeli forces have been shot at from Red Crescent ambulances, they have also found journalists abusing their special freedoms. I may hunt up a link to that sometime, but not now. Head hurts.

Good night. :)

EDIT: Much as it might irk me, I'll post a link to this article by Israel's Ha'Aretz (The Land) newspaper, dealing with offensive soldiers at roadblocks.
SERIOUSLY...! | {The Sandvich Bar} - Rhino-FS2 Tutorial | CapShip Turret Upgrade | The Complete FS2 Ship List | System Background Package

"...The quintessential quality of our age is that of dreams coming true. Just think of it. For centuries we have dreamt of flying; recently we made that come true: we have always hankered for speed; now we have speeds greater than we can stand: we wanted to speak to far parts of the Earth; we can: we wanted to explore the sea bottom; we have: and so  on, and so on: and, too, we wanted the power to smash our enemies utterly; we have it. If we had truly wanted peace, we should have had that as well. But true peace has never been one of the genuine dreams - we have got little further than preaching against war in order to appease our consciences. The truly wishful dreams, the many-minded dreams are now irresistible - they become facts." - 'The Outward Urge' by John Wyndham

"The very essence of tolerance rests on the fact that we have to be intolerant of intolerance. Stretching right back to Kant, through the Frankfurt School and up to today, liberalism means that we can do anything we like as long as we don't hurt others. This means that if we are tolerant of others' intolerance - especially when that intolerance is a call for genocide - then all we are doing is allowing that intolerance to flourish, and allowing the violence that will spring from that intolerance to continue unabated." - Bren Carlill