[Tiara]

Truth is, that he didn't even need to intimidate. He had the support of a large proportion of the population behind him.

[Corsair]

Whether the Palestinians like Arafat or not, Israel CAN'T kill him because it would make him one of the largest martyrs of all. Even people who didn't like Arafat before would see him as someone who defied the oppressors.
Furthermore, Arafat can't make peace. He just CAN'T. He's incapable of doing so. He had the chance, and the issue came down to Jerusalem. He was willing to make peace, but couldn't do so because other Arabs would not have accepted the terms that Arafat would have agreed to. He doesn't stand for what most Arabs do. The PA has a PM but he can't do anything because Arafat keeps him on such a tight leash.
The way I see it, nothing can be done until Arafat dies of his own accord.

[Gank]

Israel wont kill him because hes corrupt as **** and they're quite happy to have him running the show. Yassin was the only real alternative to Arafat as a palestinian leader which is why Israel went after him.  Hamas is a much better ran organisation, they basically runs the Gaza strip, looks after schools, hospitals etc, while the west bank is a shambles.

[Corsair]

Israel doesn't want a corrupt person running the show. Corruption keeps Palestinians living on the street which keeps them pissed off. They blame Israel and...BOOM!

Good logic, Gank. [sarcasm]You're right. Israel likes keeping Palestinian people poor and pissed off at them. Israel likes being attacked by terrorists. Yup.[/sarcasm]

[Gank]

Your logic is arseways mate, you're suggesting Israel wants somebody competent in charge of people it views as the enemy? What planet are you on.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Corsair
Israel doesn't want a corrupt person running the show. Corruption keeps Palestinians living on the street which keeps them pissed off. They blame Israel and...BOOM![/sarcasm]

Are you referring to someone corrupt on the Israeli side or the Palestinian side?

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
I'd suggest the plan for Israel that I came up with in college a few weeks ago, but it'd likely get me banned...

You too? I have several, but not only for Israel.....

Originally posted by Rictor
I'm sure Sandwich must really appreciate all this; thinking up ways to destroy an entire people, his people...

When will you people learn, this ain't your business. It is tempting to say "they are incapable of resolving it themselves, so it falls to us", but really, interference in such affairs has a long history of failure, and only throws fuel on the fire.

Let them kill each other, love each other, tickle each other to death if thats what it takes, but I don't see how anyone has the authority to impose a "solution", particularly of the kind that is being discussed here.

Yes, most of you are kidding, but ir reflects the mentality that is present here and pretty much everywhere else, that Group A has the authority to be the globo-cops, serving as a parents to soolve disputes between querreling children. The US thinks they are that group, some people think the UN is that group, others think they are that group. Guys, tough ****, no such group exists, nor should it.

It is a bit pretenious to think that you know whats best for everyone else, eh?

Agreed!

[Corsair]

Originally posted by Gank
Your logic is arseways mate, you're suggesting Israel wants somebody competent in charge of people it views as the enemy? What planet are you on.

If the Palestinians have someone competent running their country, the Palestinian lifestyle might become a little more comfortable...and then guess what? They'll be happy...and happiness leads to this interesting concept called peace. It's when you don't kill people.

[Rictor]

well, assuming "competent" included "being able to keep Israel off their backs, despite having almost no power", which I admit would be quite a feat.

[Gank]

Originally posted by Corsair
If the Palestinians have someone competent running their country, the Palestinian lifestyle might become a little more comfortable...and then guess what? They'll be happy...and happiness leads to this interesting concept called peace. It's when you don't kill people.

Yeah, because if they have Macdonalds and MTV they might forget about the Merkevas and Nagmachons tearing up their street.

[Corsair]

Because of course, that's all the Israelis ever do. For the last freaking time, they are not the bloodthirsty mob you make them out to be.
I hate to say it, but I think that in order to have peace, the Palestinians have to make the first concession. They have to be the first ones to take one step back. Not a big step, mind, but still a step. Israel can't back down without being assured that Palestine will as well because its very survival is at stake. There is no Palestine at the moment, and therefore there is nothing for the Palestinian people to lose if they do what I'm suggesting.

[Rictor]

well, despite the way it may seem, things can be quite a bit worse for the Palestinians. I don't think Israel is risking its very existence. Thats a common arguement, especially among neo cons (so what, its a cliche, but its accurate so I'll use it). If you read some of their ideology, you'll see that even the tiniest consession is seen as risking the utter destruction of Israel and its inhabitants.

No, of course the Israelis are not a blood-thirsty mob. Though the Israeli government, especially the Likudniks, and the IDF do come quite a bit closer to that description. And neither are the Palestinians the fanatical terrorists that the Western media makes them out to be. The thing is, making the first step towards peace would be a meaningless gesture until both sides are ready to accept a peaceful resolution. And this means accepting a reasonable peace proposal, with conditions that can actually be accepted by the other side. Right now, it seems to me, and I may be wrong, that the Israeli people are not nearly as hungry for peace as the Palestinians. If you compare what a continued conflict means for the average Israeli and the average Palestinian, you'll see that the Israelis have less to gain and are therefor less inclined to make concession. Again, I should stress that I do not view the various Palestinian factions (Hamas, the PLO, the PA etc) as blameless.

[TrashMan]

You can't blame the Palestinians for beeing pi****, now can you?

Their land beeing stolen, homes destroyed, children killed.
Helll, if that was happening to me, I'd be the first one to strap on some TNT and charge (alltough not on civilians, but then again, I might loose my mind, so who knows?)

Yes, those suicide-bombing terrorist tards are to be shot, one by one, but if you ask me, USA and Israel are the bigger bad guy here....

[ionia23]

I would expect to hear that around here, but one has a right to be a total bigot if they want to, I suppose.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by ionia23
I would expect to hear that around here, but one has a right to be a total bigot if they want to, I suppose.

Ah, yes, the light of wisdom shines from your arguments. Truly.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Tiara

Ah, yes, the light of wisdom shines from your arguments. Truly.

You seem to be under the impression I'm trying to win some kind of liberal-popularity contest.  I give what I receive.

[jdjtcagle]

Bull***t, I'm really tired of you. Please shutup and pretend this never happened before it gets nasty

[ionia23]

Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Bull***t, I'm really tired of you. Please shutup and pretend this never happened before it gets nasty

Case and point.

1. Israel is not wrong for defending itself
2. Saddam Hussein's practices are not the fault of the United States
3. The 9/11 attacks were unjustified
4. Our foreign policy between 1947 and the Carter administration was completely whacked.

That's it, really.

[vyper]

[q]I would expect to hear that around here, but one has a right to be a total bigot if they want to, I suppose.[/q]
What, that people would get pissed off if someone started shooting up their home, neighbours and kids?

You come from a country obsessed with home defence, I'd expect you to be a bit more understanding of the Palestinians situation.

[Rictor]

ah, I see it now. Its all so heavily biased. Liberals to the right of you, Liberals to the left of you. The liberal media and their lies. The liberal government and their pinko commie shenanigans. Hell, why stop there. Its that damn liberal weather, thats why its so hot here. And the liberal drivers who keep cutting me off. Not to mention the worst of the lot, the liberal education system. Whats a young man to do, with the odds stacked so highly against him...

__________

1. Defending itself does not include making life hell for hundreds of thousands of innocents Palestinians.

2. True, but the sanctions were not Saddam's practices. The minute the US barred humanitarian goods from entering Iraq, it took on a share of the responsibility for the dead and suffering.

3. Thats depends on who you ask. If 9/11 was unjustified, so was Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs, Iraq, Kosovo, Afhganistan, not to mention the numerous "covert" acts of agression. Can't have it both ways. If them hitting you is unjustified, then you hitting them is also.

4. Yeah, not nearly enough wars. As far as I can figure, every single president in recent memory has engaged in some sort of agressive action against a foreign power while in office. That quite an agressive nation, no?