We have both been repeating ourselves because we are both convinced the other is wrong. And who would have thought the conflict has been going on for half a century or more?
IIRC (maybe in this thread) Sandwich shown a graph that indicated a reduction in terrorism between the signing of the Oslo accord and up to the point of the second intifada
I would be very surprised if Sandwich had of posted such a graph. Indeed, I would be very surprised if such a graph exists. More Israelis died as a result of terrorism between 1993 and 2000 than any other previous seven year period.
Letting the Pallie leadeship in, giving them arms, money and access to Israelis did NOT increase security but had the opposite effect.
What anti-IRA actions are you referring to?
Internship, military tribunals (without access to appeal), curfews and - if you believe an SAS whistleblower - extra-judicial killings. We can throw in the gunning down of three IRA activitists in Gibraltar as a case in point.
The fact is, most of these terrorist bastards claim to be in some sort of army. They even give themselves rank and have strict military discipline within their group. So I say, treat them like combatants! Shoot them on sight. If you capture them, give them POW status - which is a hell of a lot more unpleasant than how Israel treats her security prisoners.
The ICJ ruling was based on the removal of access to land and resources, amongst various things. I don't remember the British army, for example, forcibly annexing parts of Belfast. And also the Irish troubles aren't really comparable because N.Ireland itself is divided over the issue of which country it wishes to be unified with - not independence.
The ICJ opinion was based on taking as binding UN General Assembly resolutions. Not only are GA resolutions not binding, but the GA does not have the capacity to make nor interpret international law. The opinion was flawed in all sorts of ways. One of those ways was the opinion that no country can defend itself against non-state actors.
We have to accept the opinion or reject it. There is no point just taking those bits of the opinion that seem to reflect our own sentiment.
Moreover, I was not comparing the Northern Irish conflict with that conflict in which I live. I merely pointed out that - should the opinion have been binding - lots of countries would have found themselves with tied hands upon realising a security threat in their own backyards.
And again I'd add that Hamas do play a social / political role with the territories; you have to factor in that effect in judging what their popularity stems from.
I know full well why and how Hamas are popular. It stems straight from the corruption of the PA. The PA was given billions of dollars and spent it all on their wives. Hamas built schools and hospitals - thus gaining the support of the people - and used those social welfare mechanisms to spread it's 'let's kill a Jew for breakfast' indoctrination.
And of course there is the simple & tragedy reality that the Palestinians support attacks upon Israelis as long as they are occupied; I think that a proper peace and a degree of stability would at least act to check the extremists.
Wrong. When there was pure occupation, there was little or no terrorism. There was a great economy. The Palestinians were the most liberal and most educated of all the world's Arabs.
As soon as there was self-rule, the economy went downhill, as did the Pallies' level of education. They are now among the poorest Arabs, the least educated and the most religiously extreme.
The end of occupation will NOT reduce attempts at terrorism. It will, however, reduce the success of terrorism. Which is why I'm all for it.
But Israel aren't leaving the territories, are they? Only Gaza - in fact, I'm sure I've read a quote from Sharon suggesting there will be no further pullouts for a long time. And also that those evicted from Gaza will be allowed to resettle in the West Bank enclaves.
I have read a suggestion - I forget where - that one of Israels key objectives could be to consolidate the various enclaves in the West Bank into a single larger and more easily defended settlement.... and the amount of territory claimed by Israel in the West Bank now amounts to something like 50% of the land IIRC.
The fifty percent mark is wrong, but the principle stands. Sharon knows that Israel will have to give up Gaza, so he's doing it now - in an attempt to gain browny points. Then he'll say 'it's time for the Pallies to do something', which, of course, they won't - and he knows that. The real reason he is unilaterally pulling out of Gaza is because he wants to buy time to finish the West Bank security barrier. When that barrier is finish, there will be no more suicide bombers in Israel proper. This is a good thing.
And then Sharon will be able to start negotiating with the Pallies in regards to their state and the final borders.
It's ridiculous to regard the Green Line as sacrosanct. The Green Line is a ceasefire line, nothing more. It was never negotiated. The only reason it is where it is, is because that was where the Israelis stopped the Jordanians in their march to Tel Aviv.
The Pallies will get what the Israelis want them to get. Why the hell should Pallie terrorism be rewarded with everything they want? Israel is interested in granting the Pallies a state because it is in Israel's interest to do so. And it's in Israel's interest to retain some of the West Bank, so Israel will.
It's not as if the Pallies had ever had a state or anything that the nasty Jordanians took over. The most amount of self-rule the Pallies have EVER had was during that period in which Israel allowed them to have it. And they bombed Israel in reply. Nasty.
So if this solution 'works', then the Palestinians will have been forced to accept a vastly reduced territory than that seized originally by Israel,
... from the Jordanians...
without any guarentee of a permanent solution or even a Palestinian state.
Yup! It's beautiful in its simplicity. Israel just might be one of the first countries in history to tell terrorism that terrorism doesn't work. Because terrorism always works. And it has worked in part over here, of course. But if the Pallies get a vastly reduced piece of land because of terrorism, than they'll just have to live with that.
