[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Rictor
Why is terrorism only defined in terms of what "they" do to "us"? 100,00 civilians dead in Iraq, and you're telling me thats not terrorism?

Bin Laden is responsible for the deaths of 3000 innocent people.
Bush is responsible for the deaths of 100,000+ (remember Afghanistan?) innocent people.

Which one is the terrorist again? The same applies to Israel/Palestine. According to every statistic available, including Israeli sources, Israel has killed more innocents since the start of the second intifada than suicide bombers have killed Israeli civies.

When the US trains and finances death-squads and assasins in Latin America, thats not terrorism?

So freakin true!:yes:

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Sandwich


Thus the whole fiasco in the gov't over Sharon's adamant moving forward with pulling out of (ironic combination of words there) Gaza.

Of course, the problem with that is that it's seen as more a relocation than pullout in many (most?) quarters.... isn't there a bit of a land grab being made with the wall boundaries in the West Bank anyway?

The Palestinainas aren't going to massively accept it anyways, as long as it's a dictated pull-out rather than one they actually have a say in; they'll treat it with suspicion (especially as it seems to be heading towards almost a 'walled city' scenario ala Escape from New York in Gaza, with the wall encircling the region and Israeli control over the borders, coast and air).  

Rictor probably knows the 'against' argument better than me, though.

[Splinter]

Originally posted by aldo_14
The problem is that Israel won't pull out whilst terrorist attacks go on (it would be seen as a retreat, which isn't politically - and probably not morally - acceptable), and it's near(near?) impossible to get the terrorist groups to stop & negotiate as long as the Israelis are still occupying the territories....

Actually it's more like they complete the security barrier then start forcing the settlers out from behind the cover of the wall then after they are out the army relocates the wall (yes its a portable wall per sae) to the green line and simply waits the rest out.

See if they were to pull out today you would have thousands of dead settlers by morning. So I think what Sharon is planning is completing the barrier then evacuating the settlers under its cover... boom there you go.

Not that I would agree with him doing it in the first place but that doesn’t dictate what he WILL do. *shrug*

Originally posted by Rictor
Mien gott!
Quickly, we must hurry back to avenge the Motherland!

...you never said history is written by the victor, you said "history always approves of the choice that is made"

Not that this is particularly relevant but Germany is a Fatherland.

[Splinter]

Hamas official said ready to consider 10-year hudna to enable negotiations



http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/507141.html

Yusef, who was recently released from prison after his arrest during Operation Defensive Shield in April 2002, called on Israel and the international community to reconsider its characterization of Hamas as a terrorist organization.    Hamas' desire to participate in political decision-making among the Palestinian leadership is a reflection of the organization's "maturity," Yusef was quoted as saying by Israel Radio.

sigh.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by TrashMan


Nope. You didn't. In any version there is the girl allways ends up dead. Like I said - they could have shoot her in the arms or legs.

And she was alive when that commander shot at her again.

You know, a couple of reserves ago (2 years ago I think), they taught us what to do when we have a suicide bomber in pre-BOOM stage. You don't shoot him/her in the arms, legs, torso, or anything like that that could allow them time to activate their explosive belt/bag.

You shoot them right in the gray matter.

Now, I'm not saying that this girl was a suicide bomber - she wasn't. But I'm trying to perhaps explain why shooting a person who is blatantly acting suspicious (and, I might add, against the known rules of a person who intends to see the light of the next day) in the arms / legs does not cut it - generally.

However, I do concede that from what I understand of this scenario, it could have been handled much better, with the girl remaining alive.

[aldo_14]

Yusef said he would not rule out a halt to suicide bombings against Israeli targets during final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

"Final status"

WTF does that mean?

[Sandwich]

I hope it's not related to the "Final Solution"...

[Splinter]

Originally posted by aldo_14


"Final status"

WTF does that mean?

he has jsut contradicted himself... hudna = (supposed) ceasefire but what hes saying here is that when they reach the final stages of negotiations that we should not rule out a possible stop in the sucicide bombings. so in the final stages of the negotiations we may get a pleasent suprise of not being bombed for a litte whil. thanks a freaking lot!

[ionia23]

I hope ya'll aren't actually still playing with the concept of 'peace' between Israel and Palestine.  Ain't gonna happen.

[erratus]

Originally posted by Bobboau
it's part of the government, therefore legitimate.

killing off congress would be quite an effective means of shuting down our government.

Yes, it would - but I don't agree that all government agencies are legitimate targets in war. Garbage cleaners are government workers, as are some lawyers, as engineers designing ways to make our life more efficient or cleaner or whatever.

I'm not sure what the rules are, but I would suggest that any agency directly involved in the military machine is legitimate, and any agency that is not, is not.

[erratus]

Originally posted by Rictor
no settlements=no necessity for military occupation=no more terrorism

...or something like that. It might not work that way, but I don't think peace is possible with the ongoing occupation.

Which would explain the terrorism before any settlements were there? Or before the occupation actually began?

[erratus]

Originally posted by Splinter
Hamas official said ready to consider 10-year hudna to enable negotiations

You'll note that whenever these organisations suggest a ceasefire, they always use the term hudna. It's for a reason.

The Koran tells us that Muhammed, when he wasn't strong, made a treaty with the tribe that controlled Mecca (this tribe was the Koreish). Off the top of my head that truce was for ten years. However, after about two years Muhammed became quite militarily powerful and thus, cancelled the truce and wiped out the Koraish. That truce was called a hudna. In an Islamic context, the word hudna cannot be simply translated as truce or ceasefire. It's a tactical ploy by Hamas or whoever to stop the fighting because they have been made weak through IDF actions. If Israel hears that Hamas wants a hudna, then Israel should go in harder - and not let these bastards regain their breath, let alone their strength.

[erratus]

Originally posted by aldo_14

But - does that graph also account for changes in the living standards of the Palestinian population? Or, for example, how the civillian casualties due to IDF operations correlate to civillian casualties due to terrorist attacks? (as a matter of interest) I feel these may be important with regard to the long-term 'success' of stopping terrorism; as that graph shows, the frequency of attacks does have a tendency to wax & wane.

Because, to be clear, what it'd like to see is a solution of some sort which is mutually beneficial.  Now, I know that this big wall thing is credited in particular with reducing attacks, but it's also been condemned as a breach of human rights-stroke-international law in the effect it has on ordinary Palestinians.  Because I think that the situation is that you will always have terrorism if it's only a military response; even if that terrorism is reduced to a comparative trickle.  I realise this will need to be on the part of whoever takes control of the PA, of course.

I have to be honest; regardless of frequency of attacks, all I've seen - again from my own distant perspective - is a constant spiral of tit-for-tat reciprocal violence that appears to be perpetual. i.e. no long term solution or peace.

I hope I'm wrong.

EDIT; what i mean is, even if the wall or the mentioned op in Jenin reduced terrorist attacks then, have they actually done anything which still stop would be terrorists wanting to join up?

An excellent post. There is no doubt that the Palestinian standard of living has plummeted in the last four years, what with the general closures etc.

But did you know that the highest standard of living the Palestinians have ever obtained were in the years prior to first Intifada and (six years later) the creation of the PA? Which means that when Palestinians act violently toward Israel, Israel will close its borders to protect itself.

It makes sense. 80% of Palestinians now say that they support suicide bombing. Of course Israel isn't going to let Palestinians have access to Israel! Oh, the bleeding hearts claim, one in five Pallies don't want to kill you! How sweet.

When the PA came on the scene, the Palestinian standard of living went further downhill - this despite billions of dollars being poured into the territories by the international community and despite (or because!) the Palestinians were being ruled by themselves for the first time in their less-than-hundred years of existance.

But while this was happening, a pollster called Khalil Shikaki, from Ramallah, found something very surprising. In four polls, taken in '97, '98, '99 and 2000, Palestinians placed Israel above the PA, the USA and France when rating standards of democracy and human rights. So, despite being 'oppressed' by the Izzies, the Pallies actually thought the illegal Zionist Entity was the best in the world in regards to human rights!!!!

The polls show that what the world says about Israel is mostly bollocks. Israel opened universities for the Pallies, it opened the economy for the Pallies. Did you know that during the seventies, the Pallie economy was the fastest growing economy in the world! Why? Because from 1967 Israel controlled it and there was no violence. When Jordanians, Egyptians or Palestinians controlled it and/or when there was violence, the Pallie economy went to poo.

So Arafat and Fatach (which were in his pocket) launched the violence. Hamas got on board because they had never climbed onto the peace train. Now, because of heavy Israeli responses, Palestinians hate Israel and are - once again - calling for its destruction. Arafat got what he wanted. And then they buried him in his parking lot! Ha!

Food for thought.

Oh. The other day someone asked me to prove something. Check out the following links. The first is the most relevant, and they lose relevancy as they go down. I hope each site I've linked to is pretty enough for person these links are for!

http://newyorker.com/PRINTABLE/?fact/011119fa_FACT1
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-radu042902.asp
http://frictionmagazine.com/politik/columns/wardiary_122101.asp
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/evil.htm

Goodness me. I went completely off-track. The reason I replied to this post was because the poster wanted a mutually beneficial peace. So do I. Oslo was that attempt. Two communities would have full access to each other. They would share their economies, their education, their land, etc. And it really, rea.ly didn't work. The drafters of Oslo figured peace, then security.

Sharon has turned the tables with the security barrier and disengagement from Gaza. He is saying security, then peace. And he knows the only way to get security is by keeping a distance. The security barrier and disengagement plan IS mutually beneficial. In five years time, the Pallies will have a state and they'll have the security barrier to thank for it.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by erratus


An excellent post. There is no doubt that the Palestinian standard of living has plummeted in the last four years, what with the general closures etc.

But did you know that the highest standard of living the Palestinians have ever obtained were in the years prior to first Intifada and (six years later) the creation of the PA? Which means that when Palestinians act violently toward Israel, Israel will close its borders to protect itself.

It makes sense. 80% of Palestinians now say that they support suicide bombing. Of course Israel isn't going to let Palestinians have access to Israel! Oh, the bleeding hearts claim, one in five Pallies don't want to kill you! How sweet.

When the PA came on the scene, the Palestinian standard of living went further downhill - this despite billions of dollars being poured into the territories by the international community and despite (or because!) the Palestinians were being ruled by themselves for the first time in their less-than-hundred years of existance.

But while this was happening, a pollster called Khalil Shikaki, from Ramallah, found something very surprising. In four polls, taken in '97, '98, '99 and 2000, Palestinians placed Israel above the PA, the USA and France when rating standards of democracy and human rights. So, despite being 'oppressed' by the Izzies, the Pallies actually thought the illegal Zionist Entity was the best in the world in regards to human rights!!!!

The polls show that what the world says about Israel is mostly bollocks. Israel opened universities for the Pallies, it opened the economy for the Pallies. Did you know that during the seventies, the Pallie economy was the fastest growing economy in the world! Why? Because from 1967 Israel controlled it and there was no violence. When Jordanians, Egyptians or Palestinians controlled it and/or when there was violence, the Pallie economy went to poo.

So Arafat and Fatach (which were in his pocket) launched the violence. Hamas got on board because they had never climbed onto the peace train. Now, because of heavy Israeli responses, Palestinians hate Israel and are - once again - calling for its destruction. Arafat got what he wanted. And then they buried him in his parking lot! Ha!

Food for thought.

Goodness me. I went completely off-track. The reason I replied to this post was because the poster wanted a mutually beneficial peace. So do I. Oslo was that attempt. Two communities would have full access to each other. They would share their economies, their education, their land, etc. And it really, rea.ly didn't work. The drafters of Oslo figured peace, then security.

Sharon has turned the tables with the security barrier and disengagement from Gaza. He is saying security, then peace. And he knows the only way to get security is by keeping a distance. The security barrier and disengagement plan IS mutually beneficial. In five years time, the Pallies will have a state and they'll have the security barrier to thank for it.

The problem is that the security of Israel does nothing to protect the security of the territories; if you read this article by the aformentioned Khalil Shikaki, it makes a number of interesting points about the potential exploitation of the pullout to allow more extremist elements to take control of Palestine; as there was no co-ordination or negotiation with the PA over the pullout, these extremists can claim victory and use that to undermine any legitimate authority the PA does have.  The article itself is equally a call for democratic reform & proper elections for the PA; very interesting stuff, actually.

(NB: was written pre-Arafats death, so the election stuff is obviously deprecated)

However, from what I can see there is no guarentee the disengagement plan is actually anything beyond the 'walling up' of Gaza, not a unilateral move to a 2-state solution

And could the Palestinians ever truly accept a solution they had no say in?  Certainly, given the history of animosity, I think they'd doubt that an imposed solution by Israel would be in anything other than Israels best interests - especially one from a man they consider a war criminal. So... they have no guarentees there will be a Palestinian state, and no say regardless - clearly not very different from the current situation IMO.

As an aside, I also found this, which maye be of interest;  http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2004/p12a.html#popularity
(analysis in link, this is just the bold stuff)
(1) Withdrawal from Gaza
    * Little less than two-thirds of the Palestinians (64%) support the Egyptian initiative and 32% oppose it, but only 53% support the deployment of Egyptian military advisers and security officials in the Gaza Strip
    * High levels of support for various forms of international presence in the context of the Sharon disengagement plan with 60% for the deployment of an armed international or multilateral force in the Gaza Strip that would be responsible for security in the Rafah international border crossing and the Egyptian-Palestinian border
    * Support for the modified Sharon disengagement plan as approved by the Israeli government does not exceed 34% and only one quarter believes the plan will actually be implemented
    * A majority of 59% would oppose armed attacks from the Gaza Strip if the withdrawal from the Strip was complete
    * An almost even split on the future of the homes in the settlements with 49% wanting to keep them intact and 48% wanting them destroyed
    * An overwhelming majority (90%) supports Hamas’ participation in the administration of the Gaza Strip after the Israel withdrawal

(2) Peace Process: Intifada, Victory, Armed attacks, and Reconciliation
    * only 40% believe the Palestinians came out winners so far in the ongoing armed conflict that has started in September 2000 and 37% believe no one won. Belief in Palestinian victory is much higher in Gaza (54%) than in the West Bank (32%)
    * A majority of 59% supports continued suicide bombings inside Israel if an opportunity arises. Despite this, support for mutual cessation of violence remains very high (79%)
    * 77% feel that their safety and that of their families are not assured these days
    * support for reconciliation between the two peoples remains very high (72%) even though 43% believe such reconciliation is not possible ever

(3) Local and National Elections
    * Opposition to holding local elections in stages is greater than support (49% to 45%) as more people want to hold these elections in all cities, towns and villages simultaneously
    * In local elections: 28% will vote for Hamas and Islamic Jihad candidates, 26% for Fateh’s, 17% for independents, and 9% for family candidates
    * A solid majority of 70% supports the participation of refugee camp residents in the municipal council elections within which these camps are located
    * Almost three quarters support giving women a quota in the general political elections
    * A majority of 88% encourages the participation of Hamas in the general legislative and presidential elections if they take place soon

(4) Reform, Democracy, and Corruption
    * An overwhelming majority (92%) supports inside and outside calls for fundamental political reforms in the PA
    * Positive evaluation of the status of democracy in the Palestinian areas does not exceed 25% and 50% believe that people can criticize the PA without fear
    * 87% believe that corruption exists in the institutions of the PA and two thirds believe that officials and others involved in or accused of corruption are often not charged or brought to account

(5) Popularity of Yasir Arafat, Marwan Barghouti, and Political Factions
    * In an open question regarding the election of the PA president, a majority of 54% votes for Yasir Arafat. No one else received 2% or more of the vote with the exception of Marwan Barghouti and Mahmud Zahhar. But in a closed question Arafat received 49%
    * In another open question, this time regarding the election of a vice president, Ahmad Qurai (Abu Ala’) received 9%, followed by Marwan Barghouti (8%), but in a closed question Barghouti came first with 25%
    * The popularity of Fateh has remained unchanged from last March (28%) but that of Hamas increased from 20% to 24%.
    * Combined Islamist strength (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and independent Islamists) increased from 29% last March to 35%

(there is a lot more stuff on that site; the following pages shows that ~60% oppose the Sharon disengagement plan, 55% would still support attacks on Israeli targets after the plan was carried out, 60% would oppose attacks if the plan involved further pulling out; (see 14) , 68% doubt the plan will ever be carried out; and more stuff than I could possibly read justnow)

I think there is a lot in that poll that shows people want a fair, peaceful solution and that it is possible... hopefully the death of Arafat can pave the way to a democratic government able to begin to work to  implement that wish.

[Sandwich]

Does anyone else find it ironic that the only Muslim nations in the Middle-East that have/are having free elections and heading towards democracy are those under Israeli or American "occupation"?

[karajorma]

Nope. I find it tragic that both countries push around the populations of occupied countries to get the results they want and then claim it's democratic.

[erratus]

Originally posted by aldo_14

The problem is that the security of Israel does nothing to protect the security of the territories; if you read this article by the aformentioned Khalil Shikaki, it makes a number of interesting points about the potential exploitation of the pullout to allow more extremist elements to take control of Palestine; as there was no co-ordination or negotiation with the PA over the pullout, these extremists can claim victory and use that to undermine any legitimate authority the PA does have.  The article itself is equally a call for democratic reform & proper elections for the PA; very interesting stuff, actually.

Um, hang on. You've got your parties muddled up. Do we want Israeli occupation to end, or do we want democracy? Democracy cannot be imposed on a people overnight, despite what the US continues to say.

If you want Israel to disengage from the territories only after massive PA reform and an internalisation of democratic values by the average Palestinian, then I'd suggest that you don't hold your breath.

Look how far the Pallies have come in the past ten years! Hell, yeah. Impressive movement toward a corruption-free, open-marketed democratic statelet!

Either stop calling for an end to occupation or stop calling for Israel to help in democratising the Pallies. Israel can't do both.

I think that the Pallies should be allowed to attempt to form a system of government by themselves. I think that any call that suggests they need help doing that smacks of racism. The Jews didn't need help forming a democracy, despite the fact they have never had a democracy before. Why should the Muslims be any different?

Or are you applying two different standards to two groups of people?

However, from what I can see there is no guarentee the disengagement plan is actually anything beyond the 'walling up' of Gaza, not a unilateral move to a 2-state solution

As for the 'walling up' of Gaza, do you honestly and sincerely believe that, should your wildest dreams come true and the Pallies finally realise that killing children is a bad thing, the border between 'Palestine' and Israel will be as open and unguarded as that between the US and Canada? Oh, come on!

The border between Israel and 'Palestine' will look much like the border between Israel and Jordan - a big electric fence with mines on both sides. Border crossings will be secure and tightly controlled.

If you want Israel to pull out of Gaza (with or without cooperation) and for Gaza to be part of a Palestinian state, you're just going to have to accept the fact that it will be separated from Israel.

And Israeli cooperation with the Pallies regarding disengagement? The Pallies have consistantly cooperated with terrorists. Upon gaining power, Abu Mazen stretched out an olive branch - not to Israel - but to Hamas! Now, that's dedication to security cooperation for you!

And could the Palestinians ever truly accept a solution they had no say in?  

The Japanese and Germans seemed to. Oh, but they're success stories. Can't use those examples!

If the polls you cited are accurate, it would show that the Pallies prefer to have an Islamic Republic of Palestine, which means an unnegotiated pullout by Israel of Gaza will just speed things up.

Between 1956 and 1967 do you know how many Israelis (in Israel) were killed by terrorists? 30. And during all that time you had neighbouring states that were out to destroy Israel.

So, bring it on! Let Hamastan be formed in Gaza. Let 'em arm up and try to hurt Israel. And then you, no doubt, will be first in line to criticise Jerusalem for attacking Hamas targets in response. Will we see condemnations by you bleeding heart types when Hamastan attacks Ashdod? Or will they be utilising their eternal right to fight occupation? What bollocks.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by erratus


Um, hang on. You've got your parties muddled up. Do we want Israeli occupation to end, or do we want democracy? Democracy cannot be imposed on a people overnight, despite what the US continues to say.

If you want Israel to disengage from the territories only after massive PA reform and an internalisation of democratic values by the average Palestinian, then I'd suggest that you don't hold your breath.

Look how far the Pallies have come in the past ten years! Hell, yeah. Impressive movement toward a corruption-free, open-marketed democratic statelet!

Either stop calling for an end to occupation or stop calling for Israel to help in democratising the Pallies. Israel can't do both.

I wasn't calling for both, I also think you misunderstand the articles point.  Without any form of negotiation - and by extension fair representation of the Palestinian populace by an elected government - extremist/terrorist groups will be able to use the IDF pullout to claim victory and - more worryingly - thus validation of their own tactics.  It will also emphasise the lack of influence the current government has in its ability to negotiate a peaceful solution, which may serve to strengthen the power base of said extremists.

Of course, Israel can play a role in facilitating democracy by lifting checkpoints within the territories to allow everyone to vote during the election... I've heard conflicting reports over how much the IDF has done in this regard.

(EDIT)
Now...one thing; I'm not entirely sure you've read me right.  I would like a negotiated solution resulting in an independent 2-state solution (because I don't think any other solution can work).  Obviously, that would need an end to the occupation.

 But, what i'm saying is that this pullout, will not facilitate that type of solution, for several reasons (terrorists can claim victory and thus gain power, inability for Gaza to reopen air or sea ports & thus trade, and of course the issue of what will happen RE: the West Bank).  (IMO, of course)

Originally posted by erratus
I think that the Pallies should be allowed to attempt to form a system of government by themselves. I think that any call that suggests they need help doing that smacks of racism. The Jews didn't need help forming a democracy, despite the fact they have never had a democracy before. Why should the Muslims be any different?

Or are you applying two different standards to two groups of people?

I'm not sure where you're getting this(apparent statement from me) from, to be honest. So I can't reply without knowing what I'm supposed to have said.

Originally posted by erratus
As for the 'walling up' of Gaza, do you honestly and sincerely believe that, should your wildest dreams come true and the Pallies finally realise that killing children is a bad thing, the border between 'Palestine' and Israel will be as open and unguarded as that between the US and Canada? Oh, come on!

The border between Israel and 'Palestine' will look much like the border between Israel and Jordan - a big electric fence with mines on both sides. Border crossings will be secure and tightly controlled.

If you want Israel to pull out of Gaza (with or without cooperation) and for Gaza to be part of a Palestinian state, you're just going to have to accept the fact that it will be separated from Israel.

And Israeli cooperation with the Pallies regarding disengagement? The Pallies have consistantly cooperated with terrorists. Upon gaining power, Abu Mazen stretched out an olive branch - not to Israel - but to Hamas! Now, that's dedication to security cooperation for you!

See the article I posted in the post you quoted over the whole meaning and purpose of co-operation with respect to the pullout.

  And also see the rulings declaring the wall illegal; I think anything I could say would be paraphrasing these. And of course the issues over the confiscation of Palestinian land to build the barrier and the cutting off of towns from resources (I think Qalqilya was a prime example of this?);

IIRC the wall also goes inside the borders of the territory captured by Israel in 1967, so it can be construed as a land grab (valid or not this view may be, it is still a cause for concern or indeed anger).

( I don't believe it's an unfair or irrational position if I hold an opinion based upon a ruling of international law)  

Originally posted by erratus
The Japanese and Germans seemed to. Oh, but they're success stories. Can't use those examples!

If the polls you cited are accurate, it would show that the Pallies prefer to have an Islamic Republic of Palestine, which means an unnegotiated pullout by Israel of Gaza will just speed things up.

Between 1956 and 1967 do you know how many Israelis (in Israel) were killed by terrorists? 30. And during all that time you had neighbouring states that were out to destroy Israel.

So, bring it on! Let Hamastan be formed in Gaza. Let 'em arm up and try to hurt Israel. And then you, no doubt, will be first in line to criticise Jerusalem for attacking Hamas targets in response. Will we see condemnations by you bleeding heart types when Hamastan attacks Ashdod? Or will they be utilising their eternal right to fight occupation? What bollocks.

So what, you're blaming me for showing a poll?  If Hamas is gaining support, maybe you should be asking why?  What makes people support a terrorist group (excluding Hamas' political/social role in building hospitals, schools, mosques or similar) which is dedicated to driving Israel out of the territories through force?

Look, all I did was post a few polls, an article by a guy about the need for co-operation (in terms of timing, some formation of security service to maintain a semblance of control), and give my reading of it.  Both the polls and the article came from the same person - stroke - group you cited earlier, so as to make sure you couldn't complain about inaccuraces (presuming you trust your earler source).

In fact, I don't think I even gave any deep analysis or meaning to said polls; I distinctly said they were 'interesting' and left you draw your own conclusions.  You appear to have also drawn mine for me, which is a bit..odd.

I think what i posted earlier explains perfectly my opinion of the problems posed by unilateral withdrawal; trying to make it look like I'm some bleeding heart pro-terrorist person just seems...bizarre.

I mean, I'm not even sure what your point is.  I've stated mine; I don't think this pullout will work in terms of peace.  I don't think Israeli security is a method to guarentee a desire for peace amongst Palestinians.  I don't think I need to reiterate what I've already posted.

Of course, you could use the Treaty of Versailles  as evidence of where imposed peace fails; there are lots of examples of how an imposed peace can fail.  But given the long history of strong hatred over the whole Palestinian situation, I think it's the least likely place where an imposed solution will be accepted.

[erratus]

My point is simple. Israel tried to coordinate in state building and security seeking activities with the Palestinians. The attempt failed momentously. Indeed, copious evidence has been revealed which proves that the PA acted to directly lessen Israeli security. See http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/capt/capt.htm

Moreover, history has taught Israel that its most secure time in the last 57 years was for the ten or so years when it was the most separated from its muderous neighbours.

All countries act in their own interests. Israel attempted peace (with state building and security seeking coordination) with the Palestinians because those in charge thought it would enhance Israel's interests. The plan backfired, to put it mildly.

Israel is now seeking to enhance it's interests by acting unilaterally.

Coordinating something with someone usually means actions by at least two parties. The whole Oslo experiment was an attempt to coordinate an Israeli disengagement from Gaza (and most of the West Bank). In exchange for this disengagement, the Pallies promised to end incitement and terrorism. Both increased.

How many times and in how many different ways do I have to repeat this: coordination with the Palestinians has hurt Israel considerably and Israel has learnt its lesson.

The ICJ's decision on the security barrier was a joke. And no, not because it went against what I thought it should have been. It was a joke because it ruled that if a sub-state actor were to attack a state, the state could not legally act against that actor. If applied retroactively, it puts many, many actions carried out by the UK against the IRA and assorted terrorists in Northern Ireland in the illegal category.

That's a joke. This was one of the reasons that most serious commentators rejected the opinion out of hand. The topic of the court's opinion is really only to be found in bleeding heart webspace these days - not in the pages of serious journals.

I have no problem with either Shikaki's polls or your decision to post them in this thread. You claimed that you wanted a democratic 'Palestine'. You also claimed that should Israel withdrawal uniltarally, it would gain influence and/or political points for the Islamist parties/terrorist groups. The polls revealed that a majority of Palestinians already want these Islamists in power. So with or without a coordinated pullout, all it would take is one election. I can assure you that after the Islamists got in power, 'Palestine' would not be a democratic utopia. Anyone been to Algeria recently? Or Iran, for that matter.

Moreover, the very fact that Israel is leaving the territories - coordinated or not - will be considered a victory by ALL the Pallie factions. Why do you think that shortly after the Oslo accords were signed, Arafat invoked the PLO stages plan? Was Arafat signalling defeat of PLO policies? Of course he wasn't.

During and after the coming disengagement, Sharon will claim sort of victory (don't know how). Hamas will claim a victory and so will Fatach. It's politics, sunshine.

And what's to stop the Pallies reopening sea and airports in Gaza? As long as they don't use them for terrorist purposes (did someone say 'Karine A'?) Israel will let them be.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by erratus
My point is simple. Israel tried to coordinate in state building and security seeking activities with the Palestinians and it failed momentously. Indeed, copious evidence has been revealed that the PA acted to directly lessen Israeli security. See http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/capt/capt.htm

Moreover, history has taught Israel that their most secure time in the last 57 years was for the ten or so years when they were the most separated from its muderous neighbours.

All countries act in their own interests. Israel attempted peace (with state building and security seeking coordination) with the Palestinians because those in charge thought it would enhance Israel's interests. The plan backfired, to put it mildly.

Israel is now seeking to enhance it's interests by acting unilaterally.

Coordinating something with someone usually means actions by at least two parties. The whole Oslo experiment was an attempt to coordinate an Israeli disengagement from Gaza (and most of the West Bank). In exchange for this disengagement, the Pallies promised to end incitement and terrorism. Both increased.

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

Originally posted by erratus
How many times and in how many different ways do I have to repeat this: coordination with the Palestinians has hurt Israel considerably and Israel has learnt its lesson.

The ICJ's decision on the security barrier was a joke. And no, not because it went against what I thought it should have been. It was a joke because it ruled that if a sub-state actor were to attack a state, the state could not legally act against that actor. If applied retroactively, it puts many, many actions carried out by the UK against the IRA and assorted terrorists in Northern Ireland in the illegal category.

What anti-IRA actions are you referring to?

 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.

Originally posted by erratus

I have no problem with either Shikaki's polls or your decision to post them in this thread. You claimed that you wanted a democratic 'Palestine'. You also claimed that should Israel withdrawal uniltarally, it would gain influence and/or political points for the Islamist parties/terrorist groups. The polls revealed that a majority of Palestinians already want these Islamists in power. So with or without a coordinated pullout, all it would take is one election. I can assure you that after the Islamists got in power, 'Palestine' would not be a democratic utopia. Anyone been to Algeria recently? Or Iran, for that matter.

I didn't claim that, Shikaki did.  I merely agree with him.

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.  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.

Originally posted by erratus
Moreover, the very fact that Israel is leaving the territories - coordinated or not - will be considered a victory by ALL the Pallie factions. Why do you think that shortly after the Oslo accords were signed, Arafat invoked the PLO stages plan? Was Arafat signalling defeat of PLO policies? Of course he wasn't.

During and after the coming disengagement, Sharon will claim sort of victory (don't know how). Hamas will claim a victory and so will Fatach. It's politics, sunshine.

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.

So if this solution 'works', then the Palestinians will have been forced to accept a vastly reduced territory than that seized originally by Israel, without any guarentee of a permanent solution or even a Palestinian state.

Also, I think Israel leaving, with absolutely no negotiation or peaceful action taken to cause this, will certainly favour the armed fighters when each / all side claims victory.  I mean, nobody negotiated with Israel to pull out - surely that means the terrorists forced them out (or at least, that's the way it'll be portrayed).

Originally posted by erratus
And what's to stop the Pallies reopening sea and airports in Gaza? As long as they don't use them for terrorist purposes (did someone say 'Karine A'?) Israel will let them be.

As part of the pullout Israel are maintaining control of the airspace, borders (albiet Egypt may be taking control of that border) and coastline of Gaza.  I think it would be highly unlikely the IDF would allow any traffic from there.

Look, i think I'm really just beginning to repeat myself here; it's fair enough that you disagree with me (it's your perogrative, of course), but I'm not sure there's anything else I can really say to expand upon my particular viewpoint, because I think I've said everything I can.