RIP Yasser Arafat - Printable Version
+- PunBB (https://punbb.in)
+-- Forum: General Discussion - Hipbase.com (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Non Tragically Hip Discussion (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: RIP Yasser Arafat (/showthread.php?tid=4347)
+- PunBB (https://punbb.in)
+-- Forum: General Discussion - Hipbase.com (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Non Tragically Hip Discussion (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: RIP Yasser Arafat (/showthread.php?tid=4347)
- VioletlightHeron - 11-14-2004
Mark, I don't disagree that the question of settlers in the West Bank and Gaza is very troublesome, however I think only some of the reluctance on Israel's part stems from the Orthodox Jewish right's desire for complete control over a "greater Israel". Some of their reluctance also has to do with the actions of the PLO and Arab countries in refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist and refusal to explicitly take steps to rein in fundamentalist groups like Islamic Jihad, Hamas, etc. Simply put, Israel can't trust the PLO or other Arab countries, with the possible exception of Jordan, to honor their agreements. When Arafat was running the PLO in the 70's, he would direct guerrila operations from Beruit and Tunis, using the West Bank and Gaza as safe havens. In the latest intifada, he would renounce terrorism in English to satisfy the European diplomats and then call for jihad in Arabic, which undermined his trustworthiness and credibility. Indeed, many of the attacks recently were carried out either by Hamas or the Al-asqua Martyr's Brigade, the latter of which is controlled by Arafat's Fatah wing of the PLO. All of these attacks took place after Oslo, after Wye River in which Arafat recieved 95 percent of what he was seeking. Oslo was flawed in one way, that of the status of Jersualem and the Holy Sites. Arafat kept putting off the final status stages of negotiating access and control of Muslim and Jewish holy sites in Jersualem, probably because he realized he would have to give up access and control to the Western Wall, which he absolutely refused to consider. I emphasize the reality of Israeli actions on the Palestinian population, but when you can't trust the leadership of your adversary, what options left do you have left? Give everything back and have them demanding more and more? My distaste for the occupation is tempered by one key fact; the Palestinians themselves chose to fight from the very beginning of this conflict in the 1940's and their stubborn refusal to recognize the right of Jews to have a country to call their own is part of the underlying problem.
- grooveless touque - 11-14-2004
But is it truly not wanting the Israelis to hasve their own state, or is it a reaction to being deprived of one themselves? Obviously the Muslims aren't going to want a Jewish state in the Middle East no matter what, so I imagine there will always be tension, but the fact that the US folds it wings around Israel doesn't help. Nothing incites more fury among the Palestinians than the Americans propping up a Jewish state. Ifd the Palestinians had a homeland, and they could somehow agree witht he Israelis on what concewssions of land would have to be made on BOTH sides, I think you'd still see the militants on both sides causing problems, but the average citizen would harbour much less of a grievance towards the Israelis.
- j-monster - 11-14-2004
grooveless touque Wrote:But is it truly not wanting the Israelis to hasve their own state, or is it a reaction to being deprived of one themselves? Obviously the Muslims aren't going to want a Jewish state in the Middle East no matter what
Methinks you have just answered your own question...
- AmbitionlessHipster - 11-15-2004
VioletlightHeron Wrote:Mark, I don't disagree that the question of settlers in the West Bank and Gaza is very troublesome, however I think only some of the reluctance on Israel's part stems from the Orthodox Jewish right's desire for complete control over a "greater Israel".
I guess this can be a little fundamentalist (Zionism) too at times, no?
VioletlightHeron Wrote:PLO and Arab countries in refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist and refusal to explicitly take steps to rein in fundamentalist groups like Islamic Jihad, Hamas, etc.
Riiiight... and who takes steps to "rein in" the IDF forces who equally kill Palestinian civilians and destroy their homes, resources and industry? Because one is more organised/unified and has superior military/equipment... is killing not simply killing??
-And What about the Palestinian right to existence?
VioletlightHeron Wrote:Simply put, Israel can't trust the PLO or other Arab countries, with the possible exception of Jordan, to honor their agreements.
The same can be said for Israel and their little backing buddies the USA
-->and are you saying that all Arab countires (except for Jorndan) do not uphold their agreements and are untrustworthy?!? wow
VioletlightHeron Wrote:Arafat was running the PLO in the 70's, he would direct guerrila operations from Beruit and Tunis, using the West Bank and Gaza as safe havens.
Yeh... but they dont measure up to Sharon's war crimes that were carried out in Lebanon...
cratch: VioletlightHeron Wrote:In the latest intifada, he would renounce terrorism in English to satisfy the European diplomats and then call for jihad in Arabic, which undermined his trustworthiness and credibility.
Do you speak Arabic? You have translated Arafat saying thse contradictory things? Or is this similar to the media accounts we received after September 11th with FALSE images of Palestinians celebrating when in fact, it was old file footage incorrectly (and ideoloigcally) being used and re-used
Indeed, many of the attacks recently were carried out either by Hamas or the Al-asqua Martyr's Brigade, the latter of which is controlled by Arafat's Fatah wing of the PLO. All of these attacks took place after Oslo, after Wye River in which Arafat recieved 95 percent of what he was seeking. Oslo was flawed in one way, that of the status of Jersualem and the Holy Sites.
VioletlightHeron Wrote:Arafat kept putting off the final status stages of negotiating access and control of Muslim and Jewish holy sites in Jersualem, probably because he realized he would have to give up access and control to the Western Wall, which he absolutely refused to consider.
hock: Rightly so... they have holy places there also! Dont Arabs have right to these places also???!!!VioletlightHeron Wrote:I emphasize the reality of Israeli actions on the Palestinian population, but when you can't trust the leadership of your adversary, what options left do you have left? Give everything back and have them demanding more and more?
They can continue to destroy their homes, their people, the way of life, the resources and industry... the Palestinian basic rights to life while at the same time inciting more violence
Wait.. they already do this
VioletlightHeron Wrote:My distaste for the occupation is tempered by one key fact; the Palestinians themselves chose to fight from the very beginning of this conflict in the 1940's and their stubborn refusal to recognize the right of Jews to have a country to call their own is part of the underlying problem.
I suppose they should have "sucked it up" and moved to other Arab lands who have equally 'untrustowrthy' leaders and that are all against israel :roll:
- grooveless touque - 11-15-2004
edit: directed at not the last post, but the one before.
Well, the Jews don't want the Muslims to have one either! All I meant to say was I am realistic, not idealistic. There will never be perfect harmony in the Middle East. Both parties will always find something to attack the other with. But depriving the Palestinians of their own state is only begging for trouble. I think it would go a long way towards pacifying the average citizen if they were on "equal terms" with the Israelis. Right now the Palestinians see it as an "us against the world" situation, set upon by Israel and the United States. Granting them their own state would be a step in the right direction.
- VioletlightHeron - 11-15-2004
grooveless touque Wrote:edit: directed at not the last post, but the one before.
Well, the Jews don't want the Muslims to have one either! All I meant to say was I am realistic, not idealistic. There will never be perfect harmony in the Middle East. Both parties will always find something to attack the other with. But depriving the Palestinians of their own state is only begging for trouble. I think it would go a long way towards pacifying the average citizen if they were on "equal terms" with the Israelis. Right now the Palestinians see it as an "us against the world" situation, set upon by Israel and the United States. Granting them their own state would be a step in the right direction.
I agree that depriving the Palestinians of a state makes the whole situation worse and extremists on both sides will always try to inflame the situation even more. The big sticking point with me is the seeming unwillingness of the Palestinians to give up the idea of having Jerusalem as their capital; ideally it should be an international city because it is holy to 3 major faiths. But both sides have their political problems with giving up control of Jerusalem and I'm very skeptical about solutions to solve this problem.
With regards to Leslie's post, no I don't speak Arabic myself, however I'm studying International Relations in school and have had classes/seminars where the contradictions of Arafat's speeches of condemning terrorism in English and encouraging it in Arabic have been highlighted and discussed by professors knowledgeable, I'm not just pulling this out of my ass, thank you very much. Regarding the IDF, as far as I can tell, the majority of military actions taken by the IDF (ie bulldozing homes, incursions into Palestinian territory, etc) have been in response to Palestinian suicide attacks. The PA has shown no willingness so far to stop Hamas or volunteers from their own Al-Asqua Martyr's Brigade from crossing over into Israeli territory. The equivalent that I think most people can understand is this hypothetical situation. Let's say America and Canada have a long long long history of hating each other's guts and warring against each other and wanting the other wiped off the map. Let's also presume that America has the weaker force for the sake of arguement. They've had their butt kicked so many times it hurts and humiliates them. Let's say the leadership of America realizes there is no way they can win force on force (ie straight combat) and decide their best option is to strike at soft targets both in Canada and abroad, to bring attention to their cause and strike fear into the heart of Canada's population, discourage them. What would the normal response of the people of Canada under this situation. Most highly intellectual people would say violence never solved anything, an eye for an eye, etc etc but in this situation anger, fear and a desire for security would take precedence in public opinion. Most Israeli's simply want an end to the violence, the number of religious right wingers who want total control of the ancient land of Palestine for biblical reasons are few and far between. It is the desire for security and the long standing distrust towards the Palestinians that are driving Israeli policy, not some crazy wingnuts idea of rebuilding the Temple Mount.
- AmbitionlessHipster - 11-16-2004
VioletlightHeron Wrote:The big sticking point with me is the seeming unwillingness of the Palestinians to give up the idea of having Jerusalem as their capital;
But, as you suggest... they are not the only ones holding onto Jerusalem
VioletlightHeron Wrote:But both sides have their political problems with giving up control of Jerusalem and I'm very skeptical about solutions to solve this problem.
So... it isnt ONLY the Palestinians
VioletlightHeron Wrote:no I don't speak Arabic myself, however I'm studying International Relations in school and have had classes/seminars where the contradictions of Arafat's speeches of condemning terrorism in English and encouraging it in Arabic have been highlighted and discussed by professors knowledgeable, I'm not just pulling this out of my ass, thank you very much.
I did not suggest that you "pulled this out of your ass" ... I am suggesting, however, that there are often moments of misrepresentation of Arafat speeches and Arabs within the media .....and people tend to capitalise on them while perpetuating stereotypes...and at the same time are clueless to the amount of misinformation.
VioletlightHeron Wrote:Regarding the IDF, as far as I can tell, the majority of military actions taken by the IDF (ie bulldozing homes, incursions into Palestinian territory, etc) have been in response to Palestinian suicide attacks.
On the flipside, I guess you can say that suicide attacks are in response to the IDF constantly ruining their lives in the many ways I have already mentioned
Just because the IDF is organised and heavily funded does NOT make it any less of a terrorist organisation based on the things that they do
VioletlightHeron Wrote:Let's say America and Canada have a long long long history of hating each other's guts and warring against each other and wanting the other wiped off the map. Let's also presume that America has the weaker force for the sake of arguement. They've had their butt kicked so many times it hurts and humiliates them. Let's say the leadership of America realizes there is no way they can win force on force (ie straight combat) and decide their best option is to strike at soft targets both in Canada and abroad, to bring attention to their cause and strike fear into the heart of Canada's population, discourage them.
:? It appears that you see only the Israeli despair and discouragement, which indeed is present when an attack happens... however, at lest their industry, resources, necessities to life are not constantly threatened and taken away EVERY DAY. The "striking of soft targets" by the Palestinians is because they have no other choice! They do not have a military, they do not even have adequate police... and how else are they supposed to respond to the actions of the Israelis? Are they supposed to live like dogs because that is what the Israelis want? They must suffer from checkpoints in their own towns, they have lost so much of their valuble land (of natural resources) simply because israelis wanted it for themselves... water systems taken away... the people live in tents because of the israelis! And you question why they attack back in any way that they can? Killing is wrong, it is evil... but im sure you can understand that people are apt to defend when necessary using any means possible
VioletlightHeron Wrote:It is the desire for security and the long standing distrust towards the Palestinians that are driving Israeli policy, not some crazy wingnuts idea of rebuilding the Temple Mount.
and the long standing distrust of Israel is fueling the Palestinians as well
and... distrust means you take away someone's home? Distrust means that you shoot at children (how quickly that story went away of the IDF soldier riddling that little girl with bullets, eh?)
Distrust gives you the right to tell someone they cannot leave their homes past dark? Distrust says "no, im sorry you cannot go to the hospital today, you dont look sick"
I dont know, but it sounds a little rowdy to me