How do you negotiate with terrorists? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 01-30-2006, 06:13 PM

extending what ubertuber said: you have to take seriously the fact of occupation and its brutality.
you have to take seriously the israeli settlement program, how it has been orchestrated, what its purposes are, and its implications for palestinians--for example, the "settling" near water supplies...
you have to take seriously that the settlement program is a de facto annexation program, backed by the military force of a regional superpower.
also, remember the sharon strategy from a few years ago--humilitate arafat on the one hand while at the same time claiming that the problem is that there is no-one to negociate with amongst the palestinian population--totally disengenuous, amazingly cynical, with--again--brutal consequences for the folk who live on the ground.

you have to keep in mind that fine humanitarian policy of bulldozing the houses of the families of suspected militants.

you need to keep in mind the corruption under arafat as well--combine that with the facts concerning the israeli occupation of the west bank etc., and it does nto take a rocket scientist to derive that the plo/fatah would be seen as weak and corrupt--add to that the way israel has chosen to proceed since 1967 in the occupoed territories, and the resulting radicalization would seem such an obvious possibility that you would have thought that even the incompetents in the bush administration would have seen this coming.

but no.

on the other side--again--israeli politics is not singular--there are all kinds of groups/organizations that take full cognizance of the fiasco that the occupation has been, in all kinds of ways, for israel itself, who have positions that are nuanced well beyond anything i or anyone else whose viewpoint is distant coudl have on the matter--then you have likud--then you have idiots like netanyahu, who yesterday likened the rise of hamas to that of fascism in germany....

i do think that hamas has to recognize israel's right to exist--there is nothing to be done about the fact of the israeli state--it is a fact---but israel should be accepted by all as a legitimate state--and should be held to account for its actions as any other state would be had it undertaken this kind of action.

i would think that if most of the folk on this board lived in palestine, they too woudl have at least seriously considered voting hamas in this election. if you do not think so, then you dont know what the situation on the ground has been like in the west bank.

ubertuber · 02-02-2006, 04:47 AM

This is a small excerpt from a NY Times editorial:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NY Times

It could also be argued that Hamas can become a negotiating partner for Israel. Over the past year, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has promised to crack down on violence. He has not been able to deliver, in part because his ruling Fatah Party has been unable to tell Hamas what to do. Fatah and Mr. Abbas have been willing to say the words that Israel wants so dearly to hear. But they have been unable to deliver on the security that Israel so dearly needs to have.

Hamas is far better able to deliver on the deeds, if it should so choose. T

Some good points are made in this piece. Once you get past all the hand-wringing, there may be some potential for substantial movement in relations between Palestinian and Isreali officials. Just as "only Nixon could go to China", perhaps only Hamas can treat with Israel effectively. After all, it's hard to imagine Hamas-granted concessions as selling the cause out.

Charlatan · 02-19-2006, 05:43 AM

While I still (naievely perhaps) hold out hope that rational minds will prevail, I have to admit that things do not look good as Hamas continues to be stubborn and apparently unwilling to make any concilatory moves.

The latest tax withholding by Israel appears to be a good move on their part. Time will tell.

With neither side willing to talk to the other, this could go south. Thankfully Hamas continues to honour their cease fire agreement. Let's hope Israel can recognize that as a step in the right direction and a position from which they can both move forward.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-19-2006, 01:32 PM

Bidding their time until it is convienent(sp) to strike? All of the tax withholding doesn't seem to be putting any pressure on Hamas anyways; to make matters worse the Arab nations are saying they will step in with assistance once the west and Israel starting withholding the money.

Ustwo · 02-20-2006, 07:22 AM

Lets just face it guys.

The only solution that will bring any lasting peace to the area involves piles of bodies.

Israel can not give enough to appease the Muslim nations. They are still embarrassed by the 67 war, and their utter humiliation by Israel. When speaking to my Jordanian friend who I mentioned before, he said they refer to the men of that generation as 'the losers' (rough translation) who couldn't do anything right. They want revenge, they have spent 40 years teaching their children to hate the Jews, and only a fear of a repeat of 67 has kept them from all out war.

I view the whole area like an earthquake zone. Every time the next conflict gets postponed it adds to the stress and will make it worse when it does happen, but it will happen in this generation.

The only place I am confused is why Western Europe embraced the Palestinians so firmly, and I think it goes beyond the extremely biased news coverage they seemed to have. I think its due their own antisemitism, but rather than just saying it, they have decided to embrace their enemies instead. There are still men alive today who helped ship Jews to the death camps all through out Europe, and I think that mind set has yet to firmly die. This is also coupled with fear of what the Muslims in their own countries might do. Jews don't tend to hold mass rallies demanding death to their enemies, Muslims do. Yes I am calling the leadership of Western Europe cowardly and antisemetic. Now I think the people of Western Europe are slowly waking up from the cowardly part, I don't know about the antisemetic part.

Rekna · 02-20-2006, 07:56 AM

I have to disagree with you on your thoughts Ustwo. Your first premise that the only solution is a pile of bodies is a self fuffilling prophecy. If we resign to war as an only solution then war is the only solution but if we keep hope for other means then there is always still a chance that better resolutions will occur.

You are right about teaching the childern though but the way to combat that is not to kill them. Doing that would just inflame the next generation and so on. Violence will ONLY spawn more violence, if you don't believe me then look at the fertal cresent. It has been in war for thousands of years, a war that continues because people keep using violence. I believe if you want to stop the violence then we need to target the nation with non-violent solutions. For instance, work with the leaders to change the school systems and create moderate muslims. Work with the countries and help them so that the people can see you are not their enemy. (help is not taking their oil).

Answer me this Ustwo, if Martin Luther King had avocated all out war on white people would black people have ever gained their rights? People do not respond well to being attacked, people get defensive, patriotic, and will defend themselfs and those near them blindly even if they are wrong to do so. Unfortunatly patriotism is a double edged sword. One edge is great for rallying against an enemy but the other edge creates blinding hatred amoung us and them. This is precisly what many liberals hate about the patriotism pushing that the admin did. They played peoples emotions in order to gain blinding support.

Now why has Western Europe embraced Palestine? First I don't believe they have. Paleistine is still fighting tooth and nail for every right they have. They still are not recognized as a soverign nation. It doesn't seem like they have much support from anyone outside of the muslim world than me. Isreal on the other hand has massive support from the rest of the world. Much of this support is due to the painting of all Palistinians as terrorists other parts of it comes because of Isreals close ties with many world leaders. Ustwo you need to look at the situation in context, Isreal has all the power and Palistine has none. Palistine feels greatly oppressed but has no "legal" methods of defending it's rights. This is why people like Hammas are formed, this is why they get so much support. Never forget that our founding fathers were Terrorists. Our founding fathers broke every rule of war for the time. They targeted officers, not soldiers. They didn't wear uniforms, they hid and ambushed armies. Why did our founding fathers resort to such means? Because they had no power in the current rules of war. The rules favored the British and if they were to follow them they would have lost. So they changed the rules anyway they could to gain an edge because they were desperate for freedom.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-20-2006, 08:30 PM

The FF were not terrorists just because they did not stand in lines to get mowed down by a regular army. Terrorism is something that is done against a populace for a political goal; our founding fathers started a formal revolution with the foundation of our nation read Declaration of Independence.

It's called common sense and perhaps ingenuity to fight by a means that you can win. America formed a continental conventional military coupled with a militia, even if they acted as solely as partisans or guerillas (which they didn't), that would not make them terrorists. Please stop with this pathetic attempt to make things relative for the likes of OBL and Al Qaeda, it is historically false and borderline insulting comparing the FF too cowards who blow up buses and market places.

msh58 · 02-20-2006, 09:02 PM

Question for me is did majority of palestinians vote for change in their government and hamas just happened to be the other option or do they really back every thing hamas has been for. I haven't looked into whether there were other political parties to choose from.

If there weren't, what a choice they had, decades of corruption on one hand or formerly known as terrorism on the other and thats just hopefully.

question seems to be now will the other middle east countries really support hamas when the aid from other countries is gone if they don't change the ideals they've had all along.

I have little interest in politics usually, other than abusing politicians, except a week before election day when i figure it out somehow, but i'm fascinated by how this is going to go, look forward to the news each day.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-20-2006, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by msh58

question seems to be now will the other middle east countries really support hamas when the aid from other countries is gone if they don't change the ideals they've had all along.

Iran is trying to rally the "Muslim Brotherhood" for financial support and the likes now that the West is threatening to cut off aid. Not to mention the only countries with formal peace agreements with Israel are Egypt and Jordan (might only be truce as far as Jordan is concerned). That still leaves oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran who are major backers of Palestinian terrorism, and other countries like Syria who really want a shot at Israel.

Rekna · 02-20-2006, 10:29 PM

Mojo I am going to have to disagree with you on this point. I stand by my belief that for the time the gurilla fighters (anyone remember what they were called?) that fought against the redcoats could easily have been considered terrorists by the british crown. They did not wear uniforms and they did not fight in a way that was considered fair for the time. While the British troops would line up our troops would hide and ambush. It was a smart move by our troops because the methods of warfair back then were silly. But they were considered the proper methods of war. If the criteria for being called a terrorist is the targeting of civilians then where does that leave the US government with Hiroshima and Nagisaki? It is my belief that the word terrorist has been so loosely used by this Administration that we now have a gray area on what is a terrorist. Are the 9/11 hijackers terrorists? I most certianly would say so. Is the Iraqi doing what ever he can to stop the US a terrorist? I'm not so sure, even if he doesn't wear a uniform, even if he uses roadside bombs. The word terrorist has lost it's meaning since 9/11 and has now been redifined to mean anyone that fights against the US unfortunatly the fear and passion that the word draws out in people has remained the same. Now this word is being used to manipulate people into supporting Bushes agenda because as long as we are fighting "terrorists" then anyone who stands against this action is an unpatriotic american hating liberal who wants our troops to die. So I have a problem with people using this word now days. There should be a law like Godwin's Law but dealing with the word terrorist instead afterall it is being used to generate the same fear and passion that the word Nazi used to.

01-30-2006, 06:13 PM	#81 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	extending what ubertuber said: you have to take seriously the fact of occupation and its brutality. you have to take seriously the israeli settlement program, how it has been orchestrated, what its purposes are, and its implications for palestinians--for example, the "settling" near water supplies... you have to take seriously that the settlement program is a de facto annexation program, backed by the military force of a regional superpower. also, remember the sharon strategy from a few years ago--humilitate arafat on the one hand while at the same time claiming that the problem is that there is no-one to negociate with amongst the palestinian population--totally disengenuous, amazingly cynical, with--again--brutal consequences for the folk who live on the ground. you have to keep in mind that fine humanitarian policy of bulldozing the houses of the families of suspected militants. you need to keep in mind the corruption under arafat as well--combine that with the facts concerning the israeli occupation of the west bank etc., and it does nto take a rocket scientist to derive that the plo/fatah would be seen as weak and corrupt--add to that the way israel has chosen to proceed since 1967 in the occupoed territories, and the resulting radicalization would seem such an obvious possibility that you would have thought that even the incompetents in the bush administration would have seen this coming. but no. on the other side--again--israeli politics is not singular--there are all kinds of groups/organizations that take full cognizance of the fiasco that the occupation has been, in all kinds of ways, for israel itself, who have positions that are nuanced well beyond anything i or anyone else whose viewpoint is distant coudl have on the matter--then you have likud--then you have idiots like netanyahu, who yesterday likened the rise of hamas to that of fascism in germany.... i do think that hamas has to recognize israel's right to exist--there is nothing to be done about the fact of the israeli state--it is a fact---but israel should be accepted by all as a legitimate state--and should be held to account for its actions as any other state would be had it undertaken this kind of action. i would think that if most of the folk on this board lived in palestine, they too woudl have at least seriously considered voting hamas in this election. if you do not think so, then you dont know what the situation on the ground has been like in the west bank. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 01-30-2006 at 06:23 PM..

02-19-2006, 05:43 AM	#83 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	While I still (naievely perhaps) hold out hope that rational minds will prevail, I have to admit that things do not look good as Hamas continues to be stubborn and apparently unwilling to make any concilatory moves. The latest tax withholding by Israel appears to be a good move on their part. Time will tell. With neither side willing to talk to the other, this could go south. Thankfully Hamas continues to honour their cease fire agreement. Let's hope Israel can recognize that as a step in the right direction and a position from which they can both move forward. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-19-2006, 01:32 PM	#84 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Bidding their time until it is convienent(sp) to strike? All of the tax withholding doesn't seem to be putting any pressure on Hamas anyways; to make matters worse the Arab nations are saying they will step in with assistance once the west and Israel starting withholding the money. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-20-2006, 07:22 AM	#85 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Lets just face it guys. The only solution that will bring any lasting peace to the area involves piles of bodies. Israel can not give enough to appease the Muslim nations. They are still embarrassed by the 67 war, and their utter humiliation by Israel. When speaking to my Jordanian friend who I mentioned before, he said they refer to the men of that generation as 'the losers' (rough translation) who couldn't do anything right. They want revenge, they have spent 40 years teaching their children to hate the Jews, and only a fear of a repeat of 67 has kept them from all out war. I view the whole area like an earthquake zone. Every time the next conflict gets postponed it adds to the stress and will make it worse when it does happen, but it will happen in this generation. The only place I am confused is why Western Europe embraced the Palestinians so firmly, and I think it goes beyond the extremely biased news coverage they seemed to have. I think its due their own antisemitism, but rather than just saying it, they have decided to embrace their enemies instead. There are still men alive today who helped ship Jews to the death camps all through out Europe, and I think that mind set has yet to firmly die. This is also coupled with fear of what the Muslims in their own countries might do. Jews don't tend to hold mass rallies demanding death to their enemies, Muslims do. Yes I am calling the leadership of Western Europe cowardly and antisemetic. Now I think the people of Western Europe are slowly waking up from the cowardly part, I don't know about the antisemetic part. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

02-20-2006, 08:30 PM	#87 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	The FF were not terrorists just because they did not stand in lines to get mowed down by a regular army. Terrorism is something that is done against a populace for a political goal; our founding fathers started a formal revolution with the foundation of our nation read Declaration of Independence. It's called common sense and perhaps ingenuity to fight by a means that you can win. America formed a continental conventional military coupled with a militia, even if they acted as solely as partisans or guerillas (which they didn't), that would not make them terrorists. Please stop with this pathetic attempt to make things relative for the likes of OBL and Al Qaeda, it is historically false and borderline insulting comparing the FF too cowards who blow up buses and market places. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 02-20-2006 at 08:43 PM..

02-20-2006, 07:56 AM	#86 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I have to disagree with you on your thoughts Ustwo. Your first premise that the only solution is a pile of bodies is a self fuffilling prophecy. If we resign to war as an only solution then war is the only solution but if we keep hope for other means then there is always still a chance that better resolutions will occur. You are right about teaching the childern though but the way to combat that is not to kill them. Doing that would just inflame the next generation and so on. Violence will ONLY spawn more violence, if you don't believe me then look at the fertal cresent. It has been in war for thousands of years, a war that continues because people keep using violence. I believe if you want to stop the violence then we need to target the nation with non-violent solutions. For instance, work with the leaders to change the school systems and create moderate muslims. Work with the countries and help them so that the people can see you are not their enemy. (help is not taking their oil). Answer me this Ustwo, if Martin Luther King had avocated all out war on white people would black people have ever gained their rights? People do not respond well to being attacked, people get defensive, patriotic, and will defend themselfs and those near them blindly even if they are wrong to do so. Unfortunatly patriotism is a double edged sword. One edge is great for rallying against an enemy but the other edge creates blinding hatred amoung us and them. This is precisly what many liberals hate about the patriotism pushing that the admin did. They played peoples emotions in order to gain blinding support. Now why has Western Europe embraced Palestine? First I don't believe they have. Paleistine is still fighting tooth and nail for every right they have. They still are not recognized as a soverign nation. It doesn't seem like they have much support from anyone outside of the muslim world than me. Isreal on the other hand has massive support from the rest of the world. Much of this support is due to the painting of all Palistinians as terrorists other parts of it comes because of Isreals close ties with many world leaders. Ustwo you need to look at the situation in context, Isreal has all the power and Palistine has none. Palistine feels greatly oppressed but has no "legal" methods of defending it's rights. This is why people like Hammas are formed, this is why they get so much support. Never forget that our founding fathers were Terrorists. Our founding fathers broke every rule of war for the time. They targeted officers, not soldiers. They didn't wear uniforms, they hid and ambushed armies. Why did our founding fathers resort to such means? Because they had no power in the current rules of war. The rules favored the British and if they were to follow them they would have lost. So they changed the rules anyway they could to gain an edge because they were desperate for freedom.

02-20-2006, 09:02 PM	#88 (permalink)
msh58 Crazy	Question for me is did majority of palestinians vote for change in their government and hamas just happened to be the other option or do they really back every thing hamas has been for. I haven't looked into whether there were other political parties to choose from. If there weren't, what a choice they had, decades of corruption on one hand or formerly known as terrorism on the other and thats just hopefully. question seems to be now will the other middle east countries really support hamas when the aid from other countries is gone if they don't change the ideals they've had all along. I have little interest in politics usually, other than abusing politicians, except a week before election day when i figure it out somehow, but i'm fascinated by how this is going to go, look forward to the news each day.

02-20-2006, 10:29 PM	#90 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Mojo I am going to have to disagree with you on this point. I stand by my belief that for the time the gurilla fighters (anyone remember what they were called?) that fought against the redcoats could easily have been considered terrorists by the british crown. They did not wear uniforms and they did not fight in a way that was considered fair for the time. While the British troops would line up our troops would hide and ambush. It was a smart move by our troops because the methods of warfair back then were silly. But they were considered the proper methods of war. If the criteria for being called a terrorist is the targeting of civilians then where does that leave the US government with Hiroshima and Nagisaki? It is my belief that the word terrorist has been so loosely used by this Administration that we now have a gray area on what is a terrorist. Are the 9/11 hijackers terrorists? I most certianly would say so. Is the Iraqi doing what ever he can to stop the US a terrorist? I'm not so sure, even if he doesn't wear a uniform, even if he uses roadside bombs. The word terrorist has lost it's meaning since 9/11 and has now been redifined to mean anyone that fights against the US unfortunatly the fear and passion that the word draws out in people has remained the same. Now this word is being used to manipulate people into supporting Bushes agenda because as long as we are fighting "terrorists" then anyone who stands against this action is an unpatriotic american hating liberal who wants our troops to die. So I have a problem with people using this word now days. There should be a law like Godwin's Law but dealing with the word terrorist instead afterall it is being used to generate the same fear and passion that the word Nazi used to.