the end of road map
 

was there ever any hope to the road map to peace

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3170115.stm

hell no and any one who thinks that george w has the ability to broker any peace deal is a fool

so my question to you is can peace be achived in the middle east

if so how and if not how do we close our eyes to death and distruction

Not until you've dragged out and shot every person (israeli and palestinian) who belives that their god gives them the right to kill people over that piece of worthless land.

To me, it seems that Israel likes to make everyone believe they'll work for peace, but at the last minute, they'll blow it to all hell. Sharon has done a lot to piss of the Palestinians and vise versa. I think we should just get the hell out of that area and let'm do whatever. I don't think we should spend however many billions of dollars to support a gov't that doesn't really seem to want to make peace. What does Israel think...ya, let's kill one of their senior members, and that won't piss'm off, and the rest of the Palestinian people either.

The problem with this is that it is an unfair fight now because we have invested so much money into Israel. I really don't know how to fix the problem over there. It has just blown up so far that it seems like there is no end. The terror groups need to stop and Israel needs to pull out of ALL Palestinian territories. Will either side do that? No, probably not.

we're back to square one now. looks like isreali tanks are movin back to their earlier positions.

there is no way peace can be achieved because one man's (or woman's) action can throw away the entire mediating process.

somebody blows something up, isreal retaliates, back to square one.


i think it's time for the US to get out of involvement in the area cuz it simply is not gonna work! Stop aiding both sides and the only thing to do is condone inhumane acts by both sides.

I'm not gonna touch this one with a ten-foot pole... :)

let them at it, last man-woman standing wins

There may eventually be peace in the Middle East, but peace never lasts. Human's resort to violence when we cannot achieve what we want by other means. So while this conflict may one day come to an end it won't be the end of violence in the Middle East.

That being said, it is in the U.S., U.N. and indeed the world's best interest that we try to find a solution. The Palestinians made a move in the right direction, by cutting the power of Arafat. He is an angry and bitter man who has spent most of his life at war and really knows little else. Now, the Israelies have Sharon, who is their version of Arafat. He is an angry and bitter man who has spent most of his life at war and really know little else.

Most Middle East experts predicted an increase in violence if Sharon was elected and obviously they were correct. Now, Israel has every right to choose who they wish to be their leader, but (IMO) until Sharon goes, there is no chance for peace.

It's funny how all this death is in the name of God. What assholes. Who the fuck cares what God you believe in, just let the other guy believe as he wishes. No end to it until there is an end to the religous funda"MENTAL"ist. God told then to do it. How can you defend against that until they realize they are living a fraud.

That makes two of us.

Does anyone even give a fuck anymore?

It's like watching two retard kids who won't stop touching the hot stove.

Let both sides rot, I can't be bothered to care anymore...

Well, Israel's claim to that specific piece of land is religious. God told them it was theirs, apparently. Are they funda"mental"ists and therefore the problem as well?

I believe religion has very little to do with the problem as it stands today. Remember, for centuries Arabs and Jews lived on that land, side by side, as Palestinians.

This death is in the name of oppression, all that's different is which side of the fence (pun intended) you're on.

SLM3

i'd love to talk about this but i don't know how. anything i write ends up looking like i'm antisemetic or anti-arab.

i guess the safe thing i can say is the UN better get off its ass and put its money where its mouth is, because for many obvious reasons the US has no credibility to the arab-palestinian and arab-israeli populace. i wonder, has the UN tried to do anything there?

I've heard it said that the UN has tried to do something but the US consistently vetoes the efforts.

THats probably because the U.N. hates Israel, so obviously we are going to try and help them out as we should. Whether you people realize it or not Israel is a very strategic ally, espcially now with the war on terror. I don't like people blaming this on Bush, you sound retarded, cause Clinton nor Carter have had any more success. Basically we jsut need to left Israel loose, that is the only way to end this.

they haven't been "loose" for the last 50 years?


SLM3

The problem about the UN and Israel is that since Israel (most likely) has nuke-capabilities which is a "I don't need to listen to what the UN says"-card. And they play it every chance they get. And as said before the vetos from the US isn't exactly helping either.

The problem with Palestine is that theres no authority to make demands on or negotiate with. Maybe you should pardon Saddam and put in charge there, he would be capable of getting the militant groups under control and then you would at least have someone with authority to talk to and hold responsible. That's the good thing about having a strong dictator, very few loose guns (see Iraq).

No they have not. 5 times in the last half century the Arabs have picked a fight with Israel, everytime Israel wiped the floor with them. I am suprised at how much restraint Israel has for the Palestinians seeing as to them could obliterate them in about 2 weeks time.

So is it seriously your contention that Israel has always been the victim of attack and never the aggressor?

Could you list those 5 occurences?


SLM3

Well, the fact that one side makes terroristic strikes against civilians and the side make tactical military strikes against militants...

Makes the decision pretty easy from me...for the US to be in a "global war on terror" its really hypocritical for us to stay out of the conflict

Is it therefore hypocritical for you to have participated in terror as well?


SLM3

Buh? Israel only once instigated an armed conflict. That was when Egypt was amassing its Army to the South of Israel's borders. Lets see how much restraint you show when someone is breathing down your neck...

Dont forget it was the UN that recognized Israel. In the curent day due to the fact that there are Arab countries that are a part of the UN your probably right about certain members hating Israel. Just becuase you didnt go into details about the issue I'll make an assumption if Im way off please excuse me as I dont mean disrespect nor do I want to put words in your mouth.

Im assuming that your referring to the numerous resolutions drawn against Israel, a majority of which most UN members see them being in violation of (probably one of the reasons Iraq's violation wasnt taken seriously--just a guess though).

Im fairly sure you've researched the history so no need to go into that, but in looking at the resolutions drawn against them; which do you think were/are completely unreasonable and show a obvious dislike or antisemetic view. I think something to consider (even though a certain forum member strongly disagrees) I see a major difference between being anti-semetic and being against the Zionist philosophy.

Yee-haw!

Round 'em all up in cattle cars! That'll solve the problem!

:hmm: :rolleyes: :( :confused:

wow debaser every thing was going quite civilly untill that last comment i wish you all the best in your defence

good luck mate

So much that I had to disengage from following the events because it starting disrupting my mindset.

Your totally entitled to your opinion Im no one to say its right or wrong, but its MHO that while the current scenerio is located there; I believe that this is a problem that will eventually be affecting everyone reguardless of where they live.

i'm impressed by how civil this conversation is going. barring random "let god sort'em out" comments.

isn't the fact israel exists largely due to the UN, aren't they RESPONSIBLE for putting some effort into protecting the israeli and palestinian borders? wouldn't it help if it wasn't always a jew or muslim keeping the peace?

I obviously don't know for sure; but its my belief that the US; along with Israel prevents the notion of any neutral peacekeeping forces there.

THe are allot of factors that seem to show the UN for what it is. The observation of countries like Iraq and Lybia heading humans rights and disarmament is often made. They're obvious valid points. I look at it from an outside point of view and see 60 years of resolutions drawn against Israel with the US vetoing every one of them. Ones that still hold violations are simply ignored. I wont comment on this picture being right or wrong; its not good news, its not bad news; its just the news. I wonder why the act is played out or what hopes are to be accomplished; possibly someday the UN might be a real thing. . . only time will tell.

Lobbying is where some of the power is at, or maybe even a little more

I would have to agree with debaser on this. There's nothing we can do now. It's too late. The sad thing is I can see the cycle of violence beginning in Iraq too. The whole damn thing just isn't going to end. It's sad.

There is a serious problem that anti-Zionism is too readily associated with anti-semitism. Thats wrong. I have an Iranian friend who hates Israel. And yet, he enjoys learning about the cabbala (it was Evangelion-inspired, but oh well) and has deep respect for certain fringe Jewish thinkers like Rabbi Cohen. Personally Israel pisses me off most of the time, but I don't hate Jews. The anti-semitism card is far too readily used by certain factions to manipulate people into thinking "if I don't support Israel that makes me a Nazi." That's just dodgy logic.

Israel has it bad. It's obvious they don't want to be an occupying force, but everytime they ease up some asshole Arab kills 20 people in a bus bombing. Then after the fact the U.N. "urges" restraint by Israel, fuck that. Every nation has the right to defend its people, Israel should be no different.

Israel has just as much blood on their hands. Why is it that when a Palestinian militant blows something up it's "Terrorism," but when Israel bulldozes homes and kills innocent settlers, it's "defending its people."

Israel never instigates, they only act in reprisal. Besides you could argue that those in the houses they bull doze aided the terrorists, so fuck em'.

Maybe he can't/won't, but I can:

1948
1956
1967 (Six Day War)
1973 (Yom Kipper War)
Lebenon (sorry, don't know the year off the top of my head)

The saddest part is that if the Palestinians had accepted the proposed British partition in 1948, they would have had their own state then.

But even up to the latest peace proposals where they had a real chance for a homeland (1992), they have rejected peace, instead continuing to fight to rid Palestine of the Zionists.

The Six Day war was self defense.

Egypt, Syria, Jordan, they all weren't just going for a leisurely Sunday drive to the Israel boarder by coincidence.

I believe that's what I said.

Bah, I misunderstood.

Mojo, just stop. Sometimes the posts are just making headaches here. Its always someones fault and it can't be the U.S. or its allies right?

Its obvious the fuckups there have affected the world.

if anything it has started the course the U.s. has gone on recently.

Its your choice to ignore the actions there but believe me, it will bite you in the ass sooner or later, and the more you piss of those who who go to the extreme (any side can), the more likely you will see shit hit the fan.

I wonder about your perspective concerning the 1973 war. Sadat had made numerous attempts at peace with Israel just prior to 1973. In February 1971, Sadat offered a full peace treaty on the pre-June 1967 borders, with security guarantees, recognized borders, etc. This attempt at peace cause panic within Israel and was immediately turned down. What's funny is this offer was more generous than the one Sadat made in 1977, when he was decalred a "man of peace". Jordan followed suit with an offer to recognize Israel and this too was ignored. Along with Israel's rejection of Sadat's offer was an increase in the number of "settlements" in the occupied areas.

After Sadat's daring attempt at peace with Israel, he knew he'd be forced to use his military if he was flat out rejected. After Israel shot down 13 Syrian planes while losing just one Israeli plane in September 1973, an editor of an Israeli journal wrote, "This battle will remind our Arab neighbours that they cannot manage their affairs without taking into consideration who is the true master of this region." In October 1973, Sadat made good on his threat. To paint out this confrontation as simply Egypt being the aggressors of a poor, innocent Israel is to be intellectually dishonest.

As someone who was in Lebanon in 1982 when Israel invaded for the second time, I find it insulting that you somehow blame Lebanon for what Israel did there. 20,000 Lebanese, mostly civilians, died during this second invasion. The reckless air raids on Beirut, the support of the Phalange in their massacre at Sabra and Chatila, the torture camp of Al-Khiam, and the list goes on and on. Now I'm not sure whether I can assume you even have an interest in what occured there, considering your misspelling of the country, but if you do actually care then I recommend you read "Pity the Nation" by Robert Fisk. It's highly critical of all sides involved and is easily the best account of what went on there that I've ever read.

I'm also astonished that you blame the Palestinians soley as the ones who have avoided peace. When England and the UN decided to partition the land of the Palestinians, giving 55% to the overwhelming minority, can you seriously blame the Palestinians for resisting? And can you blame them for rejecting the farce of a peace plan introduced in the 90's? Have you even seen a map of the proposed Palestinian state as it emerged from those talks? A number of small clumps of land, all sperated from each other and sorrounded by Israel on all sides. You'll have to excuse me if I don't jump up and down for joy at that prospect.

Ya know, no one in this conflict is innocent, but if you don't atleast know some of the history then it's ok to just say so and bow out instead of making broad generalizations with no basis in fact and history.

Thanks for sharing, SLM3. It's pretty rare that someone's perspective on these matters are based on personal experience and historical detail.

Israel invaded because 1)Hezbollah/other terrorist factiosn/the PLO were stirring shit up from within Lebanon 2) The Maronites wanted them there.

Come back and talk to me when you can stop being condescending and insulting.

i must come to slm3's defense

you did spell lebanon incorrectly and your arguements have been a little scarce on the historical content front

im not attacking you here i just want to hear your defence to his comments before you both go running to the mods

First off, there is no defense using a spelling error as a debate tool. (I note that I also spelled Yom Kippur wrong. You also spelled 'arguments' incorrectly as well as failing to capitalize and use proper punctuation. So what?)

Second, what 'arguments' are you referring to?

I presented one straightforward answer to the straightforward question,


If SLM wants to debate who was the aggressor and/or ultimately responsible in any of those five instances, then let him present his case. I however, won't bother debating with someone who can't do it without condescension or insults.

And lastly, you don't ever have to worry about me running to the mods.

it was the list of dates i found to be vague

your argument would have been more poignant if the dates had been backed by some form of foot note

everone loves a good footnote

the real benefit of this forum is the educational value of the well constructed arguments

1948*- "Civil" War erupts after state of Israel is founded. Israel goes ape shit on Palestinians killing several thousand, making numerous territorial gains, as well as displacing tens of thousands Palestinian refugee's

1956- Arab Leauge of Nations moves against Israel, Israel cleans house

1967- Israel pre-emptively moves against Syria, Jordan, and Egypt after Suez Canal is closed and Egypt begins amassing its army to the south of Israel's borders

1973- Sadat attempting to force Israel to sign cease-fire/peace accord attacks Israel on its holy day (yom kippur), Israel struggles first 3 days, then they again make huge gains and mop the floor with the arabs.

1982- Israel moves into Lebanon to deal with PLO/Hezbollah terrorist activity. (ALso I think Syria was somehow involved in this conflict).

There are your foot notes :D

I honestly do not know how to solve this thing. But then again, I'm not an expert of all the goings on over there, so like Dragonlich and sixate, I ain't touchin this with a ten foot pole.

Go to this link
http://www.msnbc.com/news/801833.asp?0cv=CB10


On the left side of the page, down a little theres an interactive presentation titled: Israel and the Palestinians- A Conflict Guide, click on: A history of Jewish Settlements, it provides the pictorial walk through that Mojo is refering to.

Issues over history, religious right, and so on are secondary. (minus the extremists such as the ones that see the entire land known as Israel is really Palestine and vs versa)

It gives me the thought of wondering (using America as an example) if the Native Americans fought back (they did actually) as western expansion happened were they terrorists? Im sure there were some "innocent" settlers butchered by Indians, so were they savage terrorists for doing so? Is this just a matter of anthropolgy: the ones with the biggest guns is whos really right. I dont think relatives of those killed on buses or a from a missle see it that way.

IMHO that this boils down to the occupied areas of the 67 war. Im not even refering so much to the Israeli occupying forces themselves, but the settlements. Its no question that the Arab populus lost land with the war. Just like everyone else down through the ages of history; thats called conquest and its a fact of life. The Palestinians were given internationally recognized land with borders which they had to deal with. When settlements began popping up in those areas, is when friction was taken up a notch.

Its said by Israel that they must maintain the occupation for security reasons. Aside from that being right or wrong; its a valid reason; neutraly speaking. The settlements are entirely different. What messege do you think is being sent to the Palestinians in that Jewish settlements are increasingly appearing in their areas? These settlements have the full protection of the Israeli military.

A few abandoned posts were dismantled, same with a small number of smaller settlements. New ones were going up after them. Sharon has stated he will decrease settlement expansion. "Decrease"? What about stopped all together and any settlement in those areas dismantled completely? I dont understand what the relation is in settlement dismantelization (is that a word?) and the underlying security.

**Just a side note on a personal level. THese are things as I see them, I not stating this as "the way" or what everyone else should be believing. Im not attemtping to give a history lesson either. The things I state are as Ive interpeted in my study of history and personal visits to Israel.

They've dismantled some of the more controversial settlements, and I think they have halted the expansion of new ones.

They dismantled a few trailer parks filled with settlers who really wouldn't have put up much of a fight. The controversial ones, whole communities filled with Zioniist extremists who shoot first, ask questions later, weren't even approached.

I was amazed months ago when the cease fire was announced and actually carried out. However, as soon as I saw this pathetic interpretation of Israel's responisibilty to start taking down the settlements, I knew the cease fire wouldn't last.

You touched on some very good points Sun Tzu.

SLM3

Are you from the region SLM3?

Well, my grandfather owned a house in Haifa where 3 of my 4 uncles were born. When Israel was created he sent them and my Grandmother to the Bekaa in Lebanon. He stayed in the house until he was forced out by Israeli soldiers. We actually still have the deed to the house. A lot of Palestinians have kept the keys to their front doors. My father was born the next year in Lebanon.

I've been fortunate enough to visit Lebanon quite frequently. I was there in 82 and also in the 90's when fighting would flare up. I was there most recently this summer. I actually met up with a man who lives in Sabra and he took me on a personal tour of both Sabra and Chatila. I met several people there, took a bunch of pictures, and got to see the mass graves. It was an incredibly moving experience. I blame both Israel and Lebanon for the conditions these people live in. It's totally inexcusable. I also visited the border with Israel and spoke with several Hezbollah who were part of the resistance in the 80's during the invasion. It is an unnervingly calm place down there.

I'll stop there but if you guys are interested I'll be happy to put up some pictures of the refugee camps, the border, as well as Al-Khiam (famous prison constructed when Israel invaded). Let me know!


SLM

I think both sides need to forget the past and think about the future. You cant bring back the dead, and recrimination solves NOTHING.

The real way to solve the problem, however, is to just have everyone back off the two states for a year or two. Let them do what they have to do. Have no one step in.They'll continue with their pointless killing. After a while their people may wake up and take charge of their own fate. That or they will end up like Liberia, begging for outside intervention.

For example im pretty sure Arafat didnt give a rat's ass about help from the US or UN... until his compound was surrounded by tanks and bulldozers... all of a sudden he demands assistance? His people getting killed and blowing themselves up doesnt mean a thing, but as soon as his life is in danger "ok, hold on, time-out!"?

Don't get me wrong though... both side's leaders need to go. They need to finish that fense and have a neutral force patrol the borders. Each side stays to themselves. If someone on the palastinian side has a job on the Israel side and can't get there... oh well. If someone on the Israel side has a job on the palestine side and cant get there.. oh well. If a palestinian lives on the Israel side and doesnt feel comfortable.. move.. dont want to move?.. oh well, deal with it. If an Israeli lives on the Palestinian side and doesnt feel comfortable.. move.. dont want to move?.. oh well, deal with it.

For all those that still want to fight after that we can build a little sandbox in the middle of the two countries. If you feel the need to blow yourself up, strap on some explosives, we'll throw a flag from the country of your choice into the sand box, and you can blow yourself up. If you feel the need to roll over a house with a bulldozer, we'll give you a bulldozer and you can drive around in circles in the sandbox running over sheds and doll houses.

I think hes been asking for a long time, but the reality is what good is it? Let's go back 200 years up to this point. I think most would like to think the world has progressed.

It has in allot of ways (I think). The Berlin Wall coming down, the end of the African Aparteid, even the recent US aid to Africa for combating HIV. THe US stepped in when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and a couple of other events. The general point is it would appear the world is going to aid in generalized suffering and not allow further conquest unless it WWIII. The current boundries are drawn; the map is set. Except there; and again the settlements. Why are they still there? Many have disgreed with me on this point, but if Israel would get out of areas that they shouldnt be in; like yesterday IMHO 95% of this would end. (excluding the radicals on both sides that see the whole area as theirs)

Sharon has no intention of going anywhere; why? They would have already moved.

The attitude of letting both sides go at it doenst factor in when the US is backing the Israeli arsenal. (Im not stating thats right or wrong, but simply the hundreds of millions that Americans are giving to Israel makes that impossible.

The missile strick last week was a bad move IMO.

As an American it may seem hypocritical to say this, but I think the Isrealis need to simply take the terrorism for some time as they continue to work towards peace. Now obviously, they can police and do whatever safety meassures they need, but missile strikes from a helicopter are extreme to the point that they only continue the blood bath.

The intended targets for that strike got away anyways. If they knew the location of the targets, why not share their intelligence with the Palastinian authority and arrest the targets, and show that they're willing to take this seriously instead of following their tactics of the past.

Whether right or wrong that would be a hard road for anyone to take, especially for those directly affected. The answer is straightforward; I want to know what the intentions are for not making it happen.

I'm sorry, I don't really mean they should just take it - but scale back military actions. They should be combining intelligence and cooperating with the Palastinians. Luanching missiles kills innocents, same with shelling households where a 7 year old girl was killed today.

This sounds insane, the Israeli's have a responsiblity to protect their people. Firing hell fire missles at cars might not be the smartest move to do, but hey its taking out the brass that promotes the terrorism and its telling those fuckers that they aren't going to back down.

Working with the PA doesn't work, the PA is affiliated with Yassar and he is one of the fucks that keeps this shit going on. Israel really needs to axe that guy, that'd prolly help some of the problems.

I mispoke, they shouldn't simply back down and take terrorism. I simply mean that they should just be more precautionary as to avoid spilling more innocent blood, and to bolster cooperation with the Palastinian Authority in joint measures against terrorism.