Palestinian Leaders Find Yet Another Reason to Balk

[Skunk]

So what your saying is that if the criminal can hang on to the stolen goods long enough, we should just say forgive and forget??? What kind of a justice system is that?

In any event, a degree of realism has to be shown. Clearly the the terms of Sharon's plan will throw the roadmap for peace into the nearest ditch and cause yet more Palestinians to launch even more attacks.

Look, anyone who acts as an arbitrator between two disputing parties knows that a settlement will not come unless both parties are willing to make equal concessions. In this case, Israel makes no concessions and Palestine is required to give up everything to the point that it will not be viable to exist. It simply won't work and won't be accepted.

I'm surprised that I have to point this out to you.

[Timber Loftis]

Sorry, but the way I see it, Israel is making concessions. In fact, my point was that Palestine wants 100%, which I see as an unreasonable thing to expect in a negotiation. Maybe we have a different understanding of the facts. Didn't Bush simply acknowledge that while Israel will give back most of the land it won't give back all the land? To me, that sounds like a concession on Israel's part. In fact, what is Palestine offering other than peace?

Oh, and I just had a thought -- if Palestine as a state/group can offer up a Mid-East peace, that means they have some control over the spigot of suicide bombers. Why, then, would it be wrong to hold the Palestinians as a state/group guilty when a bomb goes off on a bus? If they have the control, isn't it their fault? Just a thought -- I'm working with it, we'll see where it goes.

Oh, you mentioned justice again. As I said, justice is not what drives negotiation. It is an argument among many you can make, but it doesn't drive the thing.

[ 04-16-2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Skunk: So what your saying is that if the criminal can hang on to the stolen goods long enough, we should just say forgive and forget??? What kind of a justice system is that?

Oh, and also -- just for shits and giggles -- go do a google search on the law of "Adverse Possession." It will open your eyes. Under the law, if you go squat on a piece of land for long enough, it's yours. There are conditions you must meet, but the law actually does provide for this. And, it's law going back to old English common law, so I bet it's still the law in England, as it is in the U.S.

[pritchke]

I love the way they word these articles. While Timber is correct that wanting 100% of all lands returned is unreasonable. I would like to know, how much land is being offered? 90%, 80%, 50%, then there is the question of value of the land. Sharon could be saying "Here take these patches of sand while we retain the oasis, may you choke on the dirt you have to drink". Sharon is a no good stinking pig who has no problem killing babies if they are in the way. I would really like to know what he is offering? This article doesn't tell us very much only that the Palestinians are upset. There may be more to it than meats the eye.

[ 04-16-2004, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Saddam didn't have the might to resist being kicked out. Israel, on the other hand, has the capacity to do whatever the hell it pleases in the region, and has been on the land in some places for 40 years. Oh, and the whole world don't see it as enough of an issue to build a coalition and send troops to kick him out.

That about sums it up. Same situation except Israel has the might to fight back and WMD. This double standard shows why the west is hated and a target of terrorist. As for not being an issue is there any economic value aiding the Palestinian or preventing Israelis from taking more land from them. Probably not.

While I don't agree with terrorism here is the deal, Palestinian farmer works land and gets booted off it by the Israeli army and is left with nothing. Farmer snaps and goes and blows himself up in an Israeli pizzeria, more chance of damaging those who took his land. While it is the innocent that gets hurt the officials who are actually responsible are much less likely to be accessible so he attacks the only way he feels he can get revenge. In the end he gains nothing but he really probably doesn't have much to lose so he doesn't care and isn't thinking straigt anymore anyway. The Israeli response is take some more farmers lands, kill a few children accidentally in the process, creating a few more terrorist. World turns a blind eye because Israeli is to powerful to stop, probably because they buy so many weapons from the US boosting that economy. Now we have the situation of today were Palestinian terrorist blowing themselves up are the norm. What a fine situation we are now in. So much hatred on both sides they might as well let them all kill each other.

I don't sympathize with terrorist but I do sympathize with individuals who have every thing taken from them by an oppressive government. If they can restrain there hatred to not strike back and fight through proper legal channels while difficult, fustrating, and often hopeless than more power to them.

[ 04-16-2004, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Timber Loftis]

On that note, if they are given their own state, they will have a voice in pursuing legal channels. They will have a UN seat. If an Israeli soldier commits attrocities on their land, they can charge him and demand extradition. Even if it's only one square meter, the Palestinians will be well served by having a state. Then, they can legally fight for the other land.

Oh, back to another difference with Israel. Let's remember how this started: it wasn't just taking civilian lands. Israel has armies amassed all around it, a pack of Muslim wolves come to dine on it. It initially took those lands by executing a brilliant pre-emptive strike against impending doom. While I think the "buffer zones" it retained afterword have done the crappiest job of "buffering" ever seen in human history, I just want to point out how it started.

Oh, and it ain't just US military equipment that makes Israel such a force. Israel has some of the best-trained troops in the world, and the will to use them. Other than 1967, I guess the thing that made the world see how brilliantly Israel could execute a counter-terror strike was the Idi Amin/Entebe incident.

[Timber Loftis]

You know, guys, I keep seeing in the news that the Palestinians are demanding to return to lands lost to Israel in 1948. Isn't that ALL of Israel? I think what we may be looking at here is not simply a concern of the "occupied territories" from 1967, but the whole of Israel. It that's the case, it's a STOOOOOOPID demand anyway.

Sharon's plan, by the way, is to disengage from the Gaza. I think we're -- erm, no, sorry -- YOU aren't giving him credit for this. Every journey begins with a single step, and the Gaza is one huge big frikkin step.

[Black Baron]

Pritchke-We are willing to give them more then 90 percent of the land. And the "value of land" is an invalid question.
In 1948 we got negev. Do you know what it was then? Right. biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig (2/3 of the whole israel teritory, including occupied teritories) desert. One "major" city Beer Sheva.
Now it starts to flourish. If they want to make a candy out of it, they can. If these so called "palestinian freinds" want to help them they will manage, believe me.

And the muslim fanatics hate you because you are rich "heretic", and they are poor "faithful".
That is all their reason.


Skunk-all right modern paladin. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

make a proposal of how exactly israel will manage to withdraw from all the territories without commiting economical suicide.

It will cost at the very least 50 billion dollars.

it is our years budjet.

Also, if we talk about "rights, honesty, justice", a lot of arab countries owe a lot of jews money. When they went from those countries, their property was confiscated.

And we talk here about lots of property.

If you will choose to do it justly, you will never manage to do anything at all.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Davros: It just sounds like you are saying we should negotiate to appease agressors TL. The argument that they guys have been occupying the land that is not rightfully theirs for a while now so why not give it to them is a "might is right" one. Do I think that Palestine have been doing the right thing in this endless headache either - no. Do I think that the US taking this stance is going to stop another endless stream of desperate suicide bombers into Israel - no. Do I have a solution - no. Is this stab at the ouija board by GW going to make things worse - yes.

Sometimes you have too, This world is governed by the use of force, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE USE OF FORCE IS RIGHT it just mean exactly what I wrote this world is governed by the use of force. Sometimes you must negotiate with the agressor, sometimes you have to wipe the floor with them, sometimes you have to take what ever they give you. Thses are NOT open for moral debate these are cold hard facts of life. No statement is made about the morality of the use of force, only that it is what governs this world.

[Timber Loftis]

Pritchke-We are willing to give them more then 90 percent of the land.

Assuming Black Baron's percentage is correct, that's a huge concession. If the Palestinians aren't willing to negotiate at that level, f@#k em, I say. Refer to my earlier quote about the nature of negotiation.