Following Gaza carnage

[vierundzwanzig]

Following Gaza carnage: Arafat urges Quartet to intervene immediately as U.S. refuses to condemn Israeli acts
21-10-2003, 12:11

Palestinian President Yasser Arafat called on the international community Tuesday to act immediately following Israel's Gaza air strikes a day before, which left 14 Palestinians dead and over 90 injured.

According to Arafat, leaders of the so-called Quartet, who are trying to crystallize a peace treaty between the sides, should intervene immediately to "end the insane actions of the Israeli army in the occupied Palestinian territories".

http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=261515&lang=e&dir=news

[Resistance]

1. the U.S. should condemn the acts as terrorist

They murdered civilians and a doctor, and hit scores of bystanders.

The IDF are terrorists.

[vierundzwanzig]

2. Israel Channel 20

reported that at least in one instance no militants were involved and they were just 'mistaken'.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. The simple solution

Is for the Palestinians to crack down on Hamas and the other thugs. No terrorists, no need for Israel to act.

[liberalhistorian]

5. And what about the illegal settlements

occupying Palestinian land, and the forcible removal of Palestinian families from their farms and their lands so that the settlements, which have no right to be there in the first place, can steal their land, their water sources, their very livelihoods, leaving them homeless and without any recourse? It works both ways, you know.

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. Peace

For there to be peace, the first step must be stopping the terrorists. Perhaps some aspects of the new proposed peace will take hold, but it's pretty ambitious and I don't think it will have wide support.

In the meantime, as long as terrorists operate in the Palestinian areas and are not shut down by the PA, then Israel must act against them.

[edzontar]

12. Muddle: Why do you insist that the Palestinains should "stop first"?

BOTH sides are keeping this going.

And the most serious political obstacle for any peace agreement has to be the --which have been expanding for decades.

What is the INTENT of these settlements, anyway, but to expand Israeli control ever deeper into Palestinain teritory, and ultimately displace and ethnically-cleanse these areas and place them under Israeli control as part of a "Greater Israel'?

This is a large part of what is provoking the terror movements in Palestine.

I would submit that steps need to be taken on both sides to stop this thing, and that the present Israeli regime's insistence that all terror stop BEFORE any real concessions can be made by their side is deliberately calibrated to ake any agreement impossible to begin with, the better to leave the way open for their plan of colonialist expansion and Palestinain mass-exile.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Because that is the only way things will change

The Palestinians need Israel's help to form a state. To do that, they have to prove that they speak with one voice and make war with one voice. So far, they can't even prove that.

Yes, both sides are keeping this going. But the Palestinians are the only ones who can, by one action, stop the violence. That is why this must be first.

You agree, because even you don't think the settlements are the sole cause for the terror. That means, with or without settlements, there will be terror.

If the Palestinians can't stop the terror, then they can't offer a true peace. If that is the case, then Israel is at war either way. Why then should it give ground to its enemy?

[Violet_Crumble]

22. They do NOT need Israels help...

I don't know how many times this needs to be repeated, but there is no need for Israel to give permission for the creation of a Palestinian state. If by help you mean Israel ending its illegal occupation, then yr right, but there is no requirement for anything to happen before they get out. All they have to do is obey the law...

With or without settlements there will be terror? What a load of complete nonsense. This is just another manifestation of the mindset that tries to portray the Palestinians not as people who are pissed off because their land is being occupied, but as raving anti-semites who of course would not react the same way if it was the US or any other nation but Israel carrying out the occupation...


Violet...

[Sesquipedalian]

24. one way or another..

Israel would be better served by actually using the IDF to guard the places where Jews are and Palestinian Arabs aren't rather than try and impose psychological domination on the Palestinian population with it's current tactics if it actually gave a damn about bombers.

It doesn't. It cares about Greater Israel and it shows in every possible way if you have the eyes to see. Israeli's might care, but the government of Israel doesn't.

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. The Real World

In the real world, Israel is in possession of all of that territory and, frankly, won't release some of it no matter how much you or the UN complain.

The UN enforces this "law" selectively. In America, a law that discriminates is ruled void.

Of course, not all the Palestinians are "raving anti-semites," but certainly enough of them are and those have sworn they will destroy Israel, not just retake the territories.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sesquipedalian]

15. like no one ever thought about that before

Like the UN hasn't been issueing their toothless resolutions for fifty years and they haven't been ignored because the weak have no recourse against the strong.

[Gimel]

25. Yes, but terror

...has been the primary tool for decades.

[bluesoul]

26. Terror

Israeli just as much...

[Sesquipedalian]

29. What else do they have going?

Israeli's called it "terrorism" when people with guns tried to come back to Israel and grab either their possessions or their homes the same way the various Jewish militias took them from them in the first place. If that's terrorism then Israel is founded on it.

[Gimel]

45. Not a fact

...only an assumption. If that were true, they wouldn't be blowing up busses and restaurants. That's indiscriminant killing. They would show their legal claim to a court of law, and await justice, just like the rest of us poor slobs do. What gives them the terrorists the right to take the law into their own hands?

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gimel]

56. Only one point

The right of return - since the Palestinian people never had a country now or historically, it's pretty hard to see how this applies to them. It was never an issue during the holocaust.

"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country".

Of course, terrorists give up the right of return. So Israel has a right to stop Palestinians at the border to search for terror suspects.


Israel has granted "Right of Return" to thousands of Palestinians when family unification was involved.

[bluesoul]

57. Countries

Palestinians were there when Israel was not even a country...

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gimel]

27. No, of course not.

That's why there has been a PA since 1993. A legislature and a Police force. Unfortunately, Arafat has not made it his business to control terror. Polls frequently show that a majority of the population do support Hamas and even suicide bombers attacking civilians.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Complaining to the UN achieves so much, right?

In case you haven't noticed, the Palestinians have turned to the UN plenty of times, and most resolutions end being vetoed by the US, or being passed with the end result that Israel ignores it and carries on. Anyway, Hamas isn't the Palestinian people and as such I doubt they'd be a party that could go to the UN with complaints or be a party to any 'solution'. As it is, they acted peacefully when they declared and stuck to a ceasefire for a fair while despite the continued attacks by Israel the entire time...

Violet...

[bluesoul]

20. US role

Until the US foreign policy radically changes and the vetoing of every single resolution aimed at Israel, little can be done..

[Gimel]

28. If Hamas is the problem

and that is clear, why hasn't everyone been urging the international community to rid the Palestinians of the monsterous evil? No, they blame Israel.

[Resistance]

32. The international community

is largely against both Hamas and the Israeli govt. You are the one that pretends like only Hamas is doing something wrong while the GOI is only 'defending' its citizens.

[Gimel]

38. Then no solution

If truly Hamas is more moral, then Israel is to blame and Arafat has won.

[Resistance]

42. could you restate that?

your post doesn't make any sense.

Also, do you think I am arguing that Hamas is the "more moral" side?

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gimel]

64. for example

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=23233&mesg_id=23552&page=

[Sesquipedalian]

6. been done before

It wouldn't matter in the slightest. Well, it would, they could probably get the IDF to quit bombing them if they got really, really, brutal and bombed themselves Israeli style or better. Last time they suited up the PA security forces and had them go beat down and gas the opposition it seemed to impress the Israeli's. Of course that didn't stop settlement, but it did seem to make them feel like they didn't need to keep hounding them with attack helicopters and jets and such.

That's the problem with the whole thing, it's framed in terms of violence. If no Palestinians are dying no one sees a problem at all. They just exist as sub-human untermench with no political or human rights under their Israeli overlords and no one notices.

You really think that situation would change if the PA or whatever gave Hamas the beatdown you want to see them get? Ariel Sharon and the Knesset of religious maniacs and ultra-nationalists who make Hamas look damn near sane are suddenly going to want to dismantle their lifes work creating Greater Israel because the Palestinians surrender and become their own enemies?

Maybe if you ran Israel that might be so. I think to imagine that this thing is about "terrorism" is naive in the extreme. There was certainly no terrorism when they began settlement so there is no logical reason to imagine that ending it would end settlement.

[liberalhistorian]

7. Exactly!

Couldn't have said it better myself!

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. Stopping terrorists is just the first step

But it must be the first step. Until that happens, Israel has no reason to work with the Palestinians because they are not offering peace.

As an aside, nothing makes Hamas look sane. Scary that you think so though.

[Sesquipedalian]

11. so what's the next step?

Wait around for this imaginary benevolant Israeli government to bestow a nation on them? What's happening will continue to happen they will "re-classify" these people and exile them to refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt. That's obviously what will happen, it's what's been happening for fifty years now.

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. Peace agreement

The next step AFTER the Palestinians shut down the terror is to work out a peace agreement. Oddly enough, the more the Palestinians do to stop terror, the more they will gain. Instead, they ignore it and every day lose ground, quite literally.

[Sesquipedalian]

14. been done before also

Israel just ramped up settlement in response. They may as well go down fighting because they are going down one way or another.

[edzontar]

17. Right on!!!!!

But you are barking at the moon in this context..

There is no even remote possibilty that any rational argument can convince some of the knee-jerk Palestine blamers on this board that Israel has ever done ANYTHING to make it complicit in the present situation, since their arguments are ultimately derived from notions of divine sanction and racial-religious superiority to the AY-RABS---who should know that the only way to peace is to bow down before the godly majesty of their superiors and accept their divinely-decreed place as second-class citizens of the world.

Onlt then they will have established themselves as DESERVING and WORTHY of the self-determination that old-fashioned documents like our Constitution and Bill of Rights proclaim to be the INALIENABLE RIGHTS of all humankind.

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. You are so wrong

It is the pro-Palestinian posters who expect so little out of the Palestinians. I expect that the Palestinians don't really want to support terror and, if they were better led, would indeed stop it.

Were that the case, they would be likely partners in peace.

I think either group is superior to the other, I just think Israel is in a superior moral, political and tactical position.

[bluesoul]

23. Morality

Morally, never..

[Resistance]

31. Gee I am so surprised

- I'm surprised that Muddle would make excuses for Israeli terrorism against Palestinians:

"No terrorists, no need for Israel to act."

"as long as terrorists operate in the Palestinian areas ... then Israel must act against them."

Excuses, excuses. It seems that every time there is a terrorist act against Palestinians, there's Muddle quick to jump in and start defending the terrorism.

Somebody could say the same things in defense of Hamas, such as "no occupation, no need for Hamas to act", or "as long as Israel murders civilians, steals land, and demolishes homes ... then Hamas must act against them" -- But, you don't see those excuses much around here, and when you occasionally do, most everyone quickly reminds the person that there is no excuse for terror.

Now why is it that Muddle must rush to the defense of Israeli terrorism, and we all seem to think it is any different from defending Hamas or I.J. terrorism?

It's not different. There is no excuse for murdering civilians, and in carelessly doing so, the IDF proves themselves to be just as terrorist as Hamas.

[Sesquipedalian]

33. State terror has it's own fans

the more militant apparatchik's without deviation always approve of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki terror attacks or the Dresden terror attacks.

It's terror bombing without a proper national identity that causes consternation.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. Hamas defines occupation as the existence of Israel

So as long as they exist, Israel remains at war with such creatures.

You have a sad sense of moral relativism. If Israel ignores the terrorists, then they kill Israeli civilians. If Israel goes after the terrorist, then it is wrong. Boy, you must be fond of the police in this nation as well.

Hamas DELIBERATELY locates in civilian areas. The Palestinian leadership won't go after them and that gives Israel no choice but to do so.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberalhistorian]

40. I don't doubt that the majority of Hamas and

Hezbollah members do not want Israel to be a state, period, and I'm certainly not at all saying that that is right. But you seem to be equating all Palestinians with Hamas, Hezbollah, and similar groups which is, I suppose, understandable in a way, but very inaccurate.

Most Palestinians, however, are not members of terrorist groups and they just want their own state where they can live in peace. If Israel has the right to be a state, then so do the people who were there first all along and who were displaced when Israel began to be settled after WWII.

Hamas, Hezbollah, and similar groups are not synonymous with all Palestinians, just like the Israeli government is not synonymous with all Israelis.

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. Hamas is not all Palestinians

It does not equate. But until the Palestinians have a leadership that does NOT allow the terrorists to speak for them, then that is precisely what they do.

You are saying what Israel must do to gain peace, but then you admit that peace is not truly being offered Israel. Given that, why should Israel even discuss the topic?

[liberalhistorian]

59. Exactly where and how did I say that

"peace is not truly being offered Israel?" I did not say that, nor did I mean to imply it in the least.

[Muddleoftheroad]

62. It is what you said

Here you go:

"Hezbollah members do not want Israel to be a state, period, and I'm certainly not at all saying that that is right. But you seem to be equating all Palestinians with Hamas, Hezbollah, and similar groups which is, I suppose, understandable in a way, but very inaccurate."

So what about a peace treaty cramps the style of these groups?

[liberalhistorian]

66. Again, you are equating

Hamas, Hezbollah, etc., with ALL Palestinians, which simply is not right. You also conveniently omitted the part of my post that said that the majority of Palestinians desperately want their own nation where they can live in peace. Hamas and Hezbollah are beyond the control of the PA, they operate on their own and answer to no one but themselves.

[Muddleoftheroad]

70. I do NOT equate terrorists with all Palestinians

But terrorists are a subset of the Palestinian people. To make peace with the Palestinians requires peace with the terrorists, but that is impossible. So the only option is to eliminate them, something the PA will not even attempt.

[edzontar]

30. Since you replied....

The use of "morally" in your sentence only tends to confirm what I posted before.

From exactly where, in your view, does the supposed "moral" superiority of the Israelis derive?

From their crushing occupation and systematic policy of land-stealing and population removal. backed up by guns, bombs, and barbed-wire?

The immorality of the terror-attacks against Israel almost never seems to be in doubt for anyone on this baord.

But Israeli killings are excused as "responses," as "reprisals," or aas "self-defense," when what is really being defended is an illegal and cruel occupation and expansion.

Sadly, there are many who consider the killing of Palestinain children to be morally less reprehensible than the killing of Israeli children.

Especially if it is the name of GREATER ISRAEL.

This is a familiair cnsequence of war, which is why brave leaders like Dr. King opoosed violence as a both a tactic and as a solution to problems.

Read some of the things written by your avatar on this subject--you might learn something.

[The Magistrate]

44. The Problem, Mr. Zontar

Lies in what Mr. Muddle pointed out in his title-line above: Hamas, et al, define the existence of Israel itself as illegal occupation. There is ample reason to believe that, for most of their existence, so have the various secular groups now represemted in the Palestine Authority, and though there have certainly been signs that these may have altered that view recently, it is understandable if some are not convinced of a change of heart. Certainly for the first decades of Israel's existence, it was the unanimous view of all Arab parties to this conflict that the very existance of Israel was illegal occupation.

This means that there is no particular reason for Israelis to feel that any concession or compromise or accomodation on their part will result in even a dimunition of the attacks against them, but rather that they will continue so long as Israel exists. There is no reason for anyone to believe the attacks of Hamas, et al, certainly, would cease, if Israel were to withdraw entirely from the lands over-run in '67. If Israel did that, it might well reduce greatly popular support among the people of Arab Palestine for such actions, but they would cease only if those organizations were broken. Even the recent "Geneva" proposals envision disbandment of all irregular armed organizations as being a duty of the proposed state of Arab Palestine.

So long as these organizations exist, and act as they do, Israeli military action cannot easily be dismissed as merely defending "an illegal and cruel occupation and expansion," but must be acknowledged as defending the people of Israel and the state itself. Unless, of course, one agrees that the existance of Israel itself constitutes an illegal and cruel occupation.

Morality is, in my view, best left out of serious discussion of war, which is a naked test of force and wit resorted to when reason fails all parties to a dispute. There are two grounds that seem worth consideration where casualties to non-combatants, of any age, are concerned. The first is whether there is any legitimate military purpose to the action in which they are struck; the second is whether the attack can have any result useful to an obtainable national object. The overwhelming preponderance of casualties to Israeli non-combatants are the result of attacks mounted with the sole immediate objective of causing casualties to non-combatants: the great majority of casualties to Arab Palestinian non-combatants are the result of attacks mounted with the immediate objective of killing Arab Palestinian combatants. This distinction is important, and in an on-going conflict cannot be swept under the rug. The second question is more difficult to assess, and tends to reflect poorly on both parties. It is certainly an obtainable national objective for Israel to cripple the power of the irregular bodies that assail it; it is questionable whether their current methods of doing so make real progress toward that goal. It is also an obtainable national objective for the people of Arab Palestine to obtain for themselves a state, but it is questionable indeed whether the methods currently employed by the armed militant bodies make any real progress toward that goal. The destruction of Israel is not an obtainable national goal, however, and any action aimed toward that is wholly futile, and therefore, by my view, utterly illegitimate.

[edzontar]

48. I don't really disagree with you....

And completely accept your characertization of Hamas.

But despite this, some sort of peace agreement has to be made, and it seems to me that dismantling settlements and lifting most of the occupation might at least help move things in that direction.

What is going on now is only strengthening the Hamas position, And while the upper hand may belong to Israel right now, this might not be the case 2 or 3 generations from now, when some nihilistic griup gets their hands on a bomb and blows the whole place to kingdom come.

I would argue that some gesture of real relief in the territiories would at least TREND in the right direction..right now, the Israeli clampdown is SO intense that no one can move, and Hamas is becoming more popular than ever.

But I fear that a significant faction in Israel is planning to take over the entire area, or at least significant parts of it, and will move to drive the Palestinians out. These fanatics also benefit from the present situation, since they can point to terroriism as an excuse to discredit all Palestinian claims(which they deny in any case).

[Muddleoftheroad]

55. No it does not

Peace under these conditions does NOT have to be made. For Israel to give in now and get nothing in return will merely embolden the terror groups to demand more concessions later.

If you fear that Israel will take over the area, then why do you not advocate that the Palestinians do something to result in peace? It is evident to all here that Israel wants the terror stopped and that is a pre-condition to peace. Why do the Palestinians persist in NOT choosing that option?

[edzontar]

60. If Israel ONLY wants peace...then WHAT

Are the SETTLEMENTS all about?

That is expansion--NOT peace-making!!!!!

Putting a quarter of a million Israeli settlers in occupied Palestinain land--now THAT's a really PEACEFUL thing to do.

You NEVER address the REASON for these settlements..gee. I wonder why--could it be because you SUPPORT THE MOVEMENT FOR A GREATER ISRAEL?

If so, then just come out and SAY it--and admit you are OPPOSED TO PEACE...OR admit that the settlements are an obstacle to peace, you cannot have it both ways.

[Muddleoftheroad]

65. Actually, I have said before

I consider most of the settlements a negotiation ploy, nothing more. I would trade all but Jerusalem for a real peace. I wouldn't trade Jerusalem.

[edzontar]

67. I don't think Jerusalem will be "traded"

It will be divided into zones, more or less corresponding to the present demographics.

As far as "bargaining chips," I doubt that many of the SETTLERS see it that way--they are there for keeps, and the Israeli Gov. would have a hard time moving them wthout using force, if Sinai is any indication.

[Sesquipedalian]

71. none of this is going to happen at all

It wouldn't matter what the Palestinians did, they could all sit in a circle and chant "I love Israel" until they died of a hunger strike. They will never get anything out of Israel but walking papers.

[Muddleoftheroad]

72. Sure

That's why Israel has peace now with Egypt and Jordan.

[Sesquipedalian]

80. The Egyptians can fight back

the Palestinian's can't, that's the only difference. When they thought Egypt couldn't fight back they didn't make peace. Jordan is a joke, you may as well say they made peace with Britain.

[Muddleoftheroad]

82. Wow, that is something

Yes, Egypt can fight back. So it seems could Jordan. Ask the Palestinians about that one. And yes, the Palestinians too can fight back.

[Muddleoftheroad]

73. No and no

No, I don't agree that zones are the way to go. Next year in Jerusalem is more than just a slogan.

As for what the settlers want, too bad. Everyone makes sacrifices and that will be their sacrifice when the time comes.

[Saudade]

83. hahahhaha

"I consider most of the settlements a negotiation ploy, nothing more."

It doesn't matter what YOU consider the settlements (by the way, what do you mean by "most"?); it only matters what the settlement movement and the Sharon government consider the settlements, which is, obviously, de facto permanent annexation of land. This is what it means to "create facts on the ground."

To say that settlements built on land belonging to others are "a negotiation ploy" is like saying that in a property dispute, one party can take property not involved in the dispute "as a negotiation ploy" to gain leverage in settling the dispute. The idea itself is illogical and repulsive.

The goals of the settlement movement are clearly stated by the settlers themselves and their supporters in the Government, and your opinion is not only incredibly naive and nonsensical, but also totally irrelevant.

[dfong63]

43. you are dead wrong

I think either group is superior to the other, I just think Israel is in a superior moral, political and tactical position.

Israel stole Palestinian land and now complains when Palestinians fight back. Israel kills innocent Palestinians and complains when they fight back. Israel says the key to peace is for the Palestinians to stop fighting. of course, whenever the Palestinians do stop fighting, Israel says we have to wait for an undetermined period of time to see if they've really stopped fighting. the period is always long enough to mount more Israeli attacks to to provoke more fighting.

if you were walking down the street, and someone mugged you, wouldn't you fight back with whatever makeshift weapons you happened to have available? what if the mugger complained because you bit him? that's uncivilized. oh, but the mugger sees nothing wrong with his use of a knife and gun.

and you're saying that the mugger is in a "superior moral position".

sheesh.

[Saudade]

86. History

As a matter of historical fact, the last time the Palestinians "stopped fighting," was during Netanyahu's term as PM.

Throughout this period of "peace" (when there was almost no "terrorism" against Israel), Housing Minister Ariel Sharon rapidly accelerated the settlements, both expansion and creation of new settlements.

[Gimel]

84. count my sins

I was born.

I didn't vote for Ariel Sharon.

I live in Israel.

so that's possible 2 out of 3.

[Gimel]

49. Israel would honor

the agreements undertaken in the formula land for peace. It could not do otherwise. If Israel did not honor its agreements, once the PA did it's part, there would be a whole other kind of situation. If Arafat or any President or PM of the PA were to truly persue peace, the peace partner would be there for Israel. There would be progress down the road for peace.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sesquipedalian]

61. like in '93?

or maybe '95 Oslo II where Peres felt comfortable enough to tell a diplomatic meeting that he had "screwed the Palestinians" with the process?

Israel doesn't have to do anything it doesn't want to.

[Gimel]

76. If there was such a comment

...which I sincerely doubt, the Arafat was even more comfortable with his intentions. Maybe someone there needed a hearing aid.

[Sesquipedalian]

81. here..

Subsequent agreements impose still harsher terms of surrender. At Oslo II "we screwed the Palestinians," Peres told the Chinese Ambassador. Explaining the accords to a gathering of ambassadors in Jerusalem, Peres dismissed the idea that the permanent settlement might involve a Palestinian state, emphasizing that "this solution about which everyone is thinking and which is what you want will never happen." Rabin's position was the same. There has been no meaningful departure from the official stand of Israel's Labor-Likud coalition government of 1989, ratified by the Bush administration in the 1989 Baker plan: there will be no "additional Palestinian state in the Gaza district and in the area between Israel and Jordan" (the latter, already a "Palestinian state"), and "no change in the status of Judea, Samaria and Gaza other than in accordance with the basic guidelines of the (Israeli) Government." Oslo I and II established these principles, which have yet to reach the mainstream here.

http://monkeyfist.com/ChomskyArchive/essays/finkelstein_html

Arafat's cowardly acceptance is noted.

on edit: Chomsky attributes that quote to Shalom Yerushalmi, Ma'ariv, October 25, 1995

[Gimel]

34. Arafat urges Quartet to intervene immediately

Why hasn't Arafat demanded that the militant groups be removed from the Palestinian lands? He claims he can't control Hamas, so he lets them continue with the crimes of slaughtering innocent people, from all walks of life, all nationalities and all religions. I would think the world at large would condemn this situation and demand the incarceration of all terrorist leaders and their followers.

Only Israel is acting against this atrocity.

[Resistance]

35. Wrong

Only Israel is blocking international intervention, which has the potential to end the terrorist acts being committed by both sides.

[Gimel]

39. Imposing a solution

...this would not solve the problem. Terrorism would continue despite an international force. Don't be fooled by how nice and neat that "solution" sounds.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberalhistorian]

68. I've been wondering the same thing myself.

One of my posts was deleted, which was surprising because there was nothing on it that warranted deletion, and a lot of the other posts that were deleted didn't seem to warrant it either. So it beats me!

[Resistance]

77. maybe

it is too upsetting to be flat-out wrong? So whining to the mods about the slightest, borderline infraction of the stated rules is the best way to suppress the truth?

Remember, any means necessary.

[bluesoul]

78. Truth hurts

Apparently some are afraid of the truth...

[Aidoneus]

79. an ironic message in itself

a post expressing concern about the large number of deletions itself gets deleted..

With my dark sense of humour I'll applaud such a fine display of irony, but what exactly is the desired result of this?

[Aidoneus]

69. all of the deletions do not help anything

.

[Resistance]

74. no kidding

I spent about 10 minutes on a single post alone, cutting and pasting from the Human Rights Watch page on the Palestinian Right to Return, bolding parts, and snipping other parts, only to find the entire message deleted.

Thanks alot, DU mods. What a waste of time it is to come here and attempt to refute the LIES being spread by some of your members, only to come back and find my posts deleted, I am sure because some crying, sniveling "pro-Israel" poster (we all know what that means) hit an alert and whined about "Waaa, boo-hoo this personal attacked me personally!" when any attack was merely a borderline side-product of showing where the person is completely wrong and ignoring the things that everyone around him/her has been saying.

Why bother coming down here anymore?

[bluesoul]

75. Yeah

Apparently even the truth and facts are offending to some people..

[liberalhistorian]

85. I agree. It seems to me the

Israel-can-do-no-wrong crowd cannot handle even the slightest disagreement. And you're right, why bother? And I think there needs to be a better reason to have a post deleted than just one person hitting the alert button. Maybe there should be a minium number of alerts before any action is taken?

[undergroundrailroad]

87. Locking.

THE MODERATORS AND YOU

Treat the moderators with respect.

Do not post messages attacking the moderators or administrators.

All of the moderators on this discussion board are volunteers. They provide their time and their good judgment to this website free of charge. They do not make the rules; they only enforce the rules. They do not deserve to have scorn heaped upon them either publicly or privately.



Undergroundrailroad
DU Moderator
FA/IP/NS