Big Walls

[HS Thomas]

There was, once upon a time - Hadrian's Wall.
Before that the Great Wall of China.
Within memory, the Berlin Wall.
And now we have the Palestinian Wall.
I don't know why the other walls were built. Ostensibly to keep the Picts
(Scots) out of England, Mongolians out of China, East Germans out of West, and Palestinian terrorists out of Israel. I think Italy had a wall to keep the Huns out.
Somehow I can't see Palestinians risking life and limb to get to the other side as was the case with the Berlin Wall.Or they might, as they need access to jobs and markets in Israel.And the Wall is a symbol of defeat, a symbolic humiliation, combined with continued poverty which will breed a whole new generation of terrorists.Palestinians speak of it as an apartheid separation wall and Israel as a security fence.
It makes one think twice about those older Big Walls.
Governments like the Chinese government have some super firewall.
What's with man's obsession with Big Walls ?
[ December 10, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Michael Ernest]

Good fences make good neighbors?

[Tim Baker]

At least (AFAIK) the other big walls like Hadrian and GWOC were built on the border and not just willy nilly accross land belonging to the people your trying to keep out. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was built in on the actual border between isael and palestine, with access points at the roads etc to let workers pass, but from what i've seen and heard they're building it through large bits of palestine to make sure it goes round loads of the settlements deep in palestine. stinks of a massive land grab to me.

[Gail Schlentz]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
What's with man's obsession with Big Walls ?

If you want to know man's true obsession, combine this thread with
this one

[HS Thomas]

Another obsession is Big Dams.Note how even here Big Walls are put to use. There's the Egptian Aswan Dam, the Nevada Hoover Dam, the Chinese Three Gorges Dam, the El Atazar Dam in Spain, the Bartlett Dam in Arizona, the Grand Coulee Dam in Washington ,(ok, I googled the last three).
Now China would be much better off building several smaller dams. The Us doesn't support the scheme as does not, the World Bank.(Bush does not support the Palestinian Wall). Big dams are popular political projects but often create more problems than they solve.
If the Three Gorges Dam should fail ( cracks in the structure are already appearing) , the consequences for the 200 million Chinese living downstream would be catastrophic.China is the world's second largest user of energy.
The Aswan Dam built in 1970, has brought great advantages of flood control and plentiful electricity. But the loss of an annual 4 million tonnes of sediment has forced Nile farmers to buy artificial fertiliser, the nile delta has shrunk and fish and other creatures are fleeing the Mediterranean.
Dams create more problems than they solve.Dam Challenge
[ December 10, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:
but from what i've seen and heard they're building it through large bits of palestine to make sure it goes round loads of the settlements deep in palestine. stinks of a massive land grab to me.

Just to clarify... There is no "Palestine", just as there is no "Kurdistan", nor any number of other places that may at one time in history have had geographical boundaries but no longer do. If you want to be accurate, what once was Palestine also includes Jordan.
What are commonly referred to as "the occupied territories" are not Palestine, they are former territories that were previously held by Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. With Syrian and Egyptian troops massing on the borders of Israel in 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against those two nations. Jordan joined in to help her Arab bretheren, but the three nations were humiliatingly defeated in only 6 days. As a result, Egypt lost control of Gaza and the Sinai, Syria lost control of the Golan Heights, and Jordan lost control of what is referred to as the West Bank. After a peace deal with Egypt, Israel bulldozed her settlements and returned the Sinai to Egypt.
The Palestinian refugees were refugees prior to Israel controlling these territories. The Arab countries, including Jordan which has the largest population of Palestinians, did nothing to help them except throw them into refugee camps. The goal of the Arab countries all along has not been to grant the Palestinians a new Palestine, rather it has always been to regain control of their lost territories for strategic reasons (the same strategic reasons the Israelis hold these territories today).
So is it a land grab? I guess it could be looked at like that from one perspective. Yet another perspective would be that throughout history the consequence of being on the losing end of a war has very often been to give up territory. What do you think Syria, Egypt, and Jordan's plan was for Israel in 1967? What do you think would have become of Israel if those states had won? Those nations got off relatively lightly that Israel decided to only hold certain areas of strategic significance for her defense. That they now claim solidarity with the Palestinian refugees is the ultimate in hypocrisy. They're simply using the Palestinians, particularly the Syrians, to fight a proxy war against Israel.
So what do you do with these territories? The Palestinians are obviously not interested in a peaceful coexistance with Israel. You could return the territories to their former owners, but then you are vulnerable once again from a security standpoint, not to mention the fact that there is absolutely no reason to believe that returning the territories to these Arab countries will have any effect on Arab-sponsored Palestinian terrorism in Israel. So given that you can't get rid of the territories, and the population living in them has proven time and time again that they are unwilling to accept any peaceful resolution that would allow a coexistance with Israel, it seems that fencing them off is a fairly reasonable solution.

[Tim Baker]

of course using massive generalisations against the people of palestine might suit your cause but it is neither fair nor accurate. most people in palestine want peace, as most in israel do. it's just the palestinian terrorists and the israeli government that bring shame on their own people by continuing acts of violence and aggression against civilians.
getting in to the history of it all and what a bad idea it was to create israel in the first place and the subsequent wars is not really relevent. what is relevent is the human rights of the people living in the place today. if the israeli forces respected the human rights of the civilians in palestine i'm sure there would be a decrease in the acts of terrorism commited against israel. you could say if the terrorists respected the rights of israeli citizens then israel might not resort to such violence, but they are already terrorists and have no chance of reasoning with them. it is clear that this wall will violate the rights of many of the people living near it. it has been condemmned by almost every foreign power, so it is clear that it is not a fair proposition.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:
most people in palestine want peace

I specifically said peaceful coexistance. This is quite different from peace. Peace can be had by wiping out your enemy, peaceful coexistance requires that the involved parties live-and-let-live. However, the continued demand for the right-of-return is the strongest indicator that there is little hope for peaceful coexistance until that demand is dropped. Sure there are Palestinian peace activists who recognize that the right-of-return is a barrier to any peace agreement, as is terrorism, but that opinion is in the minority.
it's just the palestinian terrorists
...supported by the majority of the population, therefore making them complicit in their acts. These terrorists are not condemned nor is any attempt made to reign them in. Polls have shown over and over again that these terrorist groups have vast support amongst the Palestinian people. Until the people denounce and reign in these terrorist groups, they share responsibility for their actions.
getting in to the history of it all and what a bad idea it was to create israel in the first place and the subsequent wars is not really relevent.
So understanding the causes and history that lead to a situation are not relevant to finding a solution? I guess if creating Israel were a bad idea, then you would have to agree that it would only be compounding matters to create a Palestinian state? In any event, this has been discussed in another thread.
what is relevent is the human rights of the people living in the place today.
I somehow don't think you are referring to the human rights of the Israeli citizens being killed when they are targetted by terrorists.
but they are already terrorists and have no chance of reasoning with them.
Then you advocate the Israelis just sitting there and taking it? They should do nothing in the face of constant waves of terrorists? Again, let;s not forget to mention that these are terrorists with strong support of the Palestinian people.
it is clear that this wall will violate the rights of many of the people living near it.
I don't believe it is a right that Israel let these people inside its borders when every time they do so it only gets more Israeli civillians killed. Ideally things would go back to how they were in the past, and the Palestinians would be able to be allowed in once again to work in peace inside Israel, but this doesn't seem possible at the current moment.
it has been condemmned by almost every foreign power, so it is clear that it is not a fair proposition.
Many of these foreign powers are culpable themselves. Who pumps the Palestinian "charities" full of money, thus ensuring a constant stream of funds to the terrorists? Who forced the Jewish people out of Europe? Which countries didn't lift a finger to do anything about the Palestinian issue when the "occupied territories" were not held by the Jewish state? Which of these countries have taken a stand against Palestinian terrorism? Which of these countries has long standing histories of anti-Semitism? Which of these countries has made any serious effort to stabilize the region? These other foreign powers are often more a part of the problem than a part of the solution.

[Frank Silbermann]

I think Israel will gladly remove the wall as soon as the Palestinian Authority gains the authority to end terrorism, which was, after all, a precondition to the negotiations in the first place.
And I believe that with a peace settlement between the Palestinians and Israel (if ever the Palestinians decide they can accept this), the Israelis will give the Westbank settlers a choice between either returning to within the pre-1967 borders, or asking the new Palestinian nation for citizenship.
The fence, as it now exists, is merely a temporary expedient until the Palestinians stop trying to kill Israelis.

[Tim Baker]

most people in palestine would be perfectly happy with peaceful co-existance so on this subject you are just plain wrong. if you think all palestinians are culpable in the acts of terror of a few then all israelis are culpable for the acts of terror commited by the israeli army. if proper palestinian security forces were allowed to form, you would find people might support them instead of the terrorists, but when you bomb and attack them as well, removing any abilities they had to combat the terrorists. all the people of palestine have on their side are the terrorists, so it's no wonder that many of them are passive towards them. when israeli tanks are charging through refugee camps killing children, i hardly think you would be against the only people who seem able to strike back.
i don't know how you come to the conclusion that every country in the world is anti-semetic and is supporting palestinian terrorists. even the US who have been the main funders of israeli terroist activities are against this wall.
"I don't believe it is a right that Israel let these people inside its borders when every time they do so it only gets more Israeli civillians killed. " you may consider that this wall isn't being built along the israeli border. if they wanted to do that then i would understand it, but this wall is being built miles and miles into palestine to encircle illegal settlments which should be dismantled. its going to cut off palestinians from their own neighbours and communities, and cut off many of them from their own work within palestine itself!
"Then you advocate the Israelis just sitting there and taking it? They should do nothing in the face of constant waves of terrorists? "
doing nothing is different from acting within international law and respecting human rights. but then you regard all palestinians as terrorists so i don't expect you'd recognise that killing palestinian civilians is wrong. i'd also like to point out that when the israeli army acting on behalf of the israeli people commits crimes against humanity and civlians then the palestinians involved will probably regard all israelis as culpable for the crimes of their army. both of those views are clearly wrong, as anyone with an ounch of objectivity realises.

a temporary fence is made of wood or metal. a dividing wall is made of concrete, i think it's clear what they are building.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:
most people in palestine would be perfectly happy with peaceful co-existance so on this subject you are just plain wrong.

First, there is no Palestine. Tell me where the internationally recognized nation of Palestine exists and then we might be able to reach an agreement. But I would like to know how you know what all the people of the occupied territories want? Intuition? I had the opportunity to speak with a couple of Palestinian academics during a course on terrorism I was taking a couple of years back. I posed this very question. Their answer was that they would be willing to peacefully coincide in a single nation. That is, the only acceptable solution in the end was the right-of-return be granted and that the Palestinians and Israelis live together in the same nation. Any two-state solution they saw as only temporary. I of course mentioned to him that he must be aware that would mean the end of Israel. To which he responded that the only acceptable solution was the right of return and all Palestinian people feel this way. While of course not assuming that he spoke for all Palestinians, the sentiment was clear enough. Do you know what the right-of-return is, btw? Do you know the consequences of that demand?
if you think all palestinians are culpable in the acts of terror of a few then all israelis are culpable for the acts of terror commited by the israeli army.
We have already discussed the definition of terrorism on this board in the past. I'm not going to rehash it, so do a search in the archive if you wish. Suffice it to say that the actions of the IDF do not constitute terror under any accepted definition of the term. This is a common tactic used when people wish to justify the targetting of innocent civilians via terrorist acts. However, yes, the Israeli people are culpable for the actions their defense forces take.
if proper palestinian security forces were allowed to form, you would find people might support them instead of the terrorists but when you bomb and attack them as well, removing any abilities they had to combat the terrorists.
A couple of problems here. For one, the security forces are controlled by the same people who influence the terrorists, and many of the security force members are themselves part of these terrorist groups. That said, the PA has been given ample opportunity to reign in the terrorists and has balked on all occasions.
all the people of palestine have on their side are the terrorists, so it's no wonder that many of them are passive towards them. when israeli tanks are charging through refugee camps killing children, i hardly think you would be against the only people who seem able to strike back.
Another justification of terrorism. Until people all over the world get it through their skulls that there is no justification for terrorists targetting civillians, it will continue to be a common practice. As long s there are people who find their tactics acceptable, who lack the moral fortitude to denounce it in all circumstances, there will be those who feed off this tacit approval of terrorism and continue to target civillians. I don't recall Martin Luther King, Ghandi, or Nelson Mandella espousing terrorism. Maybe that's why they were successful.
i don't know how you come to the conclusion that every country in the world is anti-semetic and is supporting palestinian terrorists. even the US who have been the main funders of israeli terroist activities are against this wall.
I never said that every country in the world is anti-Semitic.
you may consider that this wall isn't being built along the israeli border.
Do you know why Israel retained the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and Gaza after the 1967 war?
but this wall is being built miles and miles into palestine to encircle illegal settlments which should be dismantled.
As I said before, there is no Palestine. Let's at least agree to use the correct terms. Personally, I would have the Israelis dismantle their settlements, and build the wall roughly along the Israeli borders, but taking into account the security concerns for which they retained those territories anyway and adjusting accordingly. As I said before though, the Israelis have already proven that they will dismantle settlements when they have a partner who is pledged to peace. Egypt was such a partner, and the Israelis dismantled the settlements in Sinai. History indicates that if the Palestinians would negotiate in good faith and show that they are committed to a peaceful solution, that the settlements would be dismantled.
doing nothing is different from acting within international law and respecting human rights.
Yest still you offer no realistic solution that guarantees safety for Israeli civilians, and in fact, seem quite indifferent to the safety of Israeli civilians.
but then you regard all palestinians as terrorists so i don't expect you'd recognise that killing palestinian civilians is wrong.
Learn how to argue without the personal attacks or you will quickly be having a discussion with only yourself.
i'd also like to point out that when the israeli army acting on behalf of the israeli people commits crimes against humanity and civlians then the palestinians involved will probably regard all israelis as culpable for the crimes of their army. both of those views are clearly wrong, as anyone with an ounch of objectivity realises.
No, Israel is a democracy, and the electorate is responsible the actions of its elected officials. However, once again you appear to be justifying terrorism. Do you draw any distinction between legitimate military actions taken against militants (usually cowering amongst civilians btw) where civilians are mistakenly caught in the line of fire and killed, and terrorist operations that deliberately seek to murder large numbers of children? Are you aware that when IDF forces kill civilians due to negligence that they are held accountable? Palestinians who kill civilians are given parades, they become famous (even though its posthumously) amd well regarded, and their parents are given money.
a temporary fence is made of wood or metal. a dividing wall is made of concrete, i think it's clear what they are building.
Yeah it's a dividing wall. That's the entire point, to keep the Palestinians out of Israel. Somehow I'm thinking small wood or metal fences wouldn't quite fit the intended purpose.
[ December 10, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:
most people in palestine would be perfectly happy with peaceful co-existance so on this subject you are just plain wrong.

We have no evidence of this since a perfectly good peace treaty was proposed and rejected by the elected Palestinian officials. Arafat is as popular as any official in Palestine and he has rejected any attempt to make peace.

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

To which he responded that the only acceptable solution was the right of return and all Palestinian people feel this way. While of course not assuming that he spoke for all Palestinians, the sentiment was clear enough. Do you know what the right-of-return is, btw? Do you know the consequences of that demand?

The consequences of the current situation is terror.
I don't question right of existence of Israel. I am not anti-semitic.
But: In the 30ties of the last century some 50.000 people lived in region today known as Gaza-strip. Now there are 3.000.000.000 or so. And some parts of the region is occupied by new jewish settlements. I mean, how would you feel, if you were in their position.
In my opinion, this current settlement policy of Israel is more directed towards a solution of ethnic cleansing than towards looking to start a sustained peace effort.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
Mongolians out of China, East Germans out of West, and Palestinian terrorists out of Israel.
...................
Governments like the Chinese government have some super firewall.
What's with man's obsession with Big Walls ?

the great wall was initially built around ~100 D.C, to keep northern tribe out, at the beginning, the wall was not connected, little by litte, people connect them together. mongolian did not arrive at the scene until >1,000 years later.
as far as i know, berlin wall was built by the russians, to block the allied supply to west berlin.
i lived in china for some time earlier this year. so i have some experience with firewall, it mainly block overseas dissedent's voice and critics to communists. other than that, you won't have problem to access any porn site you like.

[Anonymous]

when you look up in the cia's world fact book, china only has 2 isp. i believe they are all controlled by goverment, so you can image how easy it is to set firewall.

[Tim Baker]

i recognise palestine, and as such am free to use the term palestine to describe the area and people in question. if you would like to call it 'the land of the evil terrorists' or 'lands illegally held by israel' well thats up to you. you and everyone else knows what i mean when i say palestine, so there is no problem there. if i wanted to talk about the dhali llama (sp?) i might mention tibet, of course china invaded tibet and it no longer exists as a country, but it still exists as a place.
i take my knowledge of the situation from the in depth coverage of the situation which is given by the worlds media. now i don't blindly believe everything they tell me, but journalists risk their lives going in to these places and the real footage they come out with isn't all made up, or propoganda like what is produced by both sides. now you may debate the issue with 2 people and come away with the views of an entire people, but i suggest you are relying more on ESP than I.
you may say that the IDF cannot be terrorists, but clasifying them as such does not excuse other acts of terror. acts of terror commited by palestinians cannot either by used to justify those carried out by israel. israel always seems to be eager to make themselves out to be the sole victims of this. but when you see the acts on boths sides you see that both sides are equally in the wrong in commited acts of terror.
you may say that the people that the palestinians elected for their own authority are controlling and organising the terrorists, but israel has never been able to actually provide any evidence of this. The only reason YA and such are blamed for all the terrorist attacks on israel is because it is politically convenient to blame a single person. if he was organising terrorists and all the palestinian people were supporting him as such then why was he seen to be losing the support of his people. this is of course before israel decided to empound him and give him more support from his people than he had before.
you may dismiss all talks of israeli crimes as trying to justify or excuse terrorism, whereas infact it is useful to understand the reasons behind the terrorism. to condemn the same actions that the terrorists may use to justify themselves is not infact to justify their actions yourself.
"Do you know why Israel retained the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and Gaza after the 1967 war?" because as a nation they are paranoid. they think their defense overrides the human rights of other civilians.
"Yest still you offer no realistic solution that guarantees safety for Israeli civilians, and in fact, seem quite indifferent to the safety of Israeli civilians." and thus we see another unreasonable demand. noone on this plane has guarenteed safety. think of 9/11, bahli. anyone in the world can be a victim of terrorism at any time. the only solution i can offer to the problems is the only one that has a hope of working. first one side needs to stop killing civilians without prejudice. only when the cylce of killing is stopped does peace have a chance. justifying defensive actions that kill civilians does not help the people affected by the killings, and as has been demonstrated only leads to more terrorism.
"Learn how to argue without the personal attacks or you will quickly be having a discussion with only yourself." you already said you think they are all terrorists or terrorist supporters, i hardly think anything i said was a personal attack. saying that i am a terrorist excuser however is pretty close to that same line you have just pointed out.
"Are you aware that when IDF forces kill civilians due to negligence that they are held accountable? " you mean like the when the british reporter was killed by an israeli sniper from their tower when he was standing in the middle of the street wearing a high visibility bib. noone was ever disciplined for that or even investigated.
"o you draw any distinction between legitimate military actions taken against militants (usually cowering amongst civilians btw) where civilians are mistakenly caught in the line of fire and killed, and terrorist operations that deliberately seek to murder large numbers of children? "
of course but there is also a distinction between targetted military actions and calouse disregard for civilian life. for example using apache helicopters to fire missiles at cars whilst driving on urban roads. using tanks to drive through refugee camps and knock down houses with people inside. that's another violation that is bizzare. since when does someones family become accountable for their crimes? i dont remember seeing bulldozers taking out the houses of timothy mcveigh, or perhaps in northern ireland, i don't remember IRA terrorists houses being demolished in retribtion.

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by <economist>:

as far as i know, berlin wall was built by the russians, to block the allied supply to west berlin.

not everything bad comes from russians. They might insert strange AOP code in projects for logging during some misterious weekend shift, so that 5 days before test installation in customer environment, nobody knows how to compile project (a collegue) or post strange things in MD, but they haven't built Berlin wall.
Berlin wall was built in 1961 by german communists. USSR government finally allowed to build it after constant urge by gov of Eastern Germany.
Purpose was to stop massive flight of the smarter part of the population of the socialistic paradise towards imperialistic, capitalistic and evil Western Germany.
It was not build to block West Berlin from supplies. USSR tried that in 1949 (12 years before wall was build). Plan did not work, cause americans started to supply city through "air bridge" (lots of planes packed with tons of foodstuff). After this solidaric act of the USA with Western Germany russians knew that americans wouldn't give up Western Berlin, so they stopped trying to conquer it.
Berlin wall was quite unique. Normally walls are to prevent others to come in. Berlin wall was to stop the own people to step out.
[ December 11, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Frank Silbermann]

Jasen Maynard: "Do you know what the right-of-return is, btw? Do you know the consequences of that demand?"
Axel Janssen: "The consequences of the current situation is terror."

Yes, indeed. The Palestinians and their supporters have left Israel in a difficult position with no decent options. That's why the world should have sympathy for Israel, not the Palestinians.

But: In the 30ties of the last century some 50.000 people lived in region today known as Gaza-strip. Now there are 3.000.000.000 or so.

Which proved that the originators of Zionism did not intend to displace or disposess the native Arabs, but merely to settle in what was then a largely empty land, creating space by making the desert bloom. But Israel's enemies simply couldn't accept the idea of Jewish self-determination on territory that had been conquered for Allah. (That's _their_ religion -- Europeans who sympathize with the anti-Zionists must have some other motivation.)

"And some parts of the region is occupied by new jewish settlements. I mean, how would you feel, if you were in their position.

The settlements do not take up much space, and America will certainly make Israel forfeit them if that will buy Palestinian acceptance of a smaller Jewish homeland of Israel beside them. So there is neither excuse nor need for their terrorism.

Axel Janssen: "In my opinion, this current settlement policy of Israel is more directed towards a solution of ethnic cleansing than towards looking to start a sustained peace effort."

Until the Palestinians show some sign of being willing to make a permanent peace with Israel as a Jewish state within _some_ borders, there's really no point to starting "a sustained peace effort."
I suppose you have a right to speculate that the wall suggests a plan of genocide (i.e. "ethnic cleansing"). But your imagination does not justify the malicious slander that compares the Zionists with those who have actually done or attempted to do such things.
Furthermore, if you truly took an evenhanded approach you would utterly condemn the Palestinians for cheering speakers who explicitly _called_out_ for anti-Jewish genocide. Not to mention Saddam Hussein who once boasted that Arab nuclear capability would solve the Arab-Israeli issue -- because a nuclear war would utterly destroy Israel, but most Arabs would survive!
(Yet, most Europeans also find reasons to excuse Saddam and carry signs saying "Regime Change for Washington, Not Iraq". That's what they call "evenhandedness.")

Tim Baker: "i take my knowledge of the situation from the in depth coverage of the situation which is given by the worlds media."

Virtually all of Europe's media has a Leftist agenda, which switched from being pro-Israel to anti-Israel when its haters became clients of the Soviet Union. Now that there is no longer a Soviet Union, they basically sympathize with any group that is anti-American. I find the leftist European media untrustworthy on a _wide_ range of issues. (Most of the American media is similar, albeit with much less intensity.)

"Do you draw any distinction between legitimate military actions taken against militants (usually cowering amongst civilians btw) where civilians are mistakenly caught in the line of fire and killed, and terrorist operations that deliberately seek to murder large numbers of children? "
Tim Baker: "of course but there is also a distinction between targetted military actions and calouse disregard for civilian life. for example using apache helicopters to fire missiles at cars whilst driving on urban roads. using tanks to drive through refugee camps and knock down houses with people inside."

I haven't heard about the tanks flattening houses without warning. Maybe you heard it from the same Arab and European newspapers who "reported" that Israelis were wiping out Palestinians by the thousand in Jenin?

since when does someones family become accountable for their crimes? i dont remember seeing bulldozers taking out the houses of timothy mcveigh, or perhaps in northern ireland, i don't remember IRA terrorists houses being demolished in retribtion."
Actually, our government does often confiscate the property of criminals.
Many Palestinians who prospered after 1967 became impoverished by the Intefada. Many suicide bombers are partially motivated by the Hamas policy of enriching the families of these "martyrs." I know of no more humanistic way to counter that perverse incentive. Perhaps if Palestinians treated terrorists in the family the same way they treat a daughter who is discovered to have a lover, then Israel would treat the families more sympathetically.
Besides, don't Europeans always say that lives are more important than property (and that's why you don't allow robbery victims to defend themselves)?

[Axel Janssen]

Frank,

But your imagination does not justify the malicious slander that compares the Zionists with those who have actually done or attempted to do such things.

I would never ever do this comparision. And anybody who visited a concentration camp for 3 minutes would never question the fact that those people took their right to come together in their own country and defend themselves with their own army.
What I said might be interpreted in the direction that I see the depressing situation of a lot of palestinians as an excuse for terrorism. The arab terrorism can't be justified in my view.
I am just saying that without serious peace effort there remains a very fertile ground to further fanatice palestinian youth. To find peace is of course very dificult accomplishment and I really no big friend of our european peace-movement simplifiers. But with permanent escalation of conflict in the end there might be no other solution but they or we.
I know that a lot of palestinian leaders are preaching to drive the israelies in the mediterenian sea, when they speak in arabic and not in english. Its a well known fact in Europe.
But I firmly believe that this is a dirty conflict and both sides are playing with dirty tricks for years (settlement policy, expopriating palestine houseowners in Jerusalem without just cause, etc.).
[ December 11, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Tim Baker]

you might note that 99% of all people in europe protesting against the war were doing so on a humanitarian agenda, ie the war will kill many civilians, not an agenda of support for saddam hussein and his policies. personally i'm pro liberation of iraq but think it could of been done a lot better than the americans did.
I don't think there are any european wide laws that pertain to self defense in a robbery situation. But I do know that in england if you camp out waiting for burglars with a shotgun and shoot them in the back without them actualy being a physical threat towards you then yes this is illegal and rightly so.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Tim Baker:
you might note that 99% of all people in europe protesting against the war were doing so on a humanitarian agenda, ie the war will kill many civilians, not an agenda of support for saddam hussein and his policies.

a) Their actions did provide support for Saddam Hussein and his policies, whether or not they intended to do so and whether or not they choose to accept that they did so.
b) Where was their indignance while Saddam Hussein was killing his own people? Far and away more people (by quite an order of magnitude) than were killed by the war it should be noted.
c) What are they protesting over now? You would think that these indignant souls, if they were really protesting on humanitarian grounds, would now welcome the occupation and would insist we stay until any potential humanitarian situations have been alleviated.

But I do know that in england if you camp out waiting for burglars with a shotgun and shoot them in the back without them actualy being a physical threat towards you then yes this is illegal and rightly so.

That's right, the only kind of defense championed there is the after-the-fact kind, once it's too late of course. Wait until the thief harms you or your family, and only then may you defend yourself. Kind of bass-ackwards if you ask me.
i recognise palestine
And I recognize Never-Never Land, but that doesn't mean much either, does it?
i take my knowledge of the situation from the in depth coverage of the situation which is given by the worlds media.
LOL. I wouldn't put all that much credence in the BBC. European media did so well with Jenin, didn't they? Yeah, they were all over that one. :roll: And how often does any media give a situation "in-depth coverage"? If one wants to be able to argue passionately and intelligently about a subject, it's always good to know a bit about that situation, imho. Learn the history behind the situation. Talk to some of the people who might be intimately involved if possible.
you may say that the IDF cannot be terrorists
You are right, they cannot.
when you see the acts on boths sides you see that both sides are equally in the wrong
Nope. There is no moral equivalence between deliberately bombing a children's birthday party, and mistakenly killing a child when a wall falls on him due to actions caused by terrorists who deliberately hide amongst civilians. It's all about intent. If the Palestinian terrorists were an actual recognized military, they would be in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of Armed Conflict for the way they try to hide behind civilians to protect themselves.
The only reason YA and such are blamed for all the terrorist attacks on israel is because it is politically convenient to blame a single person.
And here I thought it was because Arafat was a terrorist, and the PLO was a terrorist organization. There's that history thing again. This is of course aside fro mthe fact that Arafat has demonstrated he can control the terrorist organizations.
it is useful to understand the reasons behind the terrorism.
You mean like glorification of "martyrs" in Palestinian society, Palestinian run television advertisements inciting children to pick up guns and rocks, Palestinian military training given to children, and payments made to the families of "martyrs"? Those kind of reasons?
because as a nation they are paranoid. they think their defense overrides the human rights of other civilians.
There's that grasp of history again.
first one side needs to stop killing civilians without prejudice.
I would think you are referring to the Palestinians because the Israelis do not purposely target civilians. The only side purposely targeting civilians is the Palestinians. Aside from that though, your "solution" would require one of two things to happen:
1. The Palestinians can stop targetting Israeli civilians. They can stop blowing up busloads of children, they can stop going into settlers homes and gunning down whole families including children cowering under the bed, they can stop waslking into grocery stores and blowing themselves up, and they can stop going into pizza parlors and nightclubs and detonating themselves.
2. The Israelis can open themselves up and take no action in the face of wave after wave of terrorist attacks against it. Eventually, or so many actually believe, the Palestinian terrorists will realize that the Israelis have broken the cycle of violence and stop their murderous campaign.
The Israeli actions have been shown to be reactionary. Hit them and they react. If it's these reactions that the Palestinians have problems with, then maybe they might consider not murdering their civilians.
you mean like...

To date, during the intifada some 154 charges have been filed against 223 IDF personnel for committing crimes during their service in the Territories. Forty-four of these indictments involved the illegal use of firearms. Forty-seven of those involved were officers, 173 were enlisted men and three were civilian IDF employees. To date, 171 have been convicted, 19 acquitted, 30 are about to be court-martialed and two court-martials, in which three soldiers were involved, have been cancelled.
These cases involved full court-martial procedures. In addition, disciplinary actions were taken at the field level, whenever it was deemed necessary. (source)

you already said you think they are all terrorists or terrorist supporters
No, I did not. Don't paraphrase me if you're going to miss the mark like that please. If you are more interested in talking about me personally, which you seem very interested in doing (usually a sign of an inability to argue the facts in the first place), then at least quote me correctly please.
using tanks to drive through refugee camps and knock down houses with people inside. that's another violation that is bizzare. since when does someones family become accountable for their crimes?
You are confusing separate actions. Bulldozers (not tanks) have been called in to take down houses when IDF forces have been invovled in intense urban combat in extremely close quarters, with the Palestinan militants using hte houses for cover. It's actually a pretty good military tactic for such circumstances, much for the same reason we used defoliant in Vietnam. The Israelis also have taken to bulldozing the houses of terrorists.
[ December 11, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Joe Pluta]

But I do know that in england if you camp out waiting for burglars with a shotgun and shoot them in the back without them actualy being a physical threat towards you then yes this is illegal and rightly so.
Whereas in Texas it's considered a sport...
Joe

[Tim Baker]

Your arguments are not reasonable in any interpretation and thus I leave this thread.

[Jason Menard]

My apologies. Next time I will try to leave history and facts out of the discussion.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
Now China would be much better off building several smaller dams. The Us doesn't support the scheme as does not, the World Bank.(Bush does not support the Palestinian Wall). Big dams are popular political projects but often create more problems than they solve.
If the Three Gorges Dam should fail ( cracks in the structure are already appearing) , the consequences for the 200 million Chinese living downstream would be catastrophic.China is the world's second largest user of energy.
[/URL]

in fact, it is what china did in the past, building several small dams. but in the end, it turns out to be not enough. the 3 gorges dams project was in debate in china for nearly 2 decades. i supposed the decision is pretty mature. but you never knows. one thing is for sure, once the dam collapse, half of chinese population will be in big trouble. image in war time...but i think once enemy attack 3 gorge dam, chinese goverment will retaliate with nuclear weapon.