> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Verzonden: maandag 21 januari 2002 21:25 > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: Re: Fwd: CNN Breaking News
> > According to CNN, responsibility was claimed by the Al Aqsa Martyrs > > Brigade, Fatah's militant wing. > > > > But then, although Al Aqsa probably *is* responsible, I believe that > > the only right way to go is to find, arrest and try the people > > responsible. > > That would be the right way to go about it. But, the problem is, since > Arafat has administrative control over the area they live in, its his > job to arrest and try them. And if he does not comply, that validates a military strike? Just last week, The Netherlands extradited two of its citizens to the US (the US wants to try them for smuggling 100,000 XTC pills into the US). If we had refused to extradite them, would that have validated a US bombing of our Justice Department? You can not always get what you want. I realise that sucks, but that is the reality. I agree that if Israel provides sufficient evidence against certain people, Arafat should arrest and try them. I am not sure he should extradite them to Israel, though. In the international community, prisoners are only extradited if the two countries involved have a treaty for that. I am not sure such a treaty exists between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. > The assumption of Israel is that Arafat knows and approves of these > attacks. > There is significant evidence that he does. But, putting that > discussion aside for a moment, if Arafat does know of these actions, > and refuses to stop them, what is Israel to do? Isn't this an act of > war on Israel by the Palestinian authority. No. Refusing to do something is not an act of war. If it were, it would be very easy for the Palestinian Authority to accuse Israel of an act of war -- all they would have to do is demand that Israel extradites Sharon so he can be tried for war crimes. Israel will most certainly refuse to do that; by your definition, that would constitute an act of war by Israel. > And, given the act of war, and given the relative military strength, > isn't some restraint being shown in fighting this war by Israel. If you equal restraint with "they have not blanket-bombed the Occupied Territories", then yes. But maybe they have not done that because they do not have all that many bomber planes (IMO, Sharon is capable of anything). > Is Arafat wrong if he fights a war with Israel by looking the other way > when bombers are sent to kill kids at pizza parlors and families at Bat > Mitzvas? You know, you Americans really should stop pretending that children are the only targets. All I ever hear is "Palestinians kill children". Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli fire, but you do not hear the rest of the world hammering on "Israel kills children". True, children are targeted, and that is horrible, but they are not the only targets. > So, what does Israel do when Arafat refuses to abide by the Oslo > treaty? It seems as though you are saying that the only moral course > is to accept the bombings as part of their life. I doubt that the Oslo Treaty contains a clause that gives Israel the right to attack the Palestinian Authority if it does not abide by the treaty... > > The Palestinian Authority is obligated to refrain from incitement to > > violence, but Israel claims the PA uses the "Voice of Palestine" > > radio station to call for Jihad, praise Palestinian terrorists and > > encourage acts of violence against Israel. > > Right, as well as broadcasting anti-Semitic lies such as the Protocols > of the Elders of Zion. I admit that the Protocols are a lot of crap, but do you really expect me to believe that the Israeli tv networks do not spread lies about the Palestinians? Heck, broadcasting the Protocols might very well be covered under Freedom of Speech. In The Netherlands, all political parties are allotted a certain amount of time on public television to promote themselves; that includes the racist parties. Although most people realise they spout crap, we do allow them that time because we have freedom of speech here. Should we allow an Islamic country to bomb us because those racists are allowed to say they hate Muslems? > If an entire generation is being raised on lies, then aren't the people > who tell the lies responsible for the actions people make based on that > false information. To some extend, yes. I would however expect most people to be able to separate facts from lies. Israel is however not helping to improve the situation by attacking the Palestinians. Just think about it: if you are told for years that Israel is evil, and Israel then bombs you because of it, that is only going to strengthen the belief that what you have been told is the truth. Analogy: for decades people in the Soviet Union were told that the United States were Evil. If the US would subsequently have attacked the SU, would that not be considered proof by the people in the SU that their government was right? > > Some justification. I believe it is as valid as justifying blowing up > > the CNN building because the US government is responsible for > > civilian deaths caused by the bombing raids on Afghanistan. > > Did I miss something? When did the US government buy CNN? I did not say that. The point here is that a media organisation in a country is attacked because that country's government is held responsible for civilian deaths. Last I heard, CNN was a US-based media organisation. > > A ridiculous vantage point, IMO. It assumes > > (a) that the Palestinian Authority is able to control the actions of > each and every individual, > > No. It assumes that the attacks were not made by lone, crazy people, > but by well know established organizations. But you can not arrest an organisation -- you can only arrest *people*. Organisations are not physical entities like humans, and thus can not attack someone; only people can. So, if you want to control an organisation, you need to control the individuals in that organisation. > The last attack was made by Arafat's own organisation, for goodness > sakes. Do you actually think he doesn't know who ordered the attack? > How could he not know, they acknowledge responsibility. It was claimed by a militant wing of his organisation; it is possible that they acted without his permission. The fact that they are called militant suggests that they are a lot more radical than their leader, which would be enough reason to act without permission of that leader. Another analogy: in the end, the president of the United States is responsible for the actions of the CIA. The CIA has however in the past engaged in covert operations it choose not to inform the president about. > > and > > (b) that the PA is not at all interested in stopping the attacks. > > > The Israelis gave Arafat a list of individuals they considered > responsible for the attacks. They gave evidence supporting their > claims. A reasonable government would have extradited the individuals. > They didn't. As I said above, only if the two countries have a treaty for that. I am not sure that such a treaty exists between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. After WW2 many Nazi's fled to (IIRC) Brazil; many other criminals have done the same over the decades? Why? Because Brazil would not extradite them. The UK had asked Brazil to extradite train robber Ronald Biggs, but Brazil refused. Would it be justified for the UK to bomb Brazil for it? > I would like to see any facts you have supporting the contention that > the attacks were the work of unknown individuals acting on their own. I am not saying they are acting on their own. Given the resources needed for terrorist campaigns, it is more than likely that those individuals are organised. > > > If I understand your suggestion, Israel should retreat to the 1967 > > > boundaries and hope to be left alone. Do I misunderstand your > > > your ideas? > > > > You do, somewhat. As I have posted earlier, I believe Israel should > > stick to the borders it was given when the State of Israel was > > founded. IOW, the 1948 borders, not the 1967 borders. > > Oh my. Have you seen those borders? They are absolutely > indefensible. Then they should complain to the people in the UN who drew those borders in the first place, try to get them changed, and try to get other countries to join in that effort. Lobbying is everytyhing in politics. > Those boundaries are indefensible. Why, after 4 attacks, shouldn't the > Israelis expect the Arabs to attack again. That is what the peace process is all about. Nobody said it was going to be easy. > The current situation (and the current Israeli regime) are doing more > damage than good to the peace process. > So, your suggestion is for Israel to retreat to indefensible boundaries > and hope that the Arabs will have pity on them? Given this history of > the last 50 years, isn't it probable that this would result in them > being overrun? > Remember, they almost lost the Yom Kipper war. The key word here being "almost". They won. IIRC, Israel has won pretty much every war it was involved in. Let's face it, Israel is not a country with little or no military power. Combine that with an UN Peace Force to keep the parties apart, and and Israeli government that actually wants to talk about peace, and we might actually get somewhere. Jeroen _________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com Tom's Photo Gallery: http://tom.vanbaardwijk.com
