Michael Dinowitz wrote: > >>But the Gaza strip was occupied on June 5, 1967 by Israel, even before >>Jordan entered the conflict between Egypt and Israel. Right? > > Gaza is right on the border with Egypt. The same border as the Sinai which was given >over to Egypt for peace. (the weapons smuggling from Egypt is a violation of that >oeace).
So because Egypt doesn't honor a peace treaty the people that live in the Gaza strip, which has never been part of Egypt, are now under control from Israel? >>But with exercising that right come certain responsibilities. > > Yes. Protecting your citizins. Remember Jenin and the 'world' report on a massacre. >It turns out that Israel did not cause one and those killed were almost all >combatants. The responsability is to not target civilians. Israel is doing great with >that. If a country takes away the possibilities of people to organize certain things for themselves in response to a war started by a third party, it assume the responsibility of organizing these things for them. If Israel wishes to stop Palestinian ambulances from coming close to a firefight and help people that is fine with me. But then it assumes the responsibility to make sure that enough ambulances are available for themselves. (Overly simple example, but I believe this principle extends to infrastructure, education, healthcare, government etc.) >>You are assuming that the people that sign the agreements are the same >>people that do the attacks, or at the very least are in a position to >>stop those attacks. I doubt that, considering that not even Israel is in >>a position to stop those attacks. > > Arafat signed the agreement, Arafat is paying for the attacks and not having his >people stop them. When 17 people were murdered on a bus going to work, the chief of >palestinian security said in english publically that they would not do anything to >stop the attacks. They're supposed to by signed agreement. If the people who sign an >agreement can't be trusted to fulfil it then it's not worth being signed. I will say only one thing about Arafat and then I would very much want to let that particular subject rest. Arafat would best serve peace in the Middle East by moving on from this temporary existence to the eternal one. Preferably in such a way that it is impossible for even the most zealous anti-Zionist to blame Israel for it. Certain scenario's, including him being found dead in bed naked, handcuffed etc. with an intern, a bodyguard or a family member not being his wife, come to mind. My point is, just as in my very first message in this thread, is it fair to hold an entire population responsible if somebody with an air of command, like Arafat or Yassin, says A but does B? >>BTW, transscripts of the talks that took place in Camp David when >>Clinton tried his last shot at being famous for something else as he is >>now suggest otherwise. There are additional issues, such as the faith of >>East Jerusalem, especially certain places of religious interest, and "no >>mans land". > > Lets see. The holiest place in Judaism, third holiness in Islam and the arabs don't >want us to have any access to it. Screw that. We've already seen what they do to our >holy sites when they destroyed Josephs tomb. So you agree there are additional issues as just the security of Israels citizens. >>That just depends on who you are asking. > > I'm quoting those who wrote the resolution. Did they ask the average Palestinian? >>>And if they did that and the attacks still went on, what then? >> >>Handle it the same way as the US handled the Oklahoma bombing. > > Right. Find those who are responsable and kill them. Exactly. And assume responsibility for whatever else you break in the process of doing so. Jochem ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
