At 05:40 PM 6/10/02, you wrote: >Michael Dinowitz wrote: >> At 12:08 PM 6/10/02, you wrote: >> >>>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? >> >> No, Gaza is under the control of Israel because when Egypt negotiated with Israel a >peace deal, it only asked for land to enrich itself (the sinai). It cared nothing for >it's arab brothers and didn't ask for gaza back (as it wasn't theirs in the first >place) and didn't ask for it to become a palestinian state. Why is gaza controled by >Israel, because egypt lost it in a war they started. > >So Gaza wasn't Egypts in the first place, but it is under control of >Israel because of a war between Egypt and Israel that Egypt lost. Am I >missing something? Probably the part where Egypt attacked Israel a few times and took it away.
>BTW, the original Camp David Accords, which settled the peace between >Egypt and Israel, includes the establishment of a fully authonomous >self-governing authority in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank [1]. So I >believe "enrich" and "cared nothing" is not a fair representation of the >contents of the Camp David Accords. > >[1] http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00ie0 Nope. It established a framework. "The framework agreement regarding the future of Judea, Samaria and Gaza was less clear and was later interpreted differently by Israel, Egypt, and the US." >>>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 mean the ambulances that have been documented as being used to transport >fighters and bombs? Those ambulances? > >No, just the ones that were stopped without doing that. If they were >actually transporting fighters and bombs the drivers would not be free >to tell this story on TV an hour later, would they? Riiiiight. Here's a news article that just happened in Israel. You'll never see it outside of Israel nor will the red cross ever admit to it (they are supposably responsible for the red crescent) Troops arrest wanted militant in ambulance Ha'aretz [website] 10 June 2002 In a separate incident in the Gaza Strip, soldiers arrested a wanted militant who was traveling in a Palestinian ambulance at the Gush Katif junction, Israel Radio reported. The troops became suspicious after noticing that there were no medical personnel or injured persons in the vehicle. They proceeded to search the ambulance and found the Palestinian. If an ambulance goes into a warzone and transports out fighters, what should be done? What's been done time and again, stop them. >> And what of the education you speak of? The education that teaches that Israel does >not exist, the Jews should be killed and America is a 'great satan'? Israel doesn't >control that infrastructure and perhaps they should. > >Definitely. If a country occupies another territory it assumes a >responsibility to treat the citizens of that territory the same way as >it does its own citizens. To give them access to the same level of >infrastructure, healthcare, education etc. To build some form of >representative government, even if it is just to install a major who's >only power is affirm(?) marriages. >In short, to run the area like you would run your own country. In many ways Israel did. There's a huge amount of palestinians who miss being under Israeli rule and a large number who are still citizens. >How can one hope of changing a country without setting the example? How can one set examples when no one wants to follow them? >>>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? >> >> He controls the government, he controls some of the terrorists directly and others >indirectly. He has command of a massive police force. Can you hold a population >responsable for the actions of a few? Yes, if the population supports the few in >attacks. > >Does the population? All of it? If some sort of representative >government was in place, it might have been possible to ask them, >instead of some terrorist sjeik that lives a century to late. The population are sheep to the terrorists, the incite-ful religious leaders and the corrupt government. Those who complain are usually killed. >> Yes, If the population is controled by a government that is corrupt. > >I disagree. Unfortunnately, not in every country people have the >opportunity to oust their government for being corrupt. (Even America >didn't get Clinton out :( ) Clinton never had those who opposed him killed. >Here's a wild idea: why not ask the Palestinians what they want? Have a >ballot, in which the options of keeping everything the way it is, being >annexated by Israel or accepting plan X for a Palestinian state are >presented. Naturally plan X includes UN peace-enforcers with a decent >mandate (maybe financed from the $2.5 billion that is currently used to >bribe Egypt to pretend there is peace?), a constitution (including a >separation of religion and state, trias politica, non-discrimanatory >clauses etc.), a phased withdrawal, a DMZ, whatever Israel wants. But it >should define the end-terms of the solution, not the first step without >anybody knowing where it will end. >If there is no functioning government that Israel can have a treaty >with, bypass whatever government there is and ask the people. After all, >Israel is asking its own citizens what they want every 4 years. There are ballots all the time. Look at many middle eastern university sites and news sites and you'll see the results. People want peace, people want war, people want a lot of things. What they don't have is freedom from their own government to have the freedom they want. >>>So you agree there are additional issues as just the security of Israels >>>citizens. >> >> Yes. The issue of freedom of worship. SOmething that exists under Israel but not >under Islam. > >I think it is quite pointless to compare a country to a religion. Oh? Ask any saudi about that and you'll see that they hold their country by their religion. Basically, those who are in control refuse to allow Jews access to their holy sites. Happens in Egypt, Israel and every other country who's government is Muslim. >>>>Right. Find those who are responsable and kill them. >>> >>>Exactly. And assume responsibility for whatever else you break in the >>>process of doing so. >> >> Yes, which is what Israel does in many cases. > >Just curious: how does one take responsibility for a dead civilian? Apologies, restitution, not killing them in the first place, etc. >Jochem > > ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
