atom feed730 messages in org.kde.kde-cafeRe:
FromSent OnAttachments
65 earlier messages
Eduardo SanchezApr 13, 2002 7:11 am 
Eduardo SanchezApr 13, 2002 7:20 am 
Roberto AlsinaApr 13, 2002 10:08 am 
Roberto AlsinaApr 13, 2002 10:08 am 
Charles SamuelsApr 13, 2002 10:39 am 
Eduardo SanchezApr 13, 2002 11:10 am 
Eduardo SanchezApr 13, 2002 11:14 am 
Eduardo SanchezApr 13, 2002 11:33 am 
Sagie SokolovApr 13, 2002 11:46 am 
Daniel CassidyApr 13, 2002 12:05 pm 
Eduardo SanchezApr 13, 2002 12:54 pm 
Timothy R. ButlerApr 13, 2002 1:05 pm 
Timothy R. ButlerApr 13, 2002 1:52 pm 
Navindra UmaneeApr 13, 2002 2:11 pm 
Andreas PourApr 13, 2002 2:20 pm 
Andreas PourApr 13, 2002 2:48 pm 
Sagie SokolovApr 13, 2002 2:51 pm 
Andreas PourApr 13, 2002 3:21 pm 
Charles SamuelsApr 13, 2002 3:24 pm 
Timothy R. ButlerApr 13, 2002 3:27 pm 
Timothy R. ButlerApr 13, 2002 3:30 pm 
Timothy R. ButlerApr 13, 2002 3:41 pm 
Roberto AlsinaApr 13, 2002 3:47 pm 
Navindra UmaneeApr 13, 2002 3:49 pm 
Andreas PourApr 13, 2002 3:56 pm 
Sagie SokolovApr 13, 2002 3:58 pm 
Timothy R. ButlerApr 13, 2002 4:02 pm 
Andreas PourApr 13, 2002 4:02 pm 
Martijn KlingensApr 13, 2002 4:44 pm 
Daniel CassidyApr 13, 2002 4:53 pm 
Roberto AlsinaApr 13, 2002 5:03 pm 
Timothy R. ButlerApr 13, 2002 5:13 pm 
Daniel CassidyApr 13, 2002 5:30 pm 
Roberto AlsinaApr 13, 2002 5:36 pm 
Roberto AlsinaApr 13, 2002 5:36 pm 
Roberto AlsinaApr 13, 2002 5:37 pm 
Roberto AlsinaApr 13, 2002 5:37 pm 
Martijn KlingensApr 13, 2002 5:45 pm 
Andreas PourApr 13, 2002 5:45 pm 
Daniel CassidyApr 13, 2002 5:49 pm 
Roberto AlsinaApr 13, 2002 5:59 pm 
Roberto AlsinaApr 13, 2002 5:59 pm 
Neil StevensApr 13, 2002 6:03 pm 
Roberto AlsinaApr 13, 2002 6:05 pm 
Navindra UmaneeApr 13, 2002 6:22 pm 
Eduardo SanchezApr 13, 2002 6:27 pm 
Roberto AlsinaApr 13, 2002 6:29 pm 
Timothy R. ButlerApr 13, 2002 7:08 pm 
Roberto AlsinaApr 13, 2002 7:28 pm 
Timothy R. ButlerApr 13, 2002 7:37 pm 
615 later messages
From:Andreas Pour (
Date:Apr 13, 2002 3:56:47 pm

Eduardo Sanchez wrote:

On Saturday 13 April 2002 21:20, Andreas Pour wrote:

The fact that some of them have a goal I do not disagree with does not mean I believe they should all be treated in the way they are being treated. I could go into my long analogy about "how would you feel if a group of Native Americans were sent by the UN to take over your State" but I'll skip that to note that there are some legitimate grievances on the Palestinian side, grievances which you and Dan and Eduardo apparently cannot accept. You apparently simply want to label a whole people as evil that needs to be destroyed. Where have I heard that before?

Just for the record, since Dre mentions me: I understand that there might be Palestinian grievances and I think they should be addressed. I do not think also that all Palestinians are evil. Many of them are Christians like me and I am certain that many of them desperately want to live in peace.


So do you think that any of the non-Christian Palestinians are not evil and/or want to live in peace?

Now, If I am to give what my views are, here they are:

1) Israel has an historical right to live in Palestine; their dispersion from the land of Palestine is a consequence of the unjust and oppressive actions of the Roman Empire, forerrunner to the Europe of our days.

Israel is a country, and as such has no "rights". Countries have "powers", people have "rights". So I interpret what you say to mean that Jews have the right to live in the land f/k/a Palestine and now known as Israel, without getting into complications over the various annexed lands.

This argument works only if you believe land rights are based on race, rather than possession. If that were the case, we would really have to redraw all the world maps, no? Should we restore the lands of the world to where they were 2000+ years ago? I guess that means most people would have to leave the Americas, Australia, etc.; Europe would need to be completely redrawn. And I guess war would be the way to accomplish this. Are you prepared to restore the land where you live - and all the wealth on it - to the people who occupied it 2,000 years ago? Or does consistency not matter to you?

2) The creation of both the State of Israel and the Kingdom of Jordan is an adequate fulfillment of the UN resolution that called for the creation of two states, one Arab and the other Jew, on the territory that used to be the British Mandate in Palestine.

This assumes somehow that the UN, which did not benefit from participation by the Arabs (in fact the Arab borders were created by European powers, principally in their quest to control the Mideast oil supplies), has the right to control what occurs in (what were) Arab lands. This is a fundamentally imperialist view, and is just as oppressive as the Roman imperialism you condemn above. Does consistency matter to you?

3) The PLO is *not* a good representative of the Palestinian cause, having used terrorism in many places of the world --Black September does not refer only to 9/11/2001, and names such as Leila Khaled, George Habash, Al Fatah and Yasser Arafat have a permanent place in history because of their misdeeds.

Again a very biased account of history. Why can't you see atrocities occurred on both sides? There are no saints in this conflict. For exmaple, Sharon most certainly needs to be included in any list like the above.

Palestinians *should* live in peace with the right of self-determination and eventually even self-defense but this should be on the basis of a modern democracy, with accountability and honesty as governing principles of their national structure.

Good, except for the "eventually" part. Palestinians need self-defense now, as they are currently enduring complete totalitarian oppression, the predictable result of which is to fill the queue of suicide bombers rather than empty it. Since this result is so completely predictable, and since Sharon has cut off what is happening from the world, I can only assume some massive injustice is taking place.

At the same time, Palestinians should stop any and all terrorist actions immediately.

So should the Israelis, no?

They're just not credible when some poor fellow goes into a hotel and blast himself among hundreds of peaceful people celebrating their Seder meal. As long as the Palestinians continue glorifying those "martyrs" they cannot claim that they oppose terrorism.

The problem with this view is that it is essentially racist. Not all Palestinians celebrate that, some do, and of course the media likes to show them - but how can you write "the Palestinians" when it is only some? On the other side of the equation, I see Israelis celebrating the invasion of the West Bank, despite the obvious atrocities (which are also acts of "terrorism") that are currently being committed there. It seems to me that at this point the Palestinians are far more terrorized by the Israelis than vice versa.

4) Ariel Sharon is not an inoccent little child. He has some pretty serious responsibility in his back, the same responsibility that costed him his post of Minister of Security in the Lebanon War days. The fact that he's now in power and the Israely public opinion overwhelmingly supports him is an indication that Israel's patience is running out, so perhaps wise Palestinians would understand that this is not the time for terrorism anymore.

Public support for Sharon just means the Israeli people are sick from fear, hate, frustration, whatever, the same disease that plagues too many Palestinians. Plenty of historical examples show widespread support for genocide, imperialist wars and other general acts of evil, but that does not make it right.

I really wonder though: what do you think the Palestinians should do, as Isreal continues to bulldoze Palestian lands and expand the settlements? Should they just remain "peaceful" until all their land is gone? While I do not condone the suicide bombings, I am also perplexed at what would be the "correct" way to deal with this problem. It seems to me, the only correct way is for Israel to stop expanding the settlements. Or can you think of something else?

5) This current military action of Israel is half-hearted. If Sharon really meant business, he would make a full military occupation of Gaza and Cisjordania and perhaps proclaim the annexation of these territories. He would face the same amount of criticism for much better results, imho.

Actually, that would start a world war, and most likely in the complete destruction of Israel, which of course would be terrible for everyone. Sharon is clever, he knows pretty much where the boundaries are, having been a "warrior" for over 50 years now, and he tries to glide right along them. The risk is that he miscalculates, as I think he may be starting to do, as he himself is consumed with hatred, which clouds judgment.

If the skirmishes with Lebanon continue, then Israel may invade Lebanon. This could easily bring Syria into it. This lays the groundwork for the destabilization of Egypt and the involvement of Egypt in the war. This would of course bring Iraq into it as well. All of this would trigger the involvement of the US, which already has a large number of forces in the region. This in turn could lead to the destablization of all Arab and Muslim countries, and the (mainly undemocratic if not totalitarian) governments installed there by England/France, and later supported by the US after England lost its empire in WW II.

Please go back and history and read how WWI and WWII started. The current situation is a powder keg, and Sharon is lighting the fuse.

Now, if someone has to receive the blame for all this mess, it should fell on both parties. Israelis are to blame for many things that I should not repeat here (Sabra and Chatila come to mind; the last phases of the Lebanon War, too, with the siege of Beirut). Palestinians too. But Israel is a democratic country, with a democratic conscience, with people exercising their freedom of speech. Palestine isn't. There is no freedom, there is no accountability and there is no expression of positions falling outside either the PLO party line or the more extremist type of Hezbollah and other terrorists.

How do you suppose the Palestinians should have a democracy, when they don't even have a country? I am as pro-democracy as anyone - in fact I think all the countries in the region, from Syria to Saudi Arabia - should have open and free elections, with strict anti-foreign-campaign-contribution laws like the US has. But I find it more than a bit disingenuous to criticize the Palestinians, who lack a State, for not having elections when virtually all of the Arab States in the region (particularly the oil-producing countries), which have the full backing of the West, lack anything resembling a democracy, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech or due process.

Finally, the solution for all this mess will not pass necessarily for a complete -including settlements- withdrawal of Israelis from the Palestinian territories and the proclamation of a Palestine state. It might be so, of course; but what would *really* give Middle East the peace so desperately sought is the exercise of fair, prompt, cold-blooded (read: without discrimination) and retributive (read: restorative) justice by a trusted and bold authority.

I agree that the most sensible resolution is the evacuation of all settlements by Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state, with a provision in its Constitution which recognizes the State of Israel and a provision in the Israeli Constitution which recognizes the Palestinian State. In addition, Jerusalem should fall under joint control, ideally as a separate city-state with power sharing. One can dream, no?

Only with justice we will have peace.

Fully agreed :-).



DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal opinions of the author and do not represent KDE or the author's employer.