Hamas leader is killed

[Gustaf]

I'm sure you've all seen this before, but the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas, Scheyk (English spelling?) Yassin, was killed yesterday by Israeli forces...and it seems to have triggered a new rise in activity on both sides. Though I suppose we should all be happy to see him go, a more imortant question might be how this will affect the peace process. Any thoughts?

[Gustaf]

I'm sure you've all seen this before, but the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas, Scheyk (English spelling?) Yassin, was killed yesterday by Israeli forces...and it seems to have triggered a new rise in activity on both sides. Though I suppose we should all be happy to see him go, a more imortant question might be how this will affect the peace process. Any thoughts?

It makes the final, necessary fight-to-the-death between the two peoples that much closer.  I like it.

You like the fact that a lot of people will die? That's pretty disgusting...

M, to clarify, I did know what sheik MEANT, just unsure of the ENglish spelling of the word...

On the issue, it seems likely that the spiral of violence will just keep on going...at least fighting Hamas is better than fighting the PLO, if Hamas were wiped out things would be a lot easier.

[Gustaf]

Seige seemed to assume sheik was his name.

Gustaf, Hamas is a major PLO member, as are Islamic Jihad-Palestine, PFLP-GC, and many others noxious terrorist groups. I assume you meant the PA, the recognized pseudo-independent Palestinian government, and its "police" militias. The definition between these two institutions is somewhat blurry, as Arafat leads both, but the PLO is, and only claims to be, a terrorist umbrella group, while the PA is semi-legitimate (long as you don't worry about things like democracy and accountability.)

Ah, OK, sorry for the mix-up there. I'll readily admit to not being all that knowledgeable on the inter-palestinian organizational structure.

I was just thinking that destroying the PA, as far as I can see, ensures eternal conflict, whereas striking against the really radical groups look a little more hopeful as a strategy. THe way I view it, it's not so much a question of moral right and wrong by this stage, but more of trying achieve the best ends. Sadly, there is no one really good to cooperate with on the Palestinian side, so Israel somehow has to find a way to deal with the situaiton as it is. I am more and more thinking that the best thing is to pull out of the occupied territories altogether, perhaps with some American security ensurances and let the Palestinians do whatever they want with their land.

[Gustaf]

That does seem to be a fairly sensible solution, but it is much easier said than done.

Everything always is...

But I do think that if Israel got out of the occupied territories and removed their colonies there, it would help them a lot, both in the eyes of the world and security wise (less to worry about). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the main reason for the occupation was to make it easier to protect agianst attacks from Arab sattes? Seeing as that is now much less likely I think getting out makes some sense.

[Gustaf]

 I am more and more thinking that the best thing is to pull out of the occupied territories altogether,

Though that might be a solution this are not 'occupied territories' but a land 2 groups of people claim. It us the historical Hartland of the jews, It has a vast majority af arabs now.
Jordan anexed the west bank in 48' and no country but Pakistan accepeted it 'de Jure'. in 67w they attaced Israel that hold this teritory since

I know, I know. though all of that's true, regardless of reasons it IS occupied by Israeli forces, wouldn't you say? Against the majority of the people living there wishes? But I was only using the common term, not placing a value in it.

[Gustaf]

The preferred word is settlements. Some of these are quite near the Green line and are large in population (sometinmes dozens of thousands), so it is a reasonable argument that Israel annex some border territories. Also, East Jerusalem is fully integrated into Israel, votes in elections, etc., and the city has been officially Israel's "eternal, undivided" capital for decades. That is unlikely to be ended anytime soon.

A plurality of Israeli politicians these days more or less would like to ditch the territories, and are finding that, unlikely as it would seem at face value, the Palestinians are bent on prolonging the occupation so they can cry bloody murder about Israeli oppression. So the question becomes, how do you force self-rule on them regardless?

Well, those are more technical points, I'd say. The exact borders, I mean. On settlements, I was searching for the word, but couldn't find it at first. On your ending question, they would have to rule themselves if you didn't wouldn't they?

[Gustaf]

Israel is completely dominated by religious values? You are clearly confused about this. Israel's Jews are about 60% secular, 20% somewhat observant, and only 20% very observant. A major party and one of Sharon's coaltion partners, Shinui, is a specifically secularist, anti-religious party. The parties of the Left are generally secularist, and and Likud, Ichud Le'umi, and even Mafdal are not religious so much as nationalist. The specifically religious parties currently have a grand total of 14 of 120 Knesset seats.

As for dogmatic, what has Israel not tried? War, peace, occupation, withdrawal, negotiation at gunpoint and in luxury at European palaces, American mediation, European mediation, you name it.

Sabra and Shatila, as dunn points out, was a massacre by Lebanese Christians of Palestinian Muslims. no Israelis or Jews were involved. Or are you trying to pin Jenin massace on him, because that was a battle, not a massacre, just like Deir Yassin was.

Who does the selection? The best intelligence services in the world, buddy: the Mossad and ShinBet.

Innocents are always killed in wars. That's what makes them so ugly and something that one should avoid unless necessary.

[Gustaf]

I'll try a few maps soon...

Orignlly the british Mandat was on the entire land of Israel (Palestine). 77% was given to king Abdullah (great grandfather of current King) to form trans jordan (now jordan). Iraq was created for his brother king Feisal. the reson: the hadhemite lost to the Sauds in the big tribal fight in Arabia, the looseres were the freind of the british.
Jordan has 70% palestians and it is 77% from greater Palestine.

I thought the Palestinian population was about 50% of Jordan? And that it fell some when the Jordanians kicked them out in the 70s.

[Gustaf]

I'm sure you've all seen this before, but the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas, Scheyk (English spelling?) Yassin, was killed yesterday by Israeli forces...and it seems to have triggered a new rise in activity on both sides. Though I suppose we should all be happy to see him go, a more imortant question might be how this will affect the peace process. Any thoughts?

It makes the final, necessary fight-to-the-death between the two peoples that much closer.  I like it.

You like the fact that a lot of people will die? That's pretty disgusting...

On the issue, it seems likely that the spiral of violence will just keep on going...at least fighting Hamas is better than fighting the PLO, if Hamas were wiped out things would be a lot easier.

No, I like the fact that the issue will be resolved.

It won't. Sure, if one side, persumably the ISraelis, killed all Palestinians, but I don't see that happening. I think Israel is too civilized for the kind of ethnic cleansing that it would take. And it's hardly doable anyway. Not even in places like Rwanda did wars actualyl resolve the conflict.

[Gustaf]

The Mossad is not charged with protecting Jewish Institutions Worldwide, only the state of Israel. Really it shows the weakness of Argentine security services, the reach of Hezbollah and Iranian terror, or, some would say, Menem's ties to certain unsavory Islamic figures.

I think any secret service tries to protect its own embassies (the legal responsability belongs to Argentine authorities, but I´m sure they have some agents in a city that has one of the largest jewish communities in the world), or to investigate better than what they did here. But, againl, I´m not questioning the efficiency of Mossad, I´m just saying that no government should have the right to eliminate people according to its likes and dislikes.

Most countries have a security service (BSS in Britain for example) to protect the country against terrorists, etc and an intelligence service to gather intelligence. The latter, SIS, CIA, KGB, Mossad, BND, etc are usually more famous. Some also have military intelligence services, such as DIA, GRU and so on.

[Gustaf]

I'm sure you've all seen this before, but the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas, Scheyk (English spelling?) Yassin, was killed yesterday by Israeli forces...and it seems to have triggered a new rise in activity on both sides. Though I suppose we should all be happy to see him go, a more imortant question might be how this will affect the peace process. Any thoughts?

It makes the final, necessary fight-to-the-death between the two peoples that much closer.  I like it.

You like the fact that a lot of people will die? That's pretty disgusting...

On the issue, it seems likely that the spiral of violence will just keep on going...at least fighting Hamas is better than fighting the PLO, if Hamas were wiped out things would be a lot easier.

No, I like the fact that the issue will be resolved.

It won't. Sure, if one side, persumably the ISraelis, killed all Palestinians, but I don't see that happening. I think Israel is too civilized for the kind of ethnic cleansing that it would take. And it's hardly doable anyway. Not even in places like Rwanda did wars actualyl resolve the conflict.

Until one side either kills or demographically absorbs the other side there'll just be more of the same ongoing low level war.  If you think about the major political and cultural changes throughout history, they always involved quite a lot of genocide, or at least loss of much of the male population in war.

Give me some examples please. A lot of old conflicts have been solved through the trans-formation on states into modern civilized democracies. That's happened in Europe, for example. There is overwhelming emprical evidence that democracies never go to war with each other. It's a much better way out than genocide.

[Gustaf]

was it in Gaza the fence stopped suicide bombers entirely dunn? I am not as good on this area as you are.

yes
but the palestians try missels from above, tunnels from bwloe and coming through the sea. 99% we succeed in stoping them

Yeah, I remember reading in a Swedish paper that 98% of sucide bombers actually fail, some b/c they're caught, but I think something like 4 out of 5 kill no one but themselves...did give a whole new perspective on it...

[Gustaf]

I'm sure you've all seen this before, but the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas, Scheyk (English spelling?) Yassin, was killed yesterday by Israeli forces...and it seems to have triggered a new rise in activity on both sides. Though I suppose we should all be happy to see him go, a more imortant question might be how this will affect the peace process. Any thoughts?

It makes the final, necessary fight-to-the-death between the two peoples that much closer.  I like it.

You like the fact that a lot of people will die? That's pretty disgusting...

On the issue, it seems likely that the spiral of violence will just keep on going...at least fighting Hamas is better than fighting the PLO, if Hamas were wiped out things would be a lot easier.

No, I like the fact that the issue will be resolved.

It won't. Sure, if one side, persumably the ISraelis, killed all Palestinians, but I don't see that happening. I think Israel is too civilized for the kind of ethnic cleansing that it would take. And it's hardly doable anyway. Not even in places like Rwanda did wars actualyl resolve the conflict.

Until one side either kills or demographically absorbs the other side there'll just be more of the same ongoing low level war.  If you think about the major political and cultural changes throughout history, they always involved quite a lot of genocide, or at least loss of much of the male population in war.

Give me some examples please. A lot of old conflicts have been solved through the trans-formation on states into modern civilized democracies. That's happened in Europe, for example. There is overwhelming emprical evidence that democracies never go to war with each other. It's a much better way out than genocide.

Most contacts between Christendom and Islam have involved genocide and all out war - the Crusades, the Ottomans in the Balkans and Hapsburg lands (almost lost Vienna!), the Spanish driving the Moors out.  And don't forget the slow, painful annihilation of the Byzantine Empire.  Don't get me wrong - Christianity used to be dangerous too, but never like Islam.  

More recently even the supposedly 'idealistic' US used genocide to great effect in WWII - firebombing of Dresdent, Tokyo, etc, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Failing to use it in Korea and Vietnam was a main cause of the poor results there.

I'd say genocide would something a little more radical than a few bombs...but did the genocide between Muslims and Christians solve the conflict then?

Spain suffered greatly from their intolerance, as did France later on. In fact, I think these are great examples of how these measured are bad. The success of the US is largely due to the freedom and generousity you've displayed towards other people.

[Gustaf]

I'm sure you've all seen this before, but the 'spiritual leader' of Hamas, Scheyk (English spelling?) Yassin, was killed yesterday by Israeli forces...and it seems to have triggered a new rise in activity on both sides. Though I suppose we should all be happy to see him go, a more imortant question might be how this will affect the peace process. Any thoughts?

It makes the final, necessary fight-to-the-death between the two peoples that much closer.  I like it.

You like the fact that a lot of people will die? That's pretty disgusting...

On the issue, it seems likely that the spiral of violence will just keep on going...at least fighting Hamas is better than fighting the PLO, if Hamas were wiped out things would be a lot easier.

No, I like the fact that the issue will be resolved.

It won't. Sure, if one side, persumably the ISraelis, killed all Palestinians, but I don't see that happening. I think Israel is too civilized for the kind of ethnic cleansing that it would take. And it's hardly doable anyway. Not even in places like Rwanda did wars actualyl resolve the conflict.

Until one side either kills or demographically absorbs the other side there'll just be more of the same ongoing low level war.  If you think about the major political and cultural changes throughout history, they always involved quite a lot of genocide, or at least loss of much of the male population in war.

Give me some examples please. A lot of old conflicts have been solved through the trans-formation on states into modern civilized democracies. That's happened in Europe, for example. There is overwhelming emprical evidence that democracies never go to war with each other. It's a much better way out than genocide.

Most contacts between Christendom and Islam have involved genocide and all out war - the Crusades, the Ottomans in the Balkans and Hapsburg lands (almost lost Vienna!), the Spanish driving the Moors out.  And don't forget the slow, painful annihilation of the Byzantine Empire.  Don't get me wrong - Christianity used to be dangerous too, but never like Islam.  

More recently even the supposedly 'idealistic' US used genocide to great effect in WWII - firebombing of Dresdent, Tokyo, etc, and of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Failing to use it in Korea and Vietnam was a main cause of the poor results there.

I'd say genocide would something a little more radical than a few bombs...but did the genocide between Muslims and Christians solve the conflict then?

Spain suffered greatly from their intolerance, as did France later on. In fact, I think these are great examples of how these measured are bad. The success of the US is largely due to the freedom and generousity you've displayed towards other people.

Yeah, those genocides did 'work' in the sense that they represented success as conquerors for the Islamic forces in the Balkans and Spain, and later success in driving them out in those same areas.  The point is you have to fight and be ruthless to keep out the invasion of an aggressive, dangerous culture.

Look at where the Muslims are today. They're resented, uneducated, fanatic and if it weren't for their oil they would be so lost it's almost unimaginable...if it weren't for the existence of sub-saharan Africa, of course...

But you get my point. And Catholic Southern Europe, including Spain and Italy, the most intolerant, have been less successful than Nothern EUropean countries. The fact remains, that tolerant countries are generally more successfull than less tolerant ones.

[Gustaf]

There's very little connection between tolerance and ruthlessness.  It is highly beneficial to be tolerant, free, Liberal and capitalistic internally, but one at the same time must be ruthless with one's enemies outside.

Yes, there is. Ruthlessness towards foreigners carry over to 'subversive elements' internally. And then it all goes down the drain eventually. Besides, such an outlook requires one to be pretty narrow-minded and nationalist, which is never good for freedom in the long run.

[Gustaf]

There's very little connection between tolerance and ruthlessness.  It is highly beneficial to be tolerant, free, Liberal and capitalistic internally, but one at the same time must be ruthless with one's enemies outside.

Yes, there is. Ruthlessness towards foreigners carry over to 'subversive elements' internally. And then it all goes down the drain eventually. Besides, such an outlook requires one to be pretty narrow-minded and nationalist, which is never good for freedom in the long run.

I don't think ruthlessness requires narrow-mindedness or nationalism (at least of the jingoistic variety).  I know individually I'm neither of those things - heck I don't even prefer to live in the US.  Its just that I see international relations as sometimes reaching a 'kill or be killed' level of intensity, and that's when resolve and ruthlessness are required.

If you make a difference between hos to treat your own people (the liberal way) and foreigners, the ruthless way, your breeding nationalism of a nasty kind, since you're stripping 'the others' of rights you're giving to your own.