The Aggression Game
Alex Leibovici
"Palestinians"
May 16, 2002
Charles Krauthammer
© 2002, Washington Post Writers' Group
There is no military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So
says -- to take an almost random sample -- The Post (March 26), Sandy
Berger (March 29), George Mitchell (April 1), Colin Powell and Kofi
Annan (April 10), Colin Powell again (April 21).
This conventional wisdom is universally accepted, but odd.
Historically, most conflicts are either settled, or decisively
altered, by test of arms. I would not be writing from a city called
Washington had this not been true for these United States. Moreover,
Yasser Arafat would not have been conducting this 20-month guerrilla
war if he thought it could not decisively alter the balance of forces
on the ground and allow him to dictate terms to the Israelis.
The Israelis, in particular, are repeatedly advised about the futility
of fighting terrorism by military means. This is again odd coming from
the United States, which is doing precisely that in Afghanistan,
Pakistan, the Philippines, Yemen and other places we have yet to learn
about. Nonetheless, regarding Israel, it is a staple of received
opinion.
It is wrong.
After the Passover massacre, Israel launched its offensive into
Palestinian territory. The most dramatic effect has been a reduction
in terrorism. It is no accident that while Israel suffered seven
suicide bombings in the seven days of Passover, there has been but one
successful suicide bombing in the past month. There will surely be
others. But the frenzied wave of terror that pushed Israel over the
edge has been stopped.
Why is the level of terror down? Because terror does have an
infrastructure, and attacking and degrading it makes it harder for
terrorists to operate, as the United States proved in Afghanistan.
During Israel's offensive, hundreds of bomb makers, gunmen and
trainers were captured. Others are on the run. Huge caches of illegal
weapons and explosives were seized or destroyed. Can they be replaced?
Perhaps, but it will take time. It took Arafat eight years to build
this arsenal. He will not be able to replace it in a day.
More important, Arafat's forces were everywhere defeated. As the only
functioning military authority on the West Bank today, the Israeli
army can now make lightning raids, relatively unmolested, to prevent
terrorist operations. For eight years, Palestinian terrorism had the
protection (and, in many cases, the active assistance) of Arafat's
Palestinian Authority. That sanctuary is no longer.
The change on the ground has led to a change in psychology. Some
Palestinians are beginning to ask where Arafat's war is leading them.
This is new. Fueling this war for the past 20 months has been
Palestinian triumphalism. They were winning. War was working. They saw
Israel succumbing to fear, demoralization and paralysis. They assumed
they could fight without serious challenge until economic ruin,
emigration and sheer despair led Israel to capitulate to maximal
Palestinian demands.
Arafat assumed that Israel was losing the will to fight back with
anything more than pinpricks -- and more important, that even if
Israel did strike back, the world (i.e., the United States) would stop
it.
He was wrong. He has now suffered a serious defeat.
Just days ago, it was conventional wisdom that the Israeli operation
had backfired because it had dramatically boosted Arafat's popularity.
This was nonsense from the beginning, the usual mistaking of
victimhood for power. In fact, Arafat was practically scorned by his
people when he ventured out for what he thought would be his triumphal
post-Ramallah tour. The crowds were sparse, the people indifferent and
he did not even venture into the Jenin camp, knowing that he would be
heckled, jeered and possibly worse.
Why? Because he lost. His security services have been shattered. He
can no longer protect the terrorist shock troops. He is shorn and he
knows it.
Why do you think the United States is now talking about "reforming"
Arafat out of the leadership of the Palestinian Authority? Why are
Arab leaders privately endorsing such reform? A sudden conversion to
constitutionalism? Operation Defensive Shield left Arafat gravely
weakened. Arab leaders are not sentimental.
The fire will cease in the Middle East not when a piece of parchment
is signed (remember Oslo?) but when the Palestinians conclude that
they are no longer winning, that the Israelis are not going to give up
and go away, as they did from Lebanon. Israel's offensive has begun to
restore the deterrent that Israel forfeited with its unceasing
concessions under Oslo and its precipitous withdrawal from Lebanon.
Palestinians will now have to recalibrate their thinking about Israeli
will, rethink the impunity they imagined the "international community"
would provide them, recalculate the efficacy of terror. Looking at the
ruin -- moral and material -- that terror has brought them, some
Palestinians might begin thinking that the road to Palestine lies
through an option they rejected at Camp David 22 months ago: peace.
Alex Leibovici
--------
"He who believes absurdities will commit atrocities." Voltaire
Raphael Fischer
news:ka18eu487lbgm77t8...@4ax.com...
>
> Palestinians will now have to recalibrate their thinking about Israeli
> will, rethink the impunity they imagined the "international community"
> would provide them, recalculate the efficacy of terror. Looking at the
> ruin -- moral and material -- that terror has brought them, some
> Palestinians might begin thinking that the road to Palestine lies
> through an option they rejected at Camp David 22 months ago: peace.
It were the offered condictions that were not acceptable. Of course it is
worse now, but the Camp David peace would have sanctioned all illegal
Israeli land-taking for all times. Against a lot of Uno-Resolutions that the
WHOLE west-bank including eastern Jerusalem is NOT and will never be part of
Israel.
As long as Sharon (or Netanyahu - which may even be worse, as we saw
recently) is in power, and the Bush administration not willing to intensify
pressure on Israel, Arafat cannot do more than wait for better times. I hope
that Hamas and other groups can soon be convinced that their business is
contraproductive to their interests.
Raphi
--
http://www.raffiniert.ch/
"Erobern ist leichter als Regieren."
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
alfredo
"Raphael Fischer" <raphael...@swissohneleine.ch> schrieb im Newsbeitragund stehlen noch leichter
alfredo
Alex Leibovici
>"Alex Leibovici" <ALeib...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:ka18eu487lbgm77t8...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Palestinians will now have to recalibrate their thinking about Israeli
>> will, rethink the impunity they imagined the "international community"
>> would provide them, recalculate the efficacy of terror. Looking at the
>> ruin -- moral and material -- that terror has brought them, some
>> Palestinians might begin thinking that the road to Palestine lies
>> through an option they rejected at Camp David 22 months ago: peace.
>
>It were the offered condictions that were not acceptable. Of course it is
>worse now, but the Camp David peace would have sanctioned all illegal
>Israeli land-taking for all times. Against a lot of Uno-Resolutions that the
>WHOLE west-bank including eastern Jerusalem is NOT and will never be part of
>Israel.
1. By signing the Oslo accords, Arafat accepted negotiations as the
*only* way to solve all the differends. Instead, he started a wave of
terrorist attacks, although the Israelis remained open to further
negotiations (which continued indeed several months after the Camp
David failure). By starting violence, Arafat nullified Oslo, and the
Israeli should have formally denounced the accords.
2. Arafat has no *unconditional* right to anything: a specific
territory, recognition, suverignty, etc. For details see my other
posts on this NG.
3. "Israeli land-taking" is not illegal. It is imoral for the Arab
countries to be granted the right to try to destroy Israel as many
times they whish - they tried alreada 3 times - and to have to pay
*no* price for this.
For details see my other posts on this NG. Besides, "illegal" is a
misleading term in International Law, because it is confused with its
meaning in the national law.
>As long as Sharon . . . is in power, . . . Arafat cannot do more than wait
>for better times.
It seems that there will be no better times for Arafat, because its
time is runing out :-)
> I hope that Hamas and other groups can soon be convinced that
> their business is contraproductive to their interests.
Is there a rational basis for your hope ? And - do you think that the
Israeli governments should make the lives of their citizens dependent
of such improbable "hopes" ?
If you are interested in continuing the discussion, please read first
my other posts on this subject on this NG (from 1.04 to 12.05).
Raphael Fischer
> 1. By signing the Oslo accords, Arafat accepted negotiations as the
> *only* way to solve all the differends. Instead, he started a wave of
> terrorist attacks, although the Israelis remained open to further
> negotiations (which continued indeed several months after the Camp
> David failure). By starting violence, Arafat nullified Oslo, and the
> Israeli should have formally denounced the accords.
"By starting violence".... As I recall, the beginning of the second intifada
was a spontanous reaction to Ariel Sharon's provocative visit on Al-Aksa
(and possibly also the experiences of Camp David). Arafat can only be held
responsible for not having stopped violence immediatly. But I'm quite sure
that he wouldn't have been able to.
> 2. Arafat has no *unconditional* right to anything: a specific
> territory, recognition, suverignty, etc. For details see my other
> posts on this NG.
Arafat is a man, he has no right, that's true. But Palestiniens have a right
(1979 Egypt didn't want Gaza back and it's explicitly in the Camp David
treaty that the Gaza Strip is to be part of a future Palestinian state /
1988 Jordania declared that he would no longer hold its claim to Western
Jordanland, it should be part of a Palestinian state) to get their own state
finally. Moreover is there is already a couple of Uno-Resolutions that make
it clear that the green line should be the frontier between Israel and
Palestina. (This is still a big sucess for the Israelis, if you compare it
to the 1948 UN separation plan).
> 3. "Israeli land-taking" is not illegal. It is imoral for the Arab
> countries to be granted the right to try to destroy Israel as many
> times they whish - they tried alreada 3 times - and to have to pay
> *no* price for this.
Palestinians are not collectivly responsible for what Arab states did to
Israel. They were only a card in a Cold war. The price the Arabs paid for
their wars is their deeper level in economics.
Die Siedlungen sind illegal. I cannot describe this in english, but I know
that the only people in the world that don't agree that these buildings are
Israel, are Israelis and some blind sympatisants. If they don't see that
these buildings have to disappear in order to guarant a stable peace,
there'll never be peace at all.
> >As long as Sharon . . . is in power, . . . Arafat cannot do more than
wait
> >for better times.
>
> It seems that there will be no better times for Arafat, because its
> time is runing out :-)
"Totgesagte leben länger." This german saying means that who is declared
dead, lives longer. This is quite true for Arafat, before the second
intifada his position was instable. After declaring him as "irrelevant",
Sharon had to realize that international sympathy with the Palestinian Rais
even grew. The arrest at Ramallah was again contraproductive: Arafat could
present himself as victim.
> > I hope that Hamas and other groups can soon be convinced that
> > their business is contraproductive to their interests.
>
> Is there a rational basis for your hope ? And - do you think that the
> Israeli governments should make the lives of their citizens dependent
> of such improbable "hopes" ?
No, I didn't say so. What I said was that Israel should now stop its
terrible actions - say a month or so - and really negociate. Then they'll
see that terrors stops if they stop their armed actions.
But I'm quite pessimistic now: As long as Sharon (or whoever leads Israel)
is not ready to give up all housing estates - Arafat and no other
Palestinian will ever sign a peace treaty.
And it seems that Israeli don't see this yet; some people still think the
settlements were not illegal.
Raphi
--
http://www.raffiniert.ch/
"Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows
that too many people have died?" - Bob Dylan
Raphael Fischer
news:3ce6bb3c$1...@news.swissonline.ch...
> Palestinians are not collectivly responsible for what Arab states did to
> Israel. They were only a card in a Cold war. The price the Arabs paid for
> their wars is their deeper level in economics.
> Die Siedlungen sind illegal. I cannot describe this in english, but I know
> that the only people in the world that don't agree that these buildings
are
> Israel, are Israelis and some blind sympatisants. If they don't see that
Ś illegal!, not "Israel" (in thoughts already at the next word)
> these buildings have to disappear in order to guarant a stable peace,
> there'll never be peace at all.
I apologize for my bad english.
Alex Leibovici
"Alex Leibovici" .
>> 1. By signing the Oslo accords, Arafat accepted negotiations as the
>> *only* way to solve all the differends. Instead, he started a wave of
>> terrorist attacks, although the Israelis remained open to further
>> negotiations (which continued indeed several months after the Camp
>> David failure). By starting violence, Arafat nullified Oslo, and the
>> Israeli should have formally denounced the accords.
"Raphael Fischer"
>"By starting violence".... As I recall, the beginning of the second intifada
>was a spontanous reaction to Ariel Sharon's provocative visit on Al-Aksa
>(and possibly also the experiences of Camp David).
You mean that not Palestinians, but Israelis started the violence? And
I mean *violence*, that is deliberately targeting and killing hundreds
and maiming thousands of uninvolved civilians !
> Arafat can only be held
>responsible for not having stopped violence immediatly. But I'm quite sure
>that he wouldn't have been able to.
This argument could have some semblance of plausibility if it would
have been known that Arafat desperately tried to stop the "Intifadah".
Pressuring the other side through such wild *violence* is a radical
violation of the fundamental principle of Oslo.
[I've refuted elsewhere the claim that "the second Intifadah
was a spontaneous reaction to Ariel Sharon's provocative visit", as
well as the excuse that "he wouldn't have been able to"]
>> 2. Arafat has no *unconditional* right to anything: a specific
>> territory, recognition, suverignty, etc. For details see my other
>> posts on this NG.
>Arafat is a man, he has no right, that's true.
Obviously, I meant the Arafat's PA and its government, that is its
regime.
>But Palestiniens have a right
>(1979 Egypt didn't want Gaza back and it's explicitly in the Camp David
>treaty that the Gaza Strip is to be part of a future Palestinian state /
>1988 Jordania declared that he would no longer hold its claim to Western
>Jordanland, it should be part of a Palestinian state) to get their own state
>finally. Moreover is there is already a couple of Uno-Resolutions that make
>it clear that the green line should be the frontier between Israel and
>Palestina. (This is still a big sucess for the Israelis, if you compare it
>to the 1948 UN separation plan).
I have already addressed in my previous posts to this NG the question
of what rights the Palestinian (or any other) people have, what rights
does the PA have, what is the value of UN resolutions and why they are
superceded by the Oslo accords. I will not repeat them again;
remember, I've asked you (I even said "please" !) to consult my
previous postings.
>> 3. "Israeli land-taking" is not illegal. It is imoral for the Arab
>> countries to be granted the right to try to destroy Israel as many
>> times they whish - they tried alreada 3 times - and to have to pay
>> *no* price for this.
>Palestinians are not collectivly responsible for what Arab states did to
>Israel.
Perfectly true. That is why, contrary to the custom which prevails in
that part of the world, they were not simply massacred after the
1948, the 1968 or the 1973 wars which the Arabs have lost.
Besides, the palestinian Arabs had their own local authorities, which,
like the neighboring Arab states, fought with violence the UN's
partition plan. The palestinian *people* are not *morally* responsible
for this, but the moral and political responsibility for the ensuing
suffering of the Palestinians is on their leadership, and on the
leadership of the Arab countries.
>The price the Arabs paid for their wars is their deeper level in economics.
There is no strong correlation between winning or losing a war and the
post-war developments trends; take the example of (West!) Germany, who
lost the war, and USSR, who won the war.
The Arab states in bad economic shape because they are dictatorships.
>Die Siedlungen sind illegal. I cannot describe this in english, but I know
>that the only people in the world that don't agree that these buildings are
>Israel, are Israelis and some blind sympatisants. If they don't see that
>these buildings have to disappear in order to guarant a stable peace,
>there'll never be peace at all.
I see no argument, only a diatribe, here. I have commented on the
settlements at length in my previous posts, which you didn't care to
read.
>> > I hope that Hamas and other groups can soon be convinced that
>> > their business is contraproductive to their interests.
>> Is there a rational basis for your hope ? And - do you think that the
>> Israeli governments should make the lives of their citizens dependent
>> of such improbable "hopes" ?
>No, I didn't say so. What I said was that Israel should now stop its
>terrible actions - say a month or so - and really negociate. Then they'll
>see that terrors stops if they stop their armed actions.
This game was played several times before, with the same result every
time; it would be really stupid to fail to learn from the past. Now it
is up to the Palestinians to stop and prove they mean peace seriously,
by chosing a leadership which does mean peace.
Raphael Fischer
> [I've refuted elsewhere the claim that "the second Intifadah
> was a spontaneous reaction to Ariel Sharon's provocative visit", as
> well as the excuse that "he wouldn't have been able to"]
And you are always right?
> I have already addressed in my previous posts to this NG the question
> of what rights the Palestinian (or any other) people have, what rights
> does the PA have, what is the value of UN resolutions and why they are
> superceded by the Oslo accords. I will not repeat them again;
> remember, I've asked you (I even said "please" !) to consult my
> previous postings.
I read some, but I thought that I don't have to read them all because the
arguments are always repeated. But give me please the Message-ID of the post
in which you think to prove that UN resolutions are worthless after the Oslo
treaty; I can hardly believe that. Besides, there are a couple of recent
UNO-Resolutions which I meant (since Oslo is dead, maybe one could argue
that everything is nil and void what was written there, thus the older
UNO-resolutions would again be valid; but I'm no lawyer).
> > Palestinians are not collectivly responsible for what Arab states did to
> > Israel.
> Perfectly true. That is why, contrary to the custom which prevails in
> that part of the world, they were not simply massacred after the
> 1948, the 1968 or the 1973 wars which the Arabs have lost.
I admit this. But Israel would have lost every international sympathy if
they - a lot of them victims of a genocide - would have comitted another
genocide. Israel choosed not to massacer the Palestinians, but to make them
live without an own state.
> Besides, the palestinian Arabs had their own local authorities, which,
> like the neighboring Arab states, fought with violence the UN's
> partition plan. The palestinian *people* are not *morally* responsible
> for this, but the moral and political responsibility for the ensuing
> suffering of the Palestinians is on their leadership, and on the
> leadership of the Arab countries.
Yes, perfectly true. But is this a argument why Palestinians have still to
suffer now, 30 years after the last war on Israel (Yom-Kippur 1973)? To make
a good peace, one ought to let the past be the past and not construct any
strange rights from it. If you ask me, there are no historical rights to
anything at all. But I'm sure you don't like to hear that because Israel
bases partly on exactly this idea; finally we've got the land of our
ancients two thousands of years ago again... -> OUR land?
> I see no argument, only a diatribe, here. I have commented on the
> settlements at length in my previous posts, which you didn't care to
> read.
I consider the settlements as illegal and incompatible to any UN-resolution
about the middle east conflict. No, I don't care to read your posts on this
subject, because I consider the UN as the highest authority in world
politics. I can't remember having heard of a UN-resolution sanctioning the
settlements, can you?
> This game was played several times before, with the same result every
> time; it would be really stupid to fail to learn from the past. Now it
> is up to the Palestinians to stop and prove they mean peace seriously,
> by chosing a leadership which does mean peace.
You know that elections would bring with great possibility Arafats Fatah
again to power? Would you then take this as a prove that Palestinians don't
want peace? Well, I tell you, your argument is terribly arrogant, you think
you can tell them who they have to elect, you think you're morally above
them. But the Palestinians could, refering to Likuds recent decision, just
as well say:
"Now it is up to the Israelis to stop their violence and prove they mean
peace seriously, by chosing a leadership which does mean peace." Sharon is
not better than Arafat.
Raphi
Alex Leibovici
>"Alex Leibovici"
>> [I've refuted elsewhere the claim that "the second Intifadah
>> was a spontaneous reaction to Ariel Sharon's provocative visit", as
>> well as the excuse that "he wouldn't have been able to"]
>And you are always right?
Most of the time :-)
But, hey, not so fast ! The subject here was about PA having grossly
violated the basic Oslo principle. As you don't comment on my
argument, (you are only commenting on an aside, the one in square
brackets), I will assume you agree with my conclusion.
>> I have already addressed in my previous posts to this NG the question
>> of what rights the Palestinian (or any other) people have, what rights
>> does the PA have, what is the value of UN resolutions and why they are
>> superceded by the Oslo accords. I will not repeat them again;
>> remember, I've asked you (I even said "please" !) to consult my
>> previous postings.
>I read some, but I thought that I don't have to read them all because the
>arguments are always repeated.
Well, you were wrong: the ones you didn't care to read are the most
interesting :-) and treat most of your objections.
>But give me please the Message-ID of the post
>in which you think to prove that UN resolutions are worthless after the Oslo
>treaty; I can hardly believe that.
It is not sooo complicated: I have only applied a general principle of
law to a specific case. Here is the reference:
Message-ID: <ngarcuojtgoepe5ji...@4ax.com>, and here is
the relevant quote:
>>the various UN resolutions about Israel having to abandon the "occupied"
>>territories and so on are nullified in many of their provisions, according to
>>the principle that a specific ulterior agreement between the parties in dispute
>>superceedes the anterior relevant parts of the relevant UN resolutions.
An important remark: as you could have noted from the posts you didn't
care to read, my references to UN and its resolution are not construed
to mean that I consider UN a respectable institution (the main reason
being that it is composed in a proportion of at least 75% by
dictatorships of various kinds). You could also have noted that I
never base the legitimacy of anything (including, but not limited to,
the state of Israel) on some UN decision. If I accept to play the
UN-game, it is only to show that, even taking UN seriously, the
opponent's conclusion is false.
>Besides, there are a couple of recent UNO-Resolutions which I meant
See my comment above.
> (since Oslo is dead, maybe one could argue
>that everything is nil and void what was written there, thus the older
>UNO-resolutions would again be valid; but I'm no lawyer).
Oslo not being dead (ie not having been officially denounced by any of
the parties), it is premature to contemplate right now this
possibility.
>> > Palestinians are not collectivly responsible for what Arab states did to
>> > Israel.
>> Perfectly true. That is why, contrary to the custom which prevails in
>> that part of the world, they were not simply massacred after the
>> 1948, the 1968 or the 1973 wars which the Arabs have lost.
>I admit this. But Israel would have lost every international sympathy if
>they - a lot of them victims of a genocide - would have comitted another
>genocide. Israel choosed not to massacer the Palestinians [...]
That Israel didn't chose to massacre the Arabs precisely because "of
the fear of loosing the international sympathy" is a pure speculation
on you part, as I suppose you didn't make a thorough study of the
personal and political motivation of the Israeli politicians of the
time. But I note for the future that you _do_ have the propensity of
making such sweeping unsupported statements.
I also note that "international sympathy" is a very capricious thing,
and is not to be taken as an absolute guide for determining one's
policy. For example, how much "international sympathy" gained Israel
from its undeniable military restraint during its last military
operation ?
I also note that you do agree with me that the Arab states are in bad
economic shape because they are dictatorships, and not because of the
wars list to Israel. Or you don't ? :-)
>> Besides, the palestinian Arabs had their own local authorities, which,
>> like the neighboring Arab states, fought with violence the UN's
>> partition plan. The palestinian *people* are not *morally* responsible
>> for this, but the moral and political responsibility for the ensuing
>> suffering of the Palestinians is on their leadership, and on the
>> leadership of the Arab countries.
>
>Yes, perfectly true. But is this a argument why Palestinians have still to
>suffer now 30 years after the last war on Israel (Yom-Kippur 1973)?
There is no justification for simple Palestinians to suffer, but you
must try to honestly determine WHO is responsible for their present
suffering. If they are not capable, the fault is theirs, because, if I
am not mistaken, they have access to very diversified sources of
information.
>To make
>a good peace, one ought to let the past be the past and not construct any
>strange rights from it. If you ask me, there are no historical rights to
>anything at all. But I'm sure you don't like to hear that because Israel
>bases partly on exactly this idea; finally we've got the land of our
>ancients two thousands of years ago again... -> OUR land?
Your certainty ("But I'm sure . . . ") about what I would consider the
basis for the legitimacy of the state of Israel happens to be fully
and totally false.
You made here a terrible blunder, which reveals your way of thinking.
The irony if it is that you could have easily avoided the shame of it
if you had followed my plea to read my previous posts.
The legitimacy of a country - any country - is based on it's respect
for people's individual rights. It is not based on such tribal and
mystical arguments as holly scripture, race, tongue, "class justice",
"tradition" and so on, or on resolutions of commitees composed at 3/4
of gangsters (= U.N.O.).
>I don't care to read your posts on this subject, because I consider
>the UN as the highest authority in world politics.
And by what rational process did you come to the conclusion thet UN is
the paragon of law and justice? How can you blindly trust anybody, and
particularly an organism dominated by a strong majority of members
which have no idea of individual rights, freedom of speech, free
elections, political parties, rule of law ?
>> This game was played several times before, with the same result every
>> time; it would be really stupid to fail to learn from the past. Now it
>> is up to the Palestinians to stop and prove they mean peace seriously,
>> by chosing a leadership which does mean peace.
>
>You know that elections would bring with great possibility Arafats Fatah
>again to power?
I do not know this. Do you ?
>Would you then take this as a prove that Palestinians don't
>want peace?
The Palestinians are morally responsible for the choice each of them
will make, IF the the elections are free, IF there is freedom of
political parties.
>Well, I tell you, your argument is terribly arrogant, you think
>you can tell them who they have to elect, you think you're morally above
>them.
I have nothing against me telling them whom to chose :-),
unfortunately I don't have the effective possibility of doing this.
But I will hold them responsible for a bad choise, IF they will have a
choise, ie a good candidate.
>But the Palestinians could, refering to Likuds recent decision, just
>as well say: "Now it is up to the Israelis to stop their violence and
>prove they mean peace seriously, by chosing a leadership which
>does mean peace."
Israelis didn't start the violence, and they have the right to defend
themselves, and they proved they mean peace seriously.
>Sharon is not better than Arafat.
Really ? Does Sharon (and its regime)
- accept on ITS territory notoriously terrorist organizations, to use
ITS territory for attacks against Palestine
- encourage, or praise, or pay killing of as many palestinian
civilian as possible, including by minors indoctrinated in its schools
- confiscate the political decision for himself, switching off the
parliament
- persecute, inclusive kill, journalists or intellectuals who
dislike his politics or methods
- etc. ??
You say Sharon is no better than Arafat, other say Israelis are no
better than Hitler and so on. It is easy to say anything, but before
saying this, you should sit down and make a list of what Arafat (or
Hitler) is doing, and only afterwards examine if there is really a
similarity.
Yes, Hitler ordered killings, and also de Gaule ordered killings. Is
de Gaule no better than Hitler ?
We have come to treat far too many subject at the same time, which is
completely unproductive. I propose we tackle each subject in turn, and
concentrate on politico-ethical principles first; from your web site I
understood you have an academic degree - in history and/or philosophy?
What are YOUR criteria of the legitimacy of a state and where (ie from
what more fundamental considerations) do they come from ?
PS
Consult my previous messages, including:
Message-ID: <2t5uau0b4mdj0j1v3...@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <iu9jcu45evlip2839...@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <ns8ncu8itf99ck29v...@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <majtdu0d6ie6ik6h2...@4ax.com>
and all the others :-)
Alex Leibovici
>> If you are interested in continuing the discussion, [...]
>Lieber nicht, es wird nämlich langsam langweilig, immer das gleiche zu
I was not talking to you.
Pascal
"Alex Leibovici" <ALeib...@compuserve.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:mkcieucca6uvprbpp...@4ax.com...
> "Pascal" <pascal....@bluewin.ch> wrote:
>
> >> If you are interested in continuing the discussion, [...]
>
> >Lieber nicht, es wird nämlich langsam langweilig, immer das gleiche zu
>
> I was not talking to you.
>
sprichst du mit allen Lesern dieser NG und jeder kann auf deine Postings
antworten. Es bleibt dir die Möglichkeit, mit deinen auserkorenen
Diskussionsopfern via Email zu verkehren. Dann ist das Privatsache. So aber
musst du dir gefallen lassen, dass jene, die mit deiner Sophisterei nicht
einverstanden sind, es hier sagen.
Bassgy
Andreas Schmid
Er meint eben, nachdem ein einziger Poster seit geraumer Zeit
wieder mal auf seinen Schimmelkäse eingetreten ist, dass er hier
eine nicht zu hinterfragende Gala-Schau zu Ehren Israels über die
glitschige Bühne ziehen kann. Ich nehme ihn schon längst nicht
mehr ernst. In der Skala kommt er bei mir gleich nach Jean-Luc
Barbier und seinem bewährten Scientologen-Programm :->!
Andy
Raphael Fischer
> >But the Palestinians could, refering to Likuds recent decision, just
> >as well say: "Now it is up to the Israelis to stop their violence and
> >prove they mean peace seriously, by chosing a leadership which
> >does mean peace."
>
> Israelis didn't start the violence, and they have the right to defend
> themselves, and they proved they mean peace seriously.
I give up!
But you shouldn't think that I agree completly with you. In parts, you bring
some good arguments, but at the whole, you always want to prove that
everything Sharon (and Israel) does is right, and everything Arafat does, a
crime.
"They proved they mean peace seriously"
When? What? Who?
By explicitly refusing a palestinian state (Likud, Mai 2002)?
By voting Bulldozer Sharon instead of Barak (March 2001)?
By building more settlements against Oslo agreements (until today)?
Raphi
P.S. The reasons I stop the conversation:
1. I'm pessimistic about the sense of arguing with you.
2. You take clearly the Israeli part. Today I take the Palestinian, but I
admit that they also commit errors. You don't seem to agree that Israelis
are also just humans, means they also commited, and still commit, errors.
(And if you ask me, Sharon does very BIG errors that won't stop terror, but
make the whole situation even worse.) It seems whatever they do, it's right
for you.
3. Your way of discussion annoies me.
alfredo
news:3ce96e53$1...@news.bluewin.ch...
eine Person meint, die in der Schweiz wohnt, den Schutz des Landes geniesst
etc, sie dürfe von deutschsprachigen Schweizern fordern, dass sie iregend
ein verdrehtes Weltbild in Fremdsprachen lesen? Und das auch noch, wenn so
ein bedenklicher Kerl möglicherweise noch sehr gut in der deutschen Sprache
kommunizieen könnte?
Wie bezeichnet Sigi Freud solche Zeitgenossen?
alfredo
Raphael Fischer
> >> > Palestinians are not collectivly responsible for what Arab states did
to
> >> > Israel.
>
> >> Perfectly true. That is why, contrary to the custom which prevails in
> >> that part of the world, they were not simply massacred after the
> >> 1948, the 1968 or the 1973 wars which the Arabs have lost.
>
> >I admit this. But Israel would have lost every international sympathy if
> >they - a lot of them victims of a genocide - would have comitted another
> >genocide. Israel choosed not to massacer the Palestinians [...]
>
> That Israel didn't chose to massacre the Arabs precisely because "of
> the fear of loosing the international sympathy" is a pure speculation
> on you part, as I suppose you didn't make a thorough study of the
> personal and political motivation of the Israeli politicians of the
> time.
I did not say that Israeli government made this reflections. It was just my
spontanous idea that they would have lost every international sympathy. I
hope all the same that this was NOT the reason they let the Palestinian
alive.
> But I note for the future that you _do_ have the propensity of
> making such sweeping unsupported statements.
Drück dich in verständlichem Deutsch aus, wenn du mich ankotzen willst.
Raphi
Alex Leibovici
>>>. . . But Israel would have lost every international sympathy if
>>>they - a lot of them victims of a genocide - would have comitted another
>>>live without an own state.
"Alex Leibovici" wrote
>> That Israel didn't chose to massacre the Arabs precisely because "of
>> the fear of loosing the international sympathy" is a pure speculation
>> on you part, as I suppose you didn't make a thorough study of the
>> personal and political motivation of the Israeli politicians of the
>> time.
"Raphael Fischer" wrote:
>I did not say that Israeli government made this reflections. It was just my
>spontanous idea that they would have lost every international sympathy. I
>hope all the same that this was NOT the reason they let the Palestinian
>alive.
I still find plausible my interpretation of what you wrote, but it is
OK with me if you say I misunderstood you.
"Alex Leibovici" wrote
>> But I note for the future that you _do_ have the propensity of
>> making such sweeping unsupported statements.
"Raphael Fischer" wrote:
>Drück dich in verständlichem Deutsch aus, wenn du mich ankotzen willst.
Sorry. I take my remark back.
Alex Leibovici
"Alex Leibovici" wrote, in an answer to a post by Raphael Fischer
>> >> If you are interested in continuing the discussion, [...]
"Pascal" wrote:
>> >Lieber nicht, es wird nämlich langsam langweilig, immer das gleiche zu
"Alex Leibovici" wrote
>> I was not talking to you.
"Pascal" wrote:
>Du publizierst deine queren Gedankengänge in einer öffentlichen NG.
Correct. But this specific question
> >>>> If you are interested in continuing the discussion, [...]
was _obviously_ directed to a specific person, Raphael Fischer, and
you have no business answering in his stead.
2). -------
"Pascal" wrote:
>deine Verfälschung der Geschichte [...! ]. So zum Beispiel dein Märchen,
>Arafat habe die Osloer Verträge gekündigt,
It is obvious that you understand nothing. So, don't expect answers
from me.
Pascal
> 1). ----------
>
> "Alex Leibovici" wrote, in an answer to a post by Raphael Fischer
> >> >> If you are interested in continuing the discussion, [...]
>
> "Pascal" wrote:
> >> >Lieber nicht, es wird nämlich langsam langweilig, immer das gleiche zu
>
> "Alex Leibovici" wrote
> >> I was not talking to you.
>
> "Pascal" wrote:
> >Du publizierst deine queren Gedankengänge in einer öffentlichen NG.
>
> Correct. But this specific question
>
> > >>>> If you are interested in continuing the discussion, [...]
>
> was _obviously_ directed to a specific person, Raphael Fischer, and
> you have no business answering in his stead.
Ich habe meiner Auffassung Ausdruck gegeben, dass es nachgerade langweilig
wird, deine wiedergekauten "Wahrheiten" in dieser NG zu lesen. Ich muss dich
nicht um Erlaubnis fragen, um dies tun zu dürfen, ich lebe in der Schweiz
und nicht in Palästina.
>
> 2). -------
>
> "Pascal" wrote:
> >deine Verfälschung der Geschichte [...! ]. So zum Beispiel dein Märchen,
> >Arafat habe die Osloer Verträge gekündigt,
>
> It is obvious that you understand nothing. So, don't expect answers
> from me.
>
Ich erwarte keine Antworten von dir, erlaube mir aber, hier meine Meinung zu
sagen, ob es dir passt oder nicht.
Es ist ein Jude Israels gewesen, der Rabin ermordet hat. Das sollst du dir
hinter die Ohren schreiben.
Bassgy
Alex Leibovici
<pascal....@bluewin.ch> wrote:
>Es ist ein Jude Israels gewesen, der Rabin ermordet hat. Das sollst du dir
>hinter die Ohren schreiben.
Is this an updated version of "Es sind Juden Israels gewesen, der
Jesus Christ ermordet haben. Das sollst du dir hinter die Ohren
schreiben" ?
Andreas Schmid
Es steht mir zwar nicht zu, seine Antwort vorweg zu nehmen,
doch braucht es IMHO nur verdammt wenig Scharfsinn um unter
seiner durchaus erlaubten Formulierung zu verstehen, dass der
einzig valable israelische Hoffnungsträger für effiziente
Friedensbemühungen ausgerechnet von einem Juden Israels
(und nicht von einem Palästinenser) auf's Kreuz gelegt worden ist.
Und damit natürlich sein Land eines damals durchaus möglich
gewordenen Friedens beraubte. Aber das hast wohl sogar du begriffen,
auch wenn du dir hier weiterhin in polemischen Sprüchen gefällst.
Andy
Raphael Fischer
news:3CEB74B7...@swissonline.ch...
>Es steht mir zwar nicht zu, seine Antwort vorweg zu nehmen,
>doch braucht es IMHO nur verdammt wenig Scharfsinn um unter
>seiner durchaus erlaubten Formulierung zu verstehen, dass der
>einzig valable israelische Hoffnungsträger für effiziente
>Friedensbemühungen ausgerechnet von einem Juden Israels
>(und nicht von einem Palästinenser) auf's Kreuz gelegt worden ist.
>Und damit natürlich sein Land eines damals durchaus möglich
>gewordenen Friedens beraubte. Aber das hast wohl sogar du begriffen,
>auch wenn du dir hier weiterhin in polemischen Sprüchen gefällst.
Ja, ich würde auch dieser Interpreationsmöglichkeit zusprechen. Trotzdem hat
auch Alex ein wenig recht, weil Bassgy dieses Argument in letzter Zeit immer
wieder repetierte. Das ist IMHO kontraproduktiv und es ist dann tatsächlich
nur ein kleiner Schritt zum "Christusmörder"-Quatsch; leistet also
antisemitischem Schwachsinn Vorschub. Ich bin aber überzeugt, dass Bassgy
das nicht beabsichtigt.
Trotzdem: Argumentiert bitte nicht in die Vergangenheit, sondern in die
Zukunft. Die Frage, ob Rabins Politik damals Oslo zu einem guten Ende
gebracht hätte oder nicht, ist angesichts der heutigen Lage irrelevant. Man
muss fragen, was Israel JETZT tun kann.
Raphi
--
http://www.raffiniert.ch/
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with
sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo
Galilei
Urs Vonhuben
> Trotzdem: Argumentiert bitte nicht in die Vergangenheit, sondern in die
> Zukunft. Die Frage, ob Rabins Politik damals Oslo zu einem guten Ende
> gebracht hätte oder nicht, ist angesichts der heutigen Lage irrelevant. Man
> muss fragen, was Israel JETZT tun kann.
was israel jetzt tun kann?
ganz einfach:
- räumung der (völkerrechtswidrigen) siedlungen in den besetzten
gebieten
- vollständiger abzug aus den besetzten gebieten (rückzug der
israelischen armee innerhalb die von der UNO anerkannten grenzen
des staates israel)
- anerkennen des existenzrechts palästinas
urs
Martin Lenz
news:3CEB9988...@hotmail.com...
> Raphael Fischer wrote:
......................
> was israel jetzt tun kann?
>
> ganz einfach:
> - räumung der (völkerrechtswidrigen) siedlungen in den besetzten
> gebieten
> - vollständiger abzug aus den besetzten gebieten (rückzug der
> israelischen armee innerhalb die von der UNO anerkannten grenzen
> des staates israel)
> - anerkennen des existenzrechts palästinas
>
>
> urs
100 % ACK und
Dann könnte man endlich auch in der Schweiz mit gutem Gewissen
ja zur UNO sagen, solange es aber UNO-Mitglieder gibt, die deren
eigene Resolutionen nicht befolgen, ist es eine Unglaubwürdige
Organisation.
Martin
der aber kaum an die Gerechtigkeit in der Welt glaubt.
Geld ist Macht und wer hat Geld ?
alfredo
> > Trotzdem: Argumentiert bitte nicht in die Vergangenheit, sondern in die
> > Zukunft.
sie nicht bereit/fähig sind _ihre Vergangenheit_ aufzuarbeiten?
> ganz einfach:
> - räumung der (völkerrechtswidrigen) siedlungen in den besetzten gebieten
> - vollständiger abzug aus den besetzten gebieten (rückzug der israelischen
armee innerhalb die von der UNO anerkannten
> grenzen des staates israel)
sind die identisch mit den damals zugesprochenen Gebieten?
> - anerkennen des existenzrechts palästinas
wäre höchste Zeit
alfredo
Andreas Schmid
>
> "Urs Vonhuben" <push...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:3CEB9988...@hotmail.com...
> > Raphael Fischer wrote:
> ......................
> > was israel jetzt tun kann?
> >
> > ganz einfach:
> > - räumung der (völkerrechtswidrigen) siedlungen in den besetzten
> > gebieten
> > - vollständiger abzug aus den besetzten gebieten (rückzug der
> > israelischen armee innerhalb die von der UNO anerkannten grenzen
> > des staates israel)
> > - anerkennen des existenzrechts palästinas
> >
> >
> > urs
>
> 100 % ACK und
>
> Dann könnte man endlich auch in der Schweiz mit gutem Gewissen
> ja zur UNO sagen, solange es aber UNO-Mitglieder gibt, die deren
> eigene Resolutionen nicht befolgen, ist es eine Unglaubwürdige
> Organisation.
Du sprichst mir aus der Seele...
Man erinnere sich meiner hier mehrfach dazu geäusserten Bedenken
und Verbalgefechte im Zuge der bewegten Vorabstimmungsphase.
So falsch waren meine damals zum Ausdruck gebrachten Vorbehalte
also keineswegs. Das befriedigt mich aber nur mässig...
Immerhin: Nachher, geläutert durch die Praxis, sehen Viele klarer ;->!
Andy
Pascal
"Alex Leibovici" <aleib...@compuserve.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:8iqmeu0orvs0onjhe...@4ax.com...
entsprechend der Maxime Land für Frieden den Osloer Vertrag mitgetragen. Er
hat für seine Friedensbemühungen zusammen mit Arafat den
Friedens-Nobel-Preis erhalten. Seit der Ermordung Rabins ist der
Friedensprozess zum Erliegen gekommen. Sharon hat den Grundsatz Land für
Frieden endgültig aufgegeben, er war ja auch nie dafür. Das Osloer-Abkommen
hat er in den Papierkorb geworfen. Er hat bekannt gegeben, dass er niemals
Land für Frieden abtreten werde. Und mit den heutigen Palästinensern will er
schon gar keinen Frieden aushandeln. Für ihn ist der andauernde Krieg gegen
die Palästinenser vorteilhaft, das hält auch die Wähler bei der Stange.
Anspielungen an die christliche Religion soll der Herr Leibovici besser
unterlassen. Er darf auch erwarten, dass wir uns hier nicht über die
jüdische Religion lustig machen. Wir können sehr wohl zwischen Judentum als
Religion und Israel als Staat zu unterscheiden.
Bassgy
Martin vom See
>
> "Alex Leibovici" <aleib...@compuserve.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:8iqmeu0orvs0onjhe...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 21 May 2002 23:52:17 +0200, "Pascal"
> > <pascal....@bluewin.ch> wrote:
> >
> > >Es ist ein Jude Israels gewesen, der Rabin ermordet hat. Das sollst du
> dir
> > >hinter die Ohren schreiben.
> >
> > Is this an updated version of "Es sind Juden Israels gewesen, der
> > Jesus Christ ermordet haben. Das sollst du dir hinter die Ohren
> > schreiben" ?
> >
> Auf so dumme Gedanken käme ich nicht. Rabin ist kein Messias. Rabin hat
aber
> entsprechend der Maxime Land für Frieden den Osloer Vertrag mitgetragen.
Er
> hat für seine Friedensbemühungen zusammen mit Arafat den
> Friedens-Nobel-Preis erhalten. Seit der Ermordung Rabins ist der
> Friedensprozess zum Erliegen gekommen. Sharon hat den Grundsatz Land für
> Frieden endgültig aufgegeben, er war ja auch nie dafür.
Geklautes Land wohlverstanden, Land das nie den Israeli gehörte
schon dies ist eine Zumutung gegenüber den Palestinänsern.
> Das Osloer-Abkommen
> hat er in den Papierkorb geworfen. Er hat bekannt gegeben, dass er niemals
> Land für Frieden abtreten werde. Und mit den heutigen Palästinensern will
er
> schon gar keinen Frieden aushandeln. Für ihn ist der andauernde Krieg
gegen
> die Palästinenser vorteilhaft, das hält auch die Wähler bei der Stange.
>
Der Schlächter ist wie HH keinen Deut besser. Es gibt nur sehr
wenige Länder auf dieser Welt in denen Mörder gleich mehrfach
Staatspräsidenten werden können. Solch ein Land ist Israel, man erinnere
sich en Begin. Der wurde steckbrieflich als Mehrfacher Mörder gesucht
aber es ist bezeichnend für die übrigen Länder. Im WW2 haben sie sich
stillgehalten (und vermutlich heimlich gefreut) und nun plagt sie das
Schlechte Gewissen. Nur mich interessiert die Nazizeit nicht, das ist
Geschichte. Heute zählt und heute sieht es in Palestina so aus wie
damals in Warschau, also gleiches Regime!
> Anspielungen an die christliche Religion soll der Herr Leibovici besser
> unterlassen. Er darf auch erwarten, dass wir uns hier nicht über die
> jüdische Religion lustig machen. Wir können sehr wohl zwischen Judentum
als
> Religion und Israel als Staat zu unterscheiden.
>
> Bassgy
Wir schon, aber Leibovici nicht, es ist wie immer:
Sage was gegen Israel und Du bist ein Antisemit!
Klassisch, praktisch gut und so einfach.
Mvs
Raphael Fischer
news:3CEB9988...@hotmail.com...
> > muss fragen, was Israel JETZT tun kann.
> - räumung der (völkerrechtswidrigen) siedlungen in den besetzten
> gebieten
Glaubst du, dass die einen entsprechenden Entscheid des israelischen
Kabinetts (wenn er denn endlich käme) einfach so akzeptieren? Ne, ne,
Fritze, das wird vermutlich noch ne mühsame Sache werden. Diese Siedler
haben zum Teil Bürgerwehren und andere Organisationen. Die haben übrigens
schon mal einen Premierminister umgebracht, der ihnen nicht passte.
Schade wäre es, aber erstaunen würde es mich nicht, wenn die Siedlungen im
Zuge des Abzugs von den Ex-Siedlern zerstört würden; im Sinne von: "Wir
haben hier nicht jahrelang für Euch gearbeitet." Das sollte wenn es dann mal
soweit ist IMHO unbedingt verhindert werden, denn diese Siedlungen könnten
unter Umständen eine ideale Basis für die ökonomische Entwicklung der
Westbank abgeben.
> - vollständiger abzug aus den besetzten gebieten (rückzug der
> israelischen armee innerhalb die von der UNO anerkannten grenzen
> des staates israel)
Ja, das wäre korrekt. Offenbar besteht in Israel aber noch immer eine
inzwischen kaum mehr begründbare Angst vor einem vereinten arabischen
Angriff auf ihr Land. In diesem Sinne wäre der Abdullah-Plan eben nicht
schlecht, würde er Israel doch eine grosse Gegenleistung für seine
Kompromisse bieten: den endgültigen Frieden mit allen arabischen Ländern und
damit die endgültige Akzeptierung seiner Existenz in diesem geografischen
Raum. Ich kann gar nicht verstehen, warum Sharon diese einmalige Chance
nicht packt.
Warum nicht? Ich vermute, weil er niemandem traut. Das Misstrauen ist zu
gross, die arabischen Regime sind in den Augen Israels alles unglaubwürdige
Despotien. Vielleicht weil er die arabischen Führer an sich selbst misst,
misstraut Sharon den guten Absichten und wittert bei jedem Friedensplan
sofort eine Finte des Gegners.
> - anerkennen des existenzrechts palästinas
Man kann nicht anerkennen was nicht da ist. Israel trägt Verantwortung für
die jetzige Situation, d.h. es kann sich nicht einfach zurückziehen und die
Existenz Palästinas anerkennen. Nein, es wird dieses Palästina ganz
entscheidend und echt fördern müssen, damit dieser Staat auch einmal
einigermassen überlebensfähig ist (jetzt, wo so viele Olivenbäume zerstört
worden sind). Natürlich wird dafür Onkel Sam seine Tasche weit öffnen, den
Rest dürfen die Europäer berappen.
It's a long way to go, so they ought to start right now.
Raphi
Alex Leibovici
>I give up!
I do regret your decision.
>. . . you always want to prove that everything Sharon (and Israel) does is right,
I do not beleive everything Sharon (and Israel) does is right, and I
do not beleive you have sufficient grounds of assume that this is what
I want to prove.
I was arguing in favour of the policies (or, rather, strategies) with
which I do agree. On occasions I was pointing on policies with which I
do not agree, for example in Message-ID:
<2t5uau0b4mdj0j1v3...@4ax.com>
If you are interested in my opinion about this or that Sharon's, or
anyone else's, policy, just ask me. I will always justify my opinion
with (what I beleive being) a rational argument, because I do not hold
opinions without (what I consider to be) a good reason. It is then up
to you to evaluate the arguments and possibly refute them with better
rational argument.
>and everything Arafat does, a crime.
If you beleive that his policies are *essentially* good, I am ready to
examine your corresponding arguments.
>"They proved they mean peace seriously"
>When? What? Who?
>By explicitly refusing a palestinian state (Likud, Mai 2002)?
I gave you some argument about the futility of loking for a serious
agreement with the Arafat clique. I've offered you an examination of
the fundamental politico-philosiphical problem of the origins of
sovereignity and of the right of self-determination. Without
establishing this premise, a discution on details is premature.
>By voting Bulldozer Sharon instead of Barak (March 2001)?
What do you know about Barak? He keeps repeating in the last year and
a half that there is no chance for peace if Arafat leads the
Palestinian Authority. The last time he said this was a few days ago.
I can dig for the referrence, if you need it.
The same with Rabin: Arafat likes to say "my friend Rabin, my big
friend Rabin", but in fact Rabin did not consider Arafat as a friend
(you noticed how reluctant he was to shake hands with him at the White
House lawn), and his wife used to say that Rabin wouldn't have
approved of all the concessions Barak offered to Arafat, in particular
on Jerusalem.
>By building more settlements against Oslo agreements (until today)?
*Against* Oslo agreements?? It is easy to settle this: just show me
where in the Oslo agreements is the building of settlements
prohibited.
>P.S. The reasons I stop the conversation:
>1. I'm pessimistic about the sense of arguing with you.
What you mean ?
>2. You take clearly the Israeli part.
I take the side of the party which I consider essentially right. If I
am asked to rationally justify my choice, I bring my argements. You
are free to examine my arguments. What do you find wrong in this ?
>Today I take the Palestinian
It is your right, and I have the right to hear your arguments and to
evaluate them.
>but I admit that they also commit errors [. . . ]
Errors . . . Isn't this an understatement ?
>3. Your way of discussion annoies me.
I do not know what exactly you mean, but it was not my intention to
offend you.