Bruce J. Richman wrote:

While Sharon's political party (Likud) is definitely not as *generous* when it
comes to making concessions as the prior Labor party and its prime minister,
Sharon's personality characteristics have nothing at all to do with the failure
to resolve the MidEast conflict. Your perhaps don't recall that one of
Israel's prior prime ministers, Menachem Begin, was also quite "hard-line"
relative to other Israeli le4aders, and he nevertheless managed to reach a
peace agreement with Egypt. Of course, in that case, there was an Arab leader
willing to negotiate in good faith and reach an accomodation. None of that
exists today. Arafat has no interest in peace under any rational set of
conditions, as proven by his refusal of an extremely generous offer from the
prior Israeli government, and his consequent refusal to make any counteroffer
and subsequent encouragement and support of terrorism.

Even the crown prince of Saudi Arabia has advanced an idea, which, while
probably not acceptable to the vast majority of Israelis in its present format,
at least represents an effort to make a proposal which might conceivably serve
as a stimulus for negotiations. And, while I think its politically motivated
in part for both domestic and international (read American) consumption, it
might be worth further exploration. The alternative is more of the same cycle
of violence, it would appear.

There are times when personality characteristics do indeed interferee with and
override the ability for rational thought.
I don't think that obsevation applies to Sharon. As pointed out above, it is,
in a sense, paradoxically easier, for a hard-liner to make peace at times than
a more dovish leader.

Do you know any conflicts in which one side support 100% of the
responsability ?
Keep on reasoning this way and you will get more congratulation messages
from McKelvy... :-(

Lionel wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:

While Sharon's political party (Likud) is definitely not as *generous* when
it
comes to making concessions as the prior Labor party and its prime
minister,
Sharon's personality characteristics have nothing at all to do with the
failure
to resolve the MidEast conflict. Your perhaps don't recall that one of
Israel's prior prime ministers, Menachem Begin, was also quite "hard-line"
relative to other Israeli le4aders, and he nevertheless managed to reach a
peace agreement with Egypt. Of course, in that case, there was an Arab
leader
willing to negotiate in good faith and reach an accomodation. None of that
exists today. Arafat has no interest in peace under any rational set of
conditions, as proven by his refusal of an extremely generous offer from
the
prior Israeli government, and his consequent refusal to make any
counteroffer
and subsequent encouragement and support of terrorism.

Even the crown prince of Saudi Arabia has advanced an idea, which, while
probably not acceptable to the vast majority of Israelis in its present
format,
at least represents an effort to make a proposal which might conceivably
serve
as a stimulus for negotiations. And, while I think its politically
motivated
in part for both domestic and international (read American) consumption, it
might be worth further exploration. The alternative is more of the same
cycle
of violence, it would appear.

There are times when personality characteristics do indeed interferee with
and
override the ability for rational thought.
I don't think that obsevation applies to Sharon. As pointed out above, it
is,
in a sense, paradoxically easier, for a hard-liner to make peace at times
than
a more dovish leader.

Do you know any conflicts in which one side support 100% of the
responsability ?
Keep on reasoning this way and you will get more congratulation messages
from McKelvy... :-(








There is nothing in my comments above to suggest that one side deserves 100% of
the responsibility. So where is your condemnation of Hamas suicide bombings?
(You support the U.N. condemnation of Yassin's assassination but not the
assassination of hundreds of Israeli civilians in buses, restaurants, etc.?)



Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

There is no such English word as manicheist so the assumptions you have about
my view of the conflict are unknown, but probably wrong.

1 entry found for manicheist. It's a good day for you.

manicheist
\Man"i*che*ist\, n. [Cf. F. manich['e]iste.] Manich[ae]an.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Lionel wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:

There is no such English word as manicheist so the assumptions you have
about
my view of the conflict are unknown, but probably wrong.

1 entry found for manicheist. It's a good day for you.

manicheist
\Man"i*che*ist\, n. [Cf. F. manich['e]iste.] Manich[ae]an.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.







I was aware of that entry. However, note that there was no definition given
for the word, so it's meaning is not known. Therefore, it's use is sort of
pointless.

It's always a good day for me.


Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Lionel wrote:



Bruce J. Richman wrote:


There is no such English word as manicheist so the assumptions you have

about

my view of the conflict are unknown, but probably wrong.

1 entry found for manicheist. It's a good day for you.

manicheist
\Man"i*che*ist\, n. [Cf. F. manich['e]iste.] Manich[ae]an.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.








I was aware of that entry. However, note that there was no definition given
for the word, so it's meaning is not known. Therefore, it's use is sort of
pointless.

You say that because you aren't curious. Lazy ?

It's always a good day for me.

I'm not really surprised.

Lionel wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Lionel wrote:



Bruce J. Richman wrote:


There is no such English word as manicheist so the assumptions you have

about

my view of the conflict are unknown, but probably wrong.

1 entry found for manicheist. It's a good day for you.

manicheist
\Man"i*che*ist\, n. [Cf. F. manich['e]iste.] Manich[ae]an.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.








I was aware of that entry. However, note that there was no definition
given
for the word, so it's meaning is not known. Therefore, it's use is sort of
pointless.

You say that because you aren't curious. Lazy ?

It's always a good day for me.

I'm not really surprised.







Nor am I surprised that you make assumptions about what I've said that are
probably incorrect.


Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Lionel wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:

There is no such English word as manicheist so the assumptions you
have about my view of the conflict are unknown, but probably wrong.

1 entry found for manicheist. It's a good day for you.

manicheist
\Man"i*che*ist\, n. [Cf. F. manich['e]iste.] Manich[ae]an.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.

I was aware of that entry. However, note that there was no
definition given for the word, so it's meaning is not known.

Perhaps to you.

Therefore, it's use is sort of pointless.

Manicheanism is a dualistic religion that is loosely related to Buddhism.

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

You can understand whatever false assumptions you choose to make, especially
the one that Yassin's assassination was political. Just as I am free to
understand that you choose to isgnore the fact that Yassin's assassination was
NOT POLITICAL.

This is what the press and many people forget.

Terrorists are not political leaders. They are criminals in the same
way the the ex-Nazi leaders were. You hunt them down and kill or
capture them whenever and wherever you can.

Lionel wrote:

I don't see above any comdemnation of the Jewish religious extremist and
their influence on Israelian government. Those extremists are made in
the same wood than wahhabists but the occidental "politically correct"
forbids to make such comparison.

I don't see very many Hassidic Jews strapping on bombs and blowing
up groups of Palestineans. That's the difference.

It's terribly simple. There are people who want Israel to be a smoking
crater and would gladly nuke it to serve their goals - if they had the
ability. They are armed and use bombs to blow up civilians using
terror tactics.

Where does it make sense to do anything other than put a bullet in
their head? These are bad people that made their choice to die
by taking out people with bombs strapped to thier bodies. I see
no problem in killing them before they get to their intended target.

I only read above that you confirm to be agree with the death sentence
that Israel applied to a Palestinian leader.

Except...

Yassin was NOT a political leader. He was a terrorist leader just
like BinLaden is.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:



Bruce J. Richman wrote:

You can understand whatever false assumptions you choose to make,
especially
the one that Yassin's assassination was political. Just as I am free to
understand that you choose to isgnore the fact that Yassin's
assassination was
NOT POLITICAL.


This is what the press and many people forget.

Terrorists are not political leaders.

Not agree. Most of them are the avatars of the influent nations
duplicity and underground policy (France, USA...)

They are criminals in the same
way the the ex-Nazi leaders were.

Agree

You hunt them down and kill or
capture them whenever and wherever you can.

If you kill them you create martyrs and by the way you keep up the conflict.

Arny Krueger wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Lionel wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:

There is no such English word as manicheist so the assumptions you
have about my view of the conflict are unknown, but probably wrong.

1 entry found for manicheist. It's a good day for you.

manicheist
\Man"i*che*ist\, n. [Cf. F. manich['e]iste.] Manich[ae]an.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.

I was aware of that entry. However, note that there was no
definition given for the word, so it's meaning is not known.

Perhaps to you.

Therefore, it's use is sort of pointless.

Manicheanism is a dualistic religion that is loosely related to Buddhism.










Whatever. Its' irrelevant to this thread.


Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:



Bruce J. Richman wrote:

Lionel wrote:



Bruce J. Richman wrote:


There is no such English word as manicheist so the assumptions you
have about my view of the conflict are unknown, but probably wrong.

1 entry found for manicheist. It's a good day for you.

manicheist
\Man"i*che*ist\, n. [Cf. F. manich['e]iste.] Manich[ae]an.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.

I was aware of that entry. However, note that there was no
definition given for the word, so it's meaning is not known.

Perhaps to you.


Therefore, it's use is sort of pointless.

Manicheanism is a dualistic religion that is loosely related to Buddhism.


Whatever. Its' irrelevant to this thread.

This above remember me some of the funny and caricatural exchanges you
have had recently with Sander deWaal. :-)

"The most striking principle of Manichee theology is its dualism. The
universe is a battlefield for control between an evil material god and a
good spiritual god. Christians recognized the evil god in Satan but, of
course, could not accept the idea that Satan had as much power as
Jehovah, and held that Satan, unlike God, is a created being. The term
Manichaeistic is often used to describe any religion with a similar
concept of struggle between good and evil."

From: (Bruce J. Richman)

manicheist
\Man"i*che*ist\, n. [Cf. F. manich['e]iste.] Manich[ae]an.

I was aware of that entry. However, note that there was no definition given
for the word, so it's meaning is not known.

Doesn't it mean someone from Manchester?