Amy [e] [h] Our partners : <a rel="dofollow" href="http://rmes.sqweebs.com/zanaflex/cheap-medicines.html">cheap medicines</a> is about cheap medicines... <a rel="dofollow" href="http://2948015.oxyhost.com/xanax/xanax-street-price.html">xanax street price</a> is about xanax street price... Thank You For Creating This Wonderful Resource! Great Work !! Support my sites our site too. Saturday, October 17th 2009 - 07:18:36 PM

dani 2k5 [e] Friday, December 2nd 2005 - 04:03:04 AM

dani 2k5 [e] Friday, December 2nd 2005 - 04:03:03 AM

THE CONTROLLERS HEY GUYS N' GALS!!! Well the Mandatory Posts are over and you guys have improved very much since the first post!! We are so proud of you guys. Here are some facts that you might find interesting about the posts........ (counting only those who did them) The average Score overall on the 1st Post was: 6.8/10 The average Score on the 1st post for the GIRLS: 7/10 The average Score on the 1st post for the GUYS: 6.6/10 The average Score overall on the 3rd Post was: 8.6/10 The average Score on the 3rd post for the GIRLS: 9.5/10 The average Score on the 3rd post for the GUYS: 8.5/10 The highest mark for the GIRLS: 10/10 The lowest mark for the GIRLS: 0/10 The highest mark for the GUYS: 10/10 The lowest marks for the GUYS: 0/10 The total people who didnt do the 1st post: 6 The total people who didn't do the 2nd post: 3 The total people who didnt do the 3rd Post: 4 The total GIRLS who didnt do the 1st post: 0 (YAY) The total GUYS who didnt do the 1st post: 6 The total GIRLS who didnt do the 2nd post: 1 The total GUYS who didnt do the 2nd post: 2 The total GIRLS who didnt do the 3rd post: 1 The total GUYS who didnt do the 3rd post: 4 The top Peace Points Winner is ANDREA & ANDY tied at 17 pts The second place Peace Points Winner is Leslie with 15 pts The third place Peace Points Winner is Steph and Raheem with 13 points. !!!!!!!!CONGRADULATIONS!!!!!!! WACKY AWARDS!!!! Most annoying line goes to: THE QUEEN "Give a little to get a little" Most inpatient participant: P.M of Saudi (Raheem) "Can i say something yet" Most sarcastic remarks: Ariel Shalom (Andrea) Biggest Freak out: Bill Graham (Jennie)[Blame Canada] Most silent participant: Ayatollah (Bajan) Most Neutral Participant: Domonique (Alvin) Best Accent Award: Ayatollah Seyyed (Brendan) Kindest Palestinian Award: Ahmed Qurei (Sarah) Best Costume Awards: The Russians (Scott and Andrew) ****Well that's it that's all...if you want to see any stats and facts that aren't posted ask on the post or to one of the controllers directly. If you want to nominate anyone for a WACKY AWARD tell the controllers and we will see what we can do. IT'S BEEN A BALL FOLKS******* GOOD LUCK ON YOUR MIDTERMS!!! YOU CAN DO IT!!! Tuesday, October 26th 2004 - 03:53:49 PM

Dubya Alright Bill, let's stop this nonsense. Thank you for acknowledging your mistake regarding the peace conference. I apologize for my offhand remark about Canada that started this, as well as my cheap shots regarding your country. I'm glad to see we can put our differences aside and work towards the greater good of the international community. God Bless America. Monday, October 25th 2004 - 01:00:35 AM

Graham the man Hmm I dont remember comparing the credentials of the Fraser Institute to those of Michael Moore. More word twisting on your part. All right Bush, I propose a truse. I dont care to continue on with such a petty arguement. Differences aside, the global community wishes to come to an agreement on the peace plan. I believe that should be our main objective and our goal as part of the UN. I'm sorry that you are upset about not being invited to the Peace Conference, not much can be done about that now. I admit, it may not have been Canada's wisest decision. I propose that we work together as part of the UN and attempt to solve the conflict in the Middle East. This unfortunate situation can be resolved and positive relationships can be formed. We hope that you will be willing to accept this and join us in a search for a solution and effective peace plan. Monday, October 25th 2004 - 12:48:41 AM

Dubya You may think I am whining about not being invited to the conference, but that is not the case. I am questioning your motives, as well as your supposed commitment to peace. After all, aren’t I entitled to do that in a democracy? I did not say that you supported Michael Moore. Yes, you said he was exercising his right to freedom of speech, as the Fraser Institute is. I was merely pointing out that it is the same situation, yet somehow the Fraser Institute is less credible than Michael Moore (I won’t even go into how absurd and mind-boggling that is). No, I won’t question your statistics. However, you have failed to link this statistical data to quality of health care. Death rates can be affected by anything from crime rates to number of suicides. They are not necessarily reflection of the country’s health care services. Monday, October 25th 2004 - 12:25:47 AM

The Graham Cracker Just wanted to apologize for the weird symbols in my post. Most of them were to be quotations. Monday, October 25th 2004 - 12:15:46 AM

Sadam Hussein 1) Should you always keep what you win in war, or are there circumstances where you should give back some or all of the winnings? What you’ve won doesn’t always make it yours, in the situation with Israel and Palestine; Israelis had taken over Palestinian territory. Since the beginning of time there had been wars where land was taken over, and since then land had been giving back according to the circumstances. In this case the circumstance is peace, in order to maintain peace Israel will have to return at least something back to Palestine. No land is worth more than peace, return all Palestinian land will be nearly impossible with all the Israeli settlers, but just a portion of what they had will be a step forward towards peace. 2) What are the positive and negative outcomes for Israel to keep all or some of the territory they have gained from war? For Israel to keep all of the Palestinian territory it had taken over will have the positive for Israel being that they are keeping the Palestinians in a certain area, and well basically it gives them more control. The obvious positive is that they will not have to offer compensation to all the settlers that will have to move out saving themselves money. Although the obvious negative to this will be that there will not be peace and the patriotic Palestinians will not rest till something is gained. 3) What outcomes do you see as fair and just for both sides? The most reasonable and fair peace plan that I can see for both sides is that Israel forces all Israelis to leave Palestinian territory and returning a portion of the land that Palestine had occupied before it was taken over. Along with this the wall needs to be torn down and Palestinians should govern themselves. At first the government should be a dictatorship till the situation is set on a smooth road and when it is a dictatorship other countries will be looking in to see if everything is kept legit. When the government is settled in that is when democracy should be introduced. There is point in introducing democracy to a new state when it is new. 4) What do you see as the benefits of your peace plan to your country and to the combatants, Israelis and Palestinians? (For example if you say democracy will/won't help Palestine, explain how.) The benefits are minimal for my country Iraq, as we are allied with the Palestinians. As a Muslim nation we just want to see the Muslims being treated fairly and that they have their rights and are not being pushed around. As I had mentioned before the idea of democracy in a new state will not be a good idea. The concept of democracy will be too new to people and with a democratic society it will take a much longer time to settle the new state. As with a dictatorship things can be settled much faster. Yes there is the possibility of corruption that is why there will be a surveillance placed government actions to ensure that nothing gets out of hand. Then when everything is settled the idea of democracy can be put in. For democracy to be put in there must be a vote because how democratic is it to force a demotic government? Monday, October 25th 2004 - 12:12:48 AM

Bill Graham Well Bush its slightly pathetic that you would have to stoop to making comments about my spelling. Sorry, not all of us can be perfect and type as well as you. I'll make sure I fix that for you next time. By the way OUR midterm exam is on Thursday¡Knot ¡§out¡¨ midterm. Check your own spelling and grammar before bashing mine. If we¡¦re going to talk about cheap shots¡K Remember this, Bill Graham is one person and Paul Martin is another. What one person posts is their opinion not the opinion of both politicians. I think you need to calm down, get a grip, and face the fact that you weren¡¦t invited to the conference. Get over it. Whining about it is not going to make it better. You're winding yourself up and frankly pissing people off. Not once did I praise Michael Moore. Need I repeat that Canada has not stated that we support him? What I did say was that he was exercising his right to freedom of speech. That¡¦s what happens in a democracy. You brought up Moore, I did not. Way to ¡§twist¡¨ my words around. So Bush you have gone to condemning cheap shots and word twisting to making statements about my poor spelling and typing skills, which I can assure you I apologize for ƒ¼ , to telling me Canadians and myself ¡§praise¡¨ Michael Moore. You know you¡¦re right about our health care system, but at least you don¡¦t lose your home and life savings when you get sick. Ad furthermore, the US spends more per capita on health care than most other countries in the world. However, their medical outcomes in terms of mortality and morbidity are worse than Canada¡¦. For example, infant mortality is 6.6 deaths per 1000 in the US vs 4.8 in Canada, the death rate per 1000 in Canada is 7.7 compared to 8.3 per 1000 in the US, and life expectancy is 77 years in the US as compared to 79 years in Canada. So our ¡§sad quality of health care¡¨ must be doing something right. Take a chill pill. Information is taken from the CIA website. Monday, October 25th 2004 - 12:04:33 AM

Kim Jong-Il Leader of North Korea Should you always keep what you win in war, or are there circumstances where you should give back some or all of the winnings? This is a very debatable issues and it is at the centre of the conflict between these two nations, Israel and Palestine. There are always circumstances where you should give back some or all of your winnings because in the future if a country becomes more powerful than the one that conquered it, another war would occur and the reverse effect will happen to that nation. With human evolution at the point that it is, wars should not exist. They have been occurring for as long as time and they have formed the countries we live in today. However with all the advancements made over the centuries, war is almost always the last option taken upon a nation to solve its conflicts. There are countless alternatives to resolving conflicts yet wars are still an everyday occurrence in the world. Are we really evolving or merely just repeating history? With the continuation of the construction of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land this conflict will only get worse. To Israel, it is time to start giving some of that land back if there is even the slightest chance for peace. What are the positive and negative outcomes for Israel to keep all or some of the territory they have gained from war? Well obviously the most important positive gained from giving some of the land back is the reduction and possible elimination of “terrorism.” With each advancement in Israeli settlements, it makes it that much harder to withdraw, so before Israel continues building these occupations, they need to relocate them to their own lands. If Israel decided to keep all of the land, then the outcome is clear, there will be no peace. But some people argue that so what if Israel takes over Palestine and makes it a Jewish state. Then they would have bestowed the same problem onto the shoulders of the Palestinians. So they would have two options, fight back which they are currently doing, or leave and find another “place to call their own” which in turn will cause another conflict for that nation. A negative outcome for Israel to give some of the land back would be that if Palestine felt that the Israeli government gave in to there orders, they might get greedy and ask for more and find justification for it. However I don’t see this happening because first and foremost I feel the Palestinians would love to have there own freedoms and rights that are enjoyed by Israelis and many other peoples. I reiterate the fact that if peace is desired by the Israelis, then at minimum some of the land MUST be given back without question. What outcomes do you see as fair and just for both sides? I honestly don’t feel that any decision made will be fair to one side or the other. If Israel gives their land back to the Palestinians, then that is fair to the Palestinian people but not the Israeli people being kicked out of their homes. However regardless of fairness, compromise must be achieved for there to be any progress in achieving peace. The Palestinian people may see compromise as a sign of failure, and if they do the conflict will just go on. To answer this question in one sentence, the outcomes of war will never be fair to everyone. What do you see as the benefits of your peace plan to your country and to the combatants, Israelis and Palestinians? (For example if you say democracy will/won't help Palestine, explain how.) North Korea isn’t necessary a big factor in this middle eastern conflict. We essentially gain nothing from helping out Palestine but the economic and military gain for Palestine is substantial. Nations these days do not take action unless there is a benefit in it for them, for example the United States of America: the epitome of greed and self-interest. I cannot even recall their last foreign action which benefited another country without a gain for themselves. Canada on the other hand is an excellent example of a caring nation. They are involved in many peace keeping missions around the world, and yet they gain nothing from doing it. So why do they do it you ask? Well the answer is simple; it is not for self satisfaction, it is solely to help those in need. What ever happened to people giving random acts of kindness and just helping one another? Must we bargain our good deeds with each other? If the United States entered this conflict on a goal of achieving peace rather than their hidden agenda, then peace might have existed years ago. Yet they continue supplying weapons to the Israeli government. The only reason weapons are created are to kill people and continuing to supply them to Israel will further prolong this conflict. At this point if Palestine becomes a sovereign state, I feel democracy would only destroy it more than it already is. At the current state there is no sound leadership in the “country” so the Palestinian people need a strong revered figure to guide them and make sound decisions. In the long run, the implementation of democracy will be good for the whole of the Middle East let alone Palestine. Although there are a few negative effects of democracy, for a country to truly flourish, democracy is an essential ingredient (i.e. America and Canada). When an education system is created in Palestine, and the young Palestinian people are educated about the government styles of different nations, then only can democracy be conceived and accepted. Until then, the Palestinian people need direction from an authority figure, not one that will oppress them, rather one that will make them functioning members of society. Finally, I have noticed a lot of bickering in this forum about irrelevant issues. Although they are interesting to read they do nothing for the goal of achieving peace. The leaders of Israel and Palestine have taken great steps to achieving peace, and even though I disagree with some of the stipulations of the peace plan, I don’t feel I have the right to criticize it (unlike my unruly defense minister) because I don’t have a solution myself. As I have said before the only real chance of peace is compromise, and when you do this not everyone comes out a winner. People will complain that it is not fair to them, but life just isn’t fair. Monday, October 25th 2004 - 12:00:08 AM

Dick Cheney 1) Should you always keep what you win in war, or are there circumstances where you should give back some or all of the winnings? There are many reasons for wars. Hitler went to war because he wanted more for himself, by stealing from others. War in this situation is wrong. Hopefully in this situation other countries will come together, such as World War II and fight to give the land back to its rightful owners. Israel and Palestine are not at war for this reason. Both countries have valid reasons for believing their claim to the land is legitimate. In the ongoing disputes Israel, being more powerful, has gained more land than was set out in the first treaty. In this situation when war is caused from each people’s beliefs in the land belonging to them, land should only be kept if both sides come to believe it is the fair and proper thing to do. This must happen through negotiation. 2) What are the positive and negative outcomes for Israel to keep all or some of the territory they have gained from war? Pros of Israel keeping all or some of the land: Israel has a strong police force and army, which would make it easier for Israel to deal with rebels and terrorists. They also have a larger population, which could make use of the land. Cons of Israel keeping all or some land: Palestinians would be angry; they feel they have been robbed, causing violent terrorist abuse to continue. The Global society feels Israel has taken more than they deserve. This is viewed as theft. 3) What outcomes do you see as fair and just for both sides? I would like to see the following outcome: -Palestine becomes its own democratic state. -Israel takes down the wall. -Israel returns a portion of the land. -Rebels and terrorists on both sides are dealt with equally through the law. -Israel and Palestine work with other nations to decide a fair allocation of land. 4) What do you see as the benefits of your peace plan to your country and to the combatants, Israelis and Palestinians? Should this peace plan be accepted, the United States will benefit as follows: -The United States trades significantly with Israel. Israel is a very productive country. As productive as Israel is, they could be more so if they were not putting so much time, people and money into the war and building the wall. -Without the war, Israel could become an even more powerful trading partner with the United States. -There are many Jewish people living in the United States who have an emotional attachment to friends, family and history in Israel. They will be at peace. -By the wall going down, Palestinians will have gained more of their water and farmland back. -By creating a democratic state in Palestine, it can secure education and a more balanced economic stability for the people of Palestine. Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 11:23:45 PM

France-Michel Barnier(alvin) Should you always keep what you win in war, or are there circumstances where you should give back some or all of the winnings? YES! That was the whole purpose of war. Since the human form army, they have the ambitious to storm though boundaries and take what you want. In Asia, there was a good example. About 1368, the area of Ming Dynasty of China was about the same as Germany today. When the third King of Ming Dynasty started to expand its territory; after 100 years, the area of Ming Dynasty was about the same as today. The empires of Mongolia have conquered a huge landmass in Asia for 200 years. Empire of Mongolia was the world biggest empire ever, and all those land mass was gained by war. After the Israeli got their right to rebuild their country on the west bank, they have faced 37 attacked from different country. I think if the Israeli lost that battle, people will probably took their land. Now, someone claim that the Israel should give the land back to Palestinian; the answer seems obviously for me is no. Although France is on the side with Palestinian, we still don¡¦t agree with this statement. But regard to the peace plan pose on Thursday, it seems that Israel is willing to give some land back; it might be an exception for the Middle East conflict. I believe that this might make both sides happy. What are the postive and negative outcomes for Israel to keep all or some of the territory they have gained from war? If Israel keeps all or some of the territory, they would develop the land and give citizens a place to work and their son and their grand son would live there and build their home there. The Israeli have suffered enough, now they should regain their land and once show the world, Israel is a country, we can stand on our own. A coin always has two sides, it got a positive outcome and it also got a negative outcome. Israel has attacked by the Palestinian terrorists many times. We all knew why Palestinian kept attack Israel people, Palestinians have no way to express their feeling; we live in a country which are peaceful, there will not be any one could came in your house and kill your whole family. We don¡¦t need to face death everyday, but the Palestinians were falling in that hole, they need their land back and how? Write a letter to the government or ask the president of US to help? They didn¡¦t have any way to get what they want! And the negative outcomes have caused the hatred of these two groups suffering half the centuries. France believes that Palestinian could not fall in the hole. As an international community we have to save them though negotiation. And create a stable situation in the Mid East What outcome do you see as fair and just for both side? An outcome when every people in Israel and Palestinian love each other, when they have the same religious. But it seems like impossible. In this period of time, the best outcome would probably both Israel and Palestinian people will have their freedom to speak and right to let the government heard their voice. When both the nation becomes a sovereign state, then the citizen will govern under Law. Democratic will be best way the enforce the outcome. What do you see as benefits of your peace plan to your country and to the combatants, Israelis and Palestinians? Democracy will help Palestinian. It is because the citizens there will have a chance to let the government hear their voice. The government will able to develop military to protect their citizens. They would have freedom to travel around and there will be an election. It will be a new world for Palestinians. When Palestinian becomes a sovereign state, they will not launch another terrorist attack on Israel, they will focus on building up nation and earn more money. So the civilian in I/P will have a better place to live. At last, they will have peace. ¡§No freedom without sacrifice¡¨ Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 11:06:53 PM

Dubya “you said "perhaps you are too naïve, ignorant, and blind to see the problems..." Now whose resulting in cheap shots and character assassinations.” -Saudi King/PM So Canada is allowed to call me and the citizens of America ignorant, but I can’t? It’s one thing to call me ignorant, it’s another to make sweeping generalizations and insult an entire population. “Along with Russia, you created a peace proposal that was widely accepted by the international community, you even went further to collaborate with the Palestinian and Israeli leaders to make the peace plan suit their needs.” -Bill Graham Yes, I published that peace proposal as a response to your lack on invitation. If we did such a great job of creating the peace proposal, why weren’t we and Russia invited in the first place? “It is well known that the Faser Institute is a right-wing organization that would aline itself with your philosophy.” -Bill Graham By the way, it’s “Fraser” and “align”. Not trying to be picky, but it’s easier to get your point across when you use proper spelling in your posts. Now, on to your statement: what is wrong with having right-wing organizations? After all, you just praised Michael Moore for exercising his right to free speech. Why is it that every time two or more conservatives get together, it’s suddenly a great conspiracy? But unlike Michael Moore’s “documentaries”, their studies contain FACTS about the sad state of affairs in the Canadian health care system. We prefer not to adopt some impractical socialist system that reduces every citizen to the same sad quality of health care, their only alternative being to drive down to America and get better treatment, faster. Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 11:02:48 PM

Geroge W. Bush Mandatory Post #3 1) Should you always keep what you win in war, or are there circumstances where you should give back some or all of the winnings? Different circumstances can produce different outcomes. For example, imperialistic wars can be fought to conquer territory, and wars could be fought to conquer territory that had been taken in the first place. For example, France and Germany have fought over the Rhineland for centuries, and by the twentieth century it was difficult to tell who was entitled to it by any other means than who had last conquered it. During defensive wars, land can be conquered by nations that were preemptively attacked. In these circumstances, keeping the territory can be justified in the name of preventing further conflict. For example, Russia occupied East European countries and expanded its borders partially for imperialist reasons, but also because German troops had invaded through this area throughout history. Russia’s actions are not to be condoned, however, as they proceeded to subjugate the people inhabiting these lands. Israel has attempted to protect itself from foreign invaders by occupying the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. However, conquering territory does not consider the individuals who are affected by military wins and losses. In early modern Europe, kings and princes won and lost territory as if it were their assets like gold and silver. They failed to take in to account the people, the villages, the towns, and the communities who are partitioned to other rulers as if they were objects. This is the nature of war, yet it is not just in this situation in Israel. 2) What are the positive and negative outcomes for Israel to keep all or some of the territory they have gained from war? The outcomes of this situation are mostly negative. As long as Israel continues to occupy Palestinian territory, terrorist attacks will continue, and the majority of the Palestinians will be unhappy with their living conditions. The people of Palestine do not deserve to live in poverty and under foreign occupation. However, the United States and Israel are very reluctant to make concessions to the Palestinian Authority. Palestine has stated that it is up to Israel to take the first step, but I have a strong opposition to this. What assurance does Israel have that the terrorist attacks will not continue after the wall is torn down? What tells us that the Palestinians will not demand more land after Israel has withdrawn from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank? Appeasing terrorists only promotes more terrorism. Although the Palestinians try to assure us that terrorism will stop, we cannot know for certain what their true intentions are. 3) What outcomes do you see as fair and just for both sides? To promote peace and stability in the region, we must establish a democratic state of Palestine, with defined and recognized borders. Palestine must become a sovereign and independent state, and must also join the fight against terrorism. As terrorist activity subsides (partially as a result of the establishment of a Palestinian state, and partially as a result of Palestinian commitment to fight terrorism), the Israeli troops must withdraw from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. This territory is Palestinian land, and most be returned in order to establish a state of Palestine. Further territorial demands from each side must be based solely on the human lives that will be affected by drawing borders. America’s goal in the peace plan is to draw borders so that the number of settlements that must be uprooted is minimized. After all, this conflict is not about which government can accumulate the most territory, it is a struggle between the people of two nations that wish for a territory they can call their own. For this reason, a state of Palestine must be established. This is fair and just for both Israel and Palestine. Palestinians need a state, in which their voice can be heard, their needs met, and their lives protected. Only in a democratic and independent state can these goals can be accomplished. Palestinians can elect their own leaders. For too long the Palestinians have been ruled by corrupt leaders who have supported terrorism and are accountable to no one. Under a functioning democracy, their voices can be heard. In an independent state, the Palestinians can elect government that will improve social conditions. Their quality of living can improve with state-sponsored programs such as social security, health care, and education. The Palestinians, as well as the Israelis, can be protected by the Palestinian government and military, as they will fight against terrorists and aggressors. 4) What do you see as the benefits of your peace plan to your country and to the combatants, Israelis and Palestinians? (For example if you say democracy will/won't help Palestine, explain how.) In the previous question, I have explained how democracy will benefit both the people of Palestine and the people of Israel. A separate state of Palestine will allow the Palestinians to have a voice in their country’s affairs, and allow their government to establish a military to protect its citizens, an economy, and a social infrastructure to support the population. Furthermore, an economic union will facilitate this separation. Inevitably, one state will be divided into two by the new borders. An economic union will facilitate trade and allow citizens of both countries to prosper. Economic aid from Western countries will also facilitate the building of Palestine’s economy, as well as its military with which it can defend its population by fighting terrorism. Removal of the Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory will cause anger among Israel’s people, yet it is a small price to pay for peace. It will allow the Palestinians to occupy a land that is their own state, protect the Israelis, and resolve this seemingly everlasting conflict. Again, we wish to divide the territory in such a fashion that the least possible settlements must be moved. The removal of the defensive security fence will allow Palestinians and Israelis to move freely within Israel, but the success of this proposal in promoting peace cannot be determined today. So far, the wall has been very effective in preventing suicide bombings, and unless terrorism decreases significantly, its removal will accomplish nothing. Only time will tell whether this measure can be taken or not. If implemented, this peace plan will provide many benefits to both the Israelis and the Palestinians. It will promote peace, stability, and better living conditions both in Israel and Palestine. -George W. Bush P.S. Tony Blair, as you are very involved on the war on terror, I would appreciate it if you called a terrorist a “terrorist”. They are not “militants”, nor are they “freedom fighters”. Any person who targets civilians in order to promote fear among the civilian population to achieve their political goals is a terrorist. There is no other name for it. P.S. Friends of Saudi Arabia, please stop posting other people’s work to criticize my foreign (and now domestic) policy. Frankly, I do not have time to develop MY OWN response to this, in MY OWN WORDS. If you haven’t noticed, there is a mandatory post due tonight, as well as a position paper due tomorrow. If that isn’t enough for you, we also have out midterm exam on Thursday. As a result, I will have to respond to your copy-and-paste tactics later. Thank you. Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 10:42:42 PM

Personal Friend of the Saudi King Article at http://fto.int8.com/articles/wrongrightdone/ Why Bush is Wrong, I’m Right, and Something Should be Done From my title, you can tell I have no particular love for President George W. Bush. Well, I really have no deep feelings one way or the other about him personally, though I dislike many, and probably most, of his policies. And now the bitching shall begin. First off, Bush is wrong about the environment. There is no such thing as clean coal! If he were really serious about improving air quality, Bush would make sure that EPA rules were strictly applied to all power plants, including the oldest, dirtiest ones, which had been grandfathered in. Furthermore, he would make sure that the EPA is given enough money so that the Superfund program is able to continue wherever it is needed. While this problem did not start with Bush, he has not fixed it, and the EPA just announced that it would not be able to work on tens of Superfund sites because of a lack of funds. The solution to high gas prices (although “high” is a relative term… have you been to Europe?) and a dependence on foreign oil is not drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or any other pristine, federally-owned wilderness, but improved gas conservation by greater car and truck fuel efficiency. However, Bush is yet again unwilling to push for any improvements, even though the oil provided by increased drilling will be but a drop in the bucket. Improving fuel efficiency is not only a proven way to reduce reliance on foreign oil, but would also lessen air pollution. However, Bush doesn’t seem too worried about air pollution, as his Clean Skies program promotes coal over cleaner burning natural gas. Speaking of air pollution, Bush is against a ban on snowmobiles in Yellowstone and other national parks, even though their emissions are so bad that the park service workers are sometimes forced to wear masks as a result of the pollution! I’ve been to Yellowstone in the winter, and trust me, nothing shatters the quiet beauty of the park like thousands of snowmobiles roaring around belching black smoke. Bush’s environmental policies all have one thing in common: Bush kowtowing to corporate interests. Bush is more concerned about satisfying his oil industry buddies than the rest of the country. For Bush it’s “One Nation under Big Business, with cold shoulders and silenced voices for all.” The national energy policy review accepted by Cheney and endorsed by Bush was nothing more than an industry wish-list. The influence of industry cannot be missed, as Cheney met with approximately 150 corporations and industry groups, versus about 30 labor groups and 10 environmental groups. Even organizations that were asked for comment weren’t able to do much. The Sierra Club was given a deadline of 24 hours from the time of notification to submit its opinion. It is hardly surprising that they were unable to meet such an arbitrary, short-notice deadline. Yet the task force went out of its way to have companies write sections of the policy. As a card carrying member of the Sierra Club, this enrages me. Are my concerns invalid and unfit to be part of the national debate on energy use in our nation? Bush and Cheney sure think so. I’m glad that Bush and Cheney are talking about business ethics now that a wave of accounting scandals has hit. The markets have practically been in free-fall recently. Imagine me thinking the economy was going to be perfect when Bush gave us all a tax rebate! Everyone knows that if the economy’s not doing well it’s because taxes are too high. But we now have bigger fish to fry. Our two champions of corporate responsibility have both been investigated by the SEC (Cheney indirectly: Halliburton’s actions while he was CEO are under investigation). Insider trading and misleading accounting statements! Our good ol’ boys in the White House seem sleazier than two-bit Vegas prostitutes. And let’s not forget they promised on the campaign trail to bring their “formidable” business experience to the White House. Let’s hope that they didn’t mean that kind of experience! After the Florida election scandals, maybe they did. And don’t forget other virtuous Bush buddies, such as Army Secretary Thomas White. He made a killing (ahh, the double-entendre of the word is classic, is it not?) from Enron, making questionable stock sales. And so the complaints mount… next let’s look at Bush’s stance on the military. This will take a while, as Dubya sure likes his weapons. The National Missile Defense Program… what a horrible program. It barely works in the best circumstances of the current testing, and almost certainly won’t work in a real situation. Oh, did I mention that it invalidates SALT II? Well, Bush got away with tearing up that treaty with barely a whimper from Putin, who realized there was no way he was going to keep this treaty (Bush sure likes tearing up treaties… more to come on this). However, we are left with only this ineffective, expensive program and the dissolution of an important international agreement, with the potential for increased building and proliferation of nuclear weapons. Oh sure, Putin got Bush to sign a treaty (What? A treaty? Doesn’t he hate those?) cutting back on Russian and American nuclear arsenals. A great precedent, if the Russians weren’t doing it already because they can’t afford to keep their arsenal, and if Bush had promised to do something more than just remove the warheads from their missiles. Nothing’s being destroyed and it’s pretty easy to put those warheads back on their missiles. Also, let’s not forget that this missile defense shield is totally unnecessary, given that the main threat to our security is not missiles from rogue nations but terrorists, as proven by September 11th. And now Bush is talking about a first strike doctrine, possibly with nuclear weapons! What is he smoking!?! Aren’t we trying to distinguish ourselves from terrorists in this whole War on Terror (duh duh duh)? What happened to the whole Congressional declaration of war thing? Isn’t the fact that terrorism is different from war proof that it needs to be addressed by something other than all-out war, such as policing, education, etc.? Considering the War on Terror (duh duh duh) we must not forget all the civil liberties that Bush and his underlings have been willing to flout. Holding American citizens and others indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay without charging them for any crime? No problem, since American laws don’t apply to this lovely military base! Deportations based on secret evidence, racial profiling, illegal arrests… no problem, it’s for the War on Terror (duh duh duh). And since we’ve got to protect the Homeland (at least it’s not the Fatherland) we now get a super-dee-duper Department of Homeland Security! Oppressive powers activate, Tom Ridge, Super Homeland Security Advisor! Just an Advisor (and so were the American troops in Vietnam)… we can’t have that! We need a full-fledged Cabinet position. Yeah, that would do the trick! Now we can quash civil liberties twice as fast with such lovely programs as the Department of Justice’s Operations TIPS (the US Postal Service, hardly known as a hotbed of libertarianism, has refused to participate), which introduces Communist-era surveillance to a whole new generation. Retro-crazy teens are sure to love it! Heck, we’ve already got the detention center (luckily not plural yet) in Guantanamo Bay. The state spying on its own people, detention in secretive prisons without trial… man, I just love authoritarian governments! I can’t wait for the censorship, show trials, propaganda, military intrusions into civilian affairs, and more! But wait, some of that’s already happening. Man, Bush sure has this oligarchy thing down pat. Okay, so Bush’s policies on the environment, the economy, defense, and the War on Terror (duh duh duh) are horrible. What does that leave us with? Not much, other than hope that Bush gets ********** in the 2004 elections. Until then we have to educate the remarkably large majority of the population that is oblivious or indifferent to Bush’s horrible ways. Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 10:27:09 PM

YassEr Arafat Mandatory Post #3 1) Should you always keep what you win in war, or are there circumstances where you should give back some or all of the winnings? In all aspects of life, the behaviour you reward is the behaviour you get. If the international community rewards aggressor nations by allowing them to keep the spoils of war, it would simply encourage countries to invade their weaker neighbors. If this principle were followed in the Middle East, for example, Saddam Hussain would have been allowed to keep Kuwait after the 1991 invasion. The only viable approach to conquered territory is to respect international borders. Countries that invade other countries should be punished for their aggression, not rewarded with the gift of territory. To do otherwise, is to resurrect the feuds of centuries past, and to toss overboard all the progress that was made in the twentieth century. 2) What are the positive and negative outcomes for Israel to keep all or some of the territory they have gained from war? The positive outcome for Israel is that they have a more easily defensible land mass than the nations who have lost the occupied territories. Just as importantly, this creates internal hostility from trying to include unwilling subjects within the enlarged borders in Israel. This is a recipe for long term instability, and a loss of security for Israel inhabitants provided by their original 1948 borders. The occupied territories can be used as a buffer zone between Israel and her neighbor, thus guaranteeing a greater security for her inhabitants. Israel would be more easily able to repel any possible invasion and missiles fired from neighboring states would be less likely to reach high populated areas. The most important negative outcome for Israel is that she is causing greater hostility towards herself. This includes hostility from Israelis and Palestinians. If Israel keeps all of the territory they have gained from war, they will never hear the end of it from Palestine. 3) What outcomes do you see as fair and just for both sides? The only just outcome for both Israel and Palestine is for two separate states to exist side by side. In this way, both Palestine and Israel would sovereign and autonomous. Each nation would govern itself without being subjected to any foreign power. This should lead to the opportunity for each nation to develop its people, and should lead to unlimited peace. 4) What do you see as the benefits of your peace plan to your country and to the combatants? (For example if you say democracy will/won't help Palestine, explain how.) The peace plan will benefit Palestine by shifting the focus from fighting for survival to nation building. Palestinians will no longer have to concern themselves with fighting an internal enemy, but rather can direct their energies towards building an educational system, health care services, and commercial info structure that is required. Israel will benefit in the same way, and the rest of the world can benefit by using their resources to solve other problems. Palestine is gaining the right to be their own democratic country, giving their people an outlet for their voice they stifled for so long. A huge benefit for Palestinians is finally having human rights. The Peace Plan, crafted by Mr. Sharon, Mr. Bush and I, is fair and just for all involved. Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 10:27:03 PM

Yasser Arafat Hey Tony, It's spelt Y-A-S-S-E-R. Thanks for coming out. Don't worry, I'm ashamed to share the Earth with a man who drinks tea, and eats crumpets. Your friend, Yasser Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 10:25:56 PM

Ahmed Qurei - Palestine Post # 3 In my opinion, there are definitely circumstances in which a portion or all winnings should be given back. For example, a portion of the land won by Israel should be given back to the Palestinians due to the difference between the size of their populations and the designated portion of land assigned to Israel by the UN. Palestine’s population is much more dense than that of Israel’s, therefore Palestine would benefit greatly from land returned to them by Israel. Also, Israel took over land not assigned to them by the UN. I think that Israel should not necessarily give Palestine back all the land they won, but instead give them the land that they are entitled to have by the UN. I believe that a positive outcome for Israel to keep all or some of the territory they have gained from war would be the obvious reason that the more land they have, the more resources they have which they will benefit from economically. Another reason being that it would show other countries that they strong and will no longer be pushed around. On the other hand, they could be seen as stubborn and nonnegotiable, only looking out for themselves. In my opinion, another negative outcome for Israel to keep all or some of the territory they have gained from war is their relationship with Palestine is in terrible jeopardy. Their people live so close together and should be able to count on each other for support, yet Israel built a wall to keep them out and Palestinian suicide bombers kill innocent Israelis. If Israel gave land to Palestine, I believe that most if not all the Palestinian freedom fighting would stop. Isn’t returning land in order to achieve peace with neighbouring people a beneficial idea? Outcomes that I see as fair and just for both sides would be for Israel to return the land to Palestine that was designated to the Palestinians by the UN. Also, Israel should tear down the wall dividing Israel form Palestine. In return, Palestinians should completely stop all freedom fighting against Israel, and there should be strict laws against continuing the violence. I believe that the peace plan between Palestine and Israel represents a large step forward towards the hopefully short road to peace between the two countries and all allied countries. Making Palestine a sovereign state separate from Israel, I believe, is the most substantial part of the peace plan. With the existing wall being torn down, Palestinian refugees having the right of return, and establishing a democracy I think will all help Palestinians no longer feel the need for freedom fighting. Most importantly, having a democracy will give them a voice that I believe they have been longing for, and will no longer resort to violence as a form of expression. In my opinion, the land negotiations will be difficult because both sides feel they are entitled to land which the other side does not agree with. I don’t believe that both Israel and Palestine will be completely happy with the land they receive from this peace plan, but I do think that a happy medium will be reached. Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 10:23:33 PM

Bill Graham So what are you more upset about , Bush; the fact that you actually created a peace proposal or that you werent invited to the actual conference of finger pointing. Obviously you were the best one for the job. Along with Russia, you created a peace proposal that was widely accepted by the international community, you even went further to collaborate with the Palestinian and Israeli leaders to make the peace plan suit their needs. I also find it interesting that you can shove michael moore under our fingernails. Not once did we say we supported him, we have not asked him to support Canada, he just does...democracy is freedom of speech, presenting parallel points of view. Sufice it to say that somewhere between "Dubya's" philosophy and what has been presented by Michael Moore lies the truth. Funny how you baisically just contradicted yourself. Angry with Paul for making a comment and putting words into your mouth, and yet you make an example out of yourself. It is well known that the Faser Institute is a right-wing organization that would aline itself with your philosophy. We would rather all of Canada be eligable for health care instead of many going bankrupt trying to pay for it. Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 10:22:16 PM

Saudi Arabia wow Bush you just keep on getting yourself deeper and deeper into this one... as for your "facts" on jobs we will discuss and compare facts tommorow...I just have one thing to say, - its ironic that you call me a hypocrite when on Friday, October 22nd 2004 - 12:59:03 AM you said "Also, I don’t appreciate cheap shots (ie. calling me ignorant). We are here to promote tolerant and civilized debate, not to engage in character assassinations. Thank you." BUT yet on Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 10:01:01 PM you said "perhaps you are too naïve, ignorant, and blind to see the problems..." Now whose resulting in cheap shots and character assassinations. The fact is Bush that your words are like your Foreign Policies, THEY DON'T MAKE SENSE!!! Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 10:18:41 PM

Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei All human constructs bear the same limits as humanity. What we cannot comprehend, we cannot create. It follows then that if humans are driven by emotion, not only would any ideologies created be inherently biased by the driving emotion that spawned them, but will further be altered by the driving emotions of any other human who pursues these ideologies. The concepts of justice and morality are two related examples of the infinitely elastic nature imposed upon ideologies (infinite because, once again, we cannot know more than we are able to; hence a practical definition of infinity). Some define justice as reciprocation; others believe a seemingly objective code of law is the answer. Justice is derived from morality, and Religion is the ultimate arbiter of morality. Codified laws are based upon religious scriptures, yet the moral beliefs of the world are vastly different due to interpretation. This example of emotional reaction defining human reality proves to us that a conflict such as this cannot be solved through a war of ideologies. An aside for those who yet do not believe that humans are governed by emotion: Which comes first, the emotion or the thought? Invariably, it is the emotion. Using this theory, solutions of great efficacy can be produced. It is likely that the Jews acted out of perceived desperation when they requested Palestine be given to them. This perception was shared by a great deal of the powers involved in World War II, for they had seen the devastation wrought upon their own countries. In practice, humans are magnanimous, wise beings. As a general rule of history, the opposite has been true when tested. The individual holds precedence over all else, and empathy is used as an effective means of catharsis. Thus, a conflict occurred between the traditional need for empathy and the desires of the individual. Britain, having accurately gauged the loss of Palestine as nothing to their populace, satisfied the empathic needs of the world by housing the former scapegoats of society in Palestine. Once the Israeli nation was established and individual needs came to the minds of the Israelis, empathy was needed. The most logical scapegoat was the Palestinians, as they had already been pushed from global notice by the perceived righting of a great wrong done to the Jews. Emotional justice is afforded the Jews at cost to the Palestinians. What must be done to achieve a lasting peace is clear, though it preserves a cycle loathed by all: Another scapegoat must be found. The suffering of the Palestinians will be brought into a dominant perspective, shaming the Jews and convincing them to accede to the terms Palestinian leaders require of them. The scapegoat could perhaps be a 'terrorist' nation in the general vicinity. The role of a scapegoat is to create the illusion of greater scope through focusing attention on a single, concentrated issue. All other issues are discarded, and the mind rationalizes it by claiming that the scapegoat issue is of greater importance. A terrorist nation with oil producing capacities would serve even better, as it threatens the lifestyle of all those living. 1) Land may be given or taken as much as the community allows it. Using the classic example of Hitler, it is shown to us that with proper emotional tension achieved, one can do far more than Israel has without resultant global involvement. Humans possess self-preservation instinct; the issue of group survival is an afterthought. Nuclear war challenges both the emotion and perceived logos, and so is made by our own minds an effective tool for achieving peace. America is the pivotal nuclear power, so it must be their state that shifts toward the new scapegoat. It must then be the former scapegoat that determines the new borders. Palestine will be able to take a sizable chunk of Israel's land. The reason why they cannot take all of it answers the latter half of question one: To take all the land would stress the emotional state too far, snapping it and forcing a restructuring which would draw attention away from the desired scapegoat and necessitating further religious wars to establish the new balance. War is a catalyst to change; the desired outcome of this simulation is expedient change toward peace. Global pressure can cut the war short at any time. 2) Jews were once a figuratively nomadic people. Through this was gained a lack of concentrated aggression against them. The reason why six million jews died under Hitler's Reich was their concentration. The Jews were establishing a prominent economic and cultural role in Germany, which made them easy scapegoats. The Jews asked for a place to concentrate, knowing that they would have support this time. What they gained at the time was sovereignty backed by the proverbial 'immovable object', America. Due to Israel's actions over the decades since its inception, it has steadily lost support within the global community. If American support continues without some positive political change in the middle east to reinforce the image of a benevolent intervening force, Israel will lose American support. On the other hand, if an agreement is reached with Palestine, American support can continue. Israel will have lost its scapegoat and will have to wait until the circle of oppression comes to Judaism once again. Since the beginning, nations have been built upon the bones of older nations. Israel has built its new nation, and so must relinquish the remnants of the civilization it displaced when it so presumptuously moved in. Israel will lose little compared to the gradual annihilation it faces from attempting to subjugate an entire religion in the area of that religion's greatest strength. 3) The key to balance is maintaining Palestinian satisfaction. Israeli resistance will be weak or there will be war. Peace talks represent possibility, and possibility is too often treated as reality. If they culminate in nothing, the loss of the possibility is the loss of all that was discussed. Peace is lost to the Israelis due to the obstinacy of Palestine, and vice versa. The possibility of violence startles the individual, and heightened emotion allows propositions to be made and accepted that could not normally come to pass. It is neither fair nor just that adversity comes upon the individual. Once both nations are on similar footing, empathic connections can be made and the situation can be 'improved'. 4)People are manipulated by emotion. That I would have their emotions manipulated by leaders whose cunning runs deep in this may irk world leaders. It is a threat to their own emotional manipulation. Any collaborative form of government compounds the emotional bias experienced by a dictatorship. The dictator has but one thing in mind: staying in power. When the dictator controls the military, the populace join the military. Israel has done this. So too shall Palestine. If the populace do not appreciate this, they will learn to. Once again, the alternative to peace is war. With a world of guns aimed at a dictator's back he can do nothing but seek the longest lasting peace attainable. The greater one's personal power, the more violence must be promised them for them to acquiesce. The fate of all dictators has not been violent death. Simply point out to the new dictator the actions of past dictators that led to their universally horrifying demises. With the presence of the seemingly impossible peace treaty over his head it will be made evident to the dictator that any misstep on his part will result in an immediate rather than delayed demise. The tension of power can be eased down into a pseudo-democratic system once the new scapegoat has been established. History has often proven an effective call to arms for the more bellicose emotions. To ignore it would be to ignore the minds of the millions living in the middle east. The writings of Gods are the opposing forces in the middle east. Offer something more concrete and people will flock to it. The presence of Gods in older days was undeniable. Now science has supplanted it in many nations with its offerings of luxury and its hints of eventual superiority over any Gods. Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 10:05:19 PM

Dubya Just to add to that last post: Again, you two are twisting my words. Reminds me of a certain Michael Moore, whom Canadians probably worship. Paul Martin wrote: “To say that you'll never need anything from Canada is to be naive and blind.” Of course, I did not say I didn’t need anything from Canada. I asked why I would want to invade Canada. I wouldn’t. There is no point. As for your wonderful health care system that you declare is “the best in the world”, perhaps you are too naïve, ignorant, and blind to see the problems with it. Waiting lines out the door, people not receiving proper treatment in time, paying taxes until halfway through June? No thanks. I’d rather pay for my health care. Of course, the solution is simply to pump more money into the system, isn’t it, Paul Martin? Perhaps you should check out this report by the Fraser Institute (http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/Text-wytpart1.pdf#) and consider some real health care reforms. It is completely absurd that we are discussing this, but you are the ones that need to “get your heads into this and stop pointing fingers”. If you really wanted peace, you would have included everyone in the peace conference, instead of kicking out the United States so you could take on the role of controllers and earn more “peace points”, despite the fact that you have contributed nothing to this conference except finger-pointing and groundless attacks. God Bless America. Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 10:01:01 PM

Mikhail Fradkov (PM of Russia) 1) Should you always keep what you win in war, or are there circumstances where you should give back some or all of the winnings? There are always different circumstances for every situation. Not necessarily in every situation will you have to give back all the land that you have taken and give back nothing to the country that you took the land from. In this situation where Israel took the land from Palestine I think some land should be given back to the Palestinians. I believe that some land should be given back to the Palestinians from the Israelis because of the way they took it. Most people would say that they were basically given the land that they own now. I also believe that some of the land should be given back because I believe both sides have valid points in the argument. Israel can say that their people living there can date back before 2000 years ago. Palestine can say they’ve been living on the land for 2000 years. Because of these points, (valid points I should say), I don’t think either of them should move on the land. I believe that they should both meet at the middle. Because of these points I think Palestine should get a more equal share of the land. In conclusion I believe that in this situation some of the land should be given back but that is not necessarily the case for every single war won where there is land gained. 2) What are the positive and negative outcomes for Israel to keep all or some of the territory they have gained from war? There are many points for either side in this argument. If Israel does keep all the land that they won from the war then many good things could come for them. First of all they own a lot of land. A lot more than Palestine which gives them supremacy over their neighbours. Because of the land they have amassed they can move more of their people onto their land and not be afraid of crowding and circumstances such as that. Because of the land they have gained, they can build a better country and hopefully make themselves a power in the world. If Israel does keep all the land that they have won, there are also many bad points for this side as well. If they keep all that land then Palestine will just continue to attack. They have many people that are willing to lose their lives for their cause. Israel will not make the Palestinians happy if they keep all the land and not give any back at all. 3) What outcomes do you see as fair and just for both sides? I think Israel should give back some land. They shouldn’t have to give back all the land that they earned, but I think they should give back to make it more even between the countries. I think that Jerusalem should be an international zone so people from either country may go there to pray. Since the place is so religiously significant to both countries I see this as the only fair way to settle this. I think that Palestine should get economic aid from other countries and that they should turn into a democratic state. I feel these are the best outcomes to make it just and fair for both sides. 4) What do you see as the benefits of your peace plan to your country and to the combatants, Israelis and Palestinians? (For example if you say democracy will/won't help Palestine, explain how.) I think Democracy can help the state of Palestine because it would be best to elect someone of the people there. It would not make sense to put a dictator in that would know nothing about the Palestinian suffering and their living conditions. It would be best for the Palestinian to pick their own leader because that person would know the most about their situation and hopefully the best ways to get out of it. Also because of what is happening now, all the attacks that are going on, Palestine is looking very bad. They need to have a system of government that gives out punishments so they’ll be order in the country. This is necessary because if they don’t control their people, the country will be moving backwards and they will always stay in poverty. Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 09:49:02 PM

Dubya To Bill Graham and Paul Martin, So I presume not inviting the nation with the most powerful military and economy to the peace conference was not "arrogance that gets in the way of peace talks" either, was it? Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 09:44:19 PM

Mohammed Naji al-Otari (Ketan) -> Syria Post #3 1) Should you always keep what you win in war, or are there circumstances where you should give back some or all of the winnings? There are always circumstances were people have to bend the rules for the better of everyone, sure you win the war and then you are spouse to get the land and you do get the land, but if you see a country that needs the land because they now have no were to go you should not be selfish and give them land so that there people can live there. After all, this entire world is all the same people just different gods and believes which is what separates us from being “one” or “same”. In the case of Israel and Palestine, Israel won the war and took over the land and they do have rights over the land because they fought for it and won it, but what they have no right of doing is building a wall that is just disrespecting Palestine and trying to say we never want you in are part of the land. A country wins the war and takes over the land, with this they should realize that they also need to please the countries around them or they will have to worry about going back to war at any time and maybe get defeated and then deal with the consciences, and the other country may do to them what they had done to themselves. 2) What are the positive and negative outcomes for Israel to keep all or some of the territory they have gained from war? The positive outcomes for Israel to keep all or some of there territory that they have gained from the war is that they fought for it and people gave their life so that their families and future generations could live free. Also having all of the land is better for them because they do not need to conjunct everyone into tiny areas, this way they have all o the land where they would please to go. Having a lot of land is good for the country that owns that land but it sucks for the country that does not have this land in Israel case with all the land they own compares to Palestine. The negative outcomes for Israel to keep all or some of there territory that they have gained from the war is that now Palestine thinks that they should get more land so they are trying to fight against Israel hoping that Israel will just give them the land they want. The negative thing about having a lot o land is that people say “you have so much land and you do not need all of it, give countries some of the land”, that’s the negative thing about owning a lot of land. 3) What outcomes do you see as fair and just for both sides? The outcomes I see fair for both sides is a peace plan so that both countries can talk to each other and walk free into each others land. The peace plan has some important factors in it besides my first point; another very important point is the wall that is the first thing that needs to be taken care of that wall needs to be ripped down. The second important thing is that it does not matter who owns the land and who had the land in the past they should take the population of everyone and the size of the land and divide it equally so the country that needs the extra land will get it for there civilians. 4) What do you see as the benefits of your peace plan to your country and to the combatants, Israelis and Palestinians? (For example if you say democracy will/won't help Palestine, explain how.) The benefits to the peace plan that was laid out by all the countries in the peace conference, was that they wanted to get one person to run both communities and run it like a democracy. Everyone knows that this will not work because there is too much hate for that right now they need to take little steps to get peace because it will not all come over night. They should first worry about getting the wall down and splitting land and rights then think of the name of there new country and rules for the country then when that is all done think of how it can be run, until then have two rulers one for each side and they make the decision together both have 50/50 say. This is all a process that will take time so people just need to be patient and let it happen, they can only do so much for it to work before it starts turning aganist them. Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 09:30:05 PM

Paul Martin Cheers to that Bill! First off, yes BUSH...We are all interdependent among each other. That means that we need somethings you have, and you need somethings we have. To say that you'll never need anything from Canada is to be naive and blind. We all need each other on some level. Secondly, I totally agree, the arrogance in this place is almost gross. And I'm not even sure if you can call it arrogance, it almost seems like childs play; name calling and finger pointing. Get over it. We all have our differences and we've all made mistakes! We need to resolve this conflict within the next few days, at the least. Get your heads into this and stop pointing fingers. Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 09:28:07 PM

Jennie Kelusky straight politikin my aunt fanny is Jennie Kelusky. If i can admit it, so can you. take some frickin responsibility people and sign your posts. besides it makes it more exciting. Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 09:23:48 PM

Paul Martin 1) Should you always keep what you win in war, or are there circumstances where you should give back some or all of the winnings? I believe that you should not always keep what you win in war. There are always many circumstances in which you should give back part or all of your ‘winnings’. To state and opinion, no one wins or loses in war. Hundreds upon millions of people die because of war and to say you won, is to ignore the countless lives lost in the battles. To enter war to ‘win’ and become something greater is to fool yourself into a life of death and misery. Why live in a world where death lives beside you? Where you’re scared everyday to even breathe? In modern history, we see that you do not keep what you ‘win’. In most cases, we saw that you almost lost more than what you started with, as war is widely unacceptable throughout the world today. Today, if you are to fight in a war, it is unrealistic to keep everything that you gained from it as there are consequences to people’s actions; part of that would be the redistribution of the land taken during the course of the war. I strongly agree that if you are to start a war, you shouldn’t keep the possessions that you gain. War should not be tolerated and letting someone get away with taking things that are not theirs is giving the ‘enemy’ slack. As you can see with the Israelis and Palestinians, the Israeli claim to the land won in the war 56 years ago, has only ended up in violence and hatred towards themselves. With the ‘winning’ of the land, many Palestinians and Arabs have been displaced, along with the abolishment of Palestinian basic human rights. Israelis gained what they claimed was ‘their’ land, resulting in ‘terrorist attacks’ and the Palestinians lost their homes and lives; no one won. 2) What are the positive and negative outcomes for Israel to keep all or some of the territory they have gained from war? There are no positive outcomes to Israel keeping all of the territory they gained through war. Although some would argue that they ‘won’ it, so it’s rightfully theirs, I argue that nothing is assured in war and taking something away by force is wrong. Positive outcomes of the Israelis only keeping some of the territory they gained are that the ‘terrorist’ attacks will decrease. Although that cannot be assured in stone, to give the Palestinians part of what they want, should at least please the majority of the peoples. As many Palestinians just want peace and a place to call home. Another positive outcome is that Israel can shift their focus from national security to things like economic stability and rebuilding their home. A negative outcome could also possibly be instability and anger among their own people as they have been fighting for the land for so long, and to give even some of it back would be to seem weak; which isn’t the case. 3) What outcomes do you see as fair and just for both sides? An outcome where the land is evenly divided between the Israelis and Palestinians as to the density of their population is fair and just for both sides. Both don’t necessarily get everything they want, but it should provide stability. Another outcome would be the eventual and inevitable election of a Palestinian leader. Although Yasser Arafat is control now, he was not brought into power via elections and therefore either needs to be replaced or reinstated by the Palestinian people. The reason for this is also that Palestine, after this, should be a democratic state. For Palestine to become democratic like Israel would increase good relations and also allow them to interact peacefully, which is a good thing for both sides. The demolishment of the Apartheid Wall is fair and just for both sides, because if the wall were to continue to exist, it would continue to divide Israelis and Palestinians which would be counteractive to our end objective of peace. 4) What do you see as the benefits of your peace plan to your country and to the combatants, Israelis and Palestinians? The benefits of the peace plan to Canada is that our overall end objective was reached and that we’re that one step closer to being able to exist in global harmony. The Palestinian government needs to be democratic. The people of Palestine deserve the right to be heard and democracy is the only one that can provide that. The Palestinians also need to now been seen in a different light. With the changing of their state and government, they should be represented globally as they have not been for the past 56 years and maybe even more. To keep good ties with both Palestine and Israel, we are solidifying a cultural, economical and political tie to the Middle East. Canada is a cultural mosaic and microcosm, and as we support and respect people from all corners of the earth. The mutual respect and peace to come of this peace plan is just a start to the co-existence of all cultures and religions on an international scale; utopia is that much closer. "There's a hole in the world tonight. There's a cloud of fear and sorrow. There's a hole in the world tonight. Don't let there be a hole in the world tomorrow...until we we learn to love one another we never reach the promise land." - Eagles lyrics Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 09:19:23 PM

Bill Graham Uh Bush... How about water, oil, natural gas, a social infrastructure, cheap pharmaceuticals, flu vaccine, universal health care, world respect, and a balanced budget ..you know, just to name a few. But hey, lets not get nasty here, Bush. The bottom line is, you need us as much as we need you (although you may be reluctant to admit it). Lets not dwell on technicalities. This is a peace talk. I'd like to know why some countries fail to realize this. Stop nit-picking at each other so we can get some serious negotion underway. This chat is an exact example of the arrogance that gets in the way of real dialogue. Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 09:18:55 PM

Ariel Sharon Should you always keep what you win in war, or are there circumstances where you should give back some or all of the winnings? No, I do not think a nation should ALWAYS give back what was won in war, though there are some circumstances when it is best to give portions of it back. In the situation we find ourselves in today, for example, returning some territory is our best bet at achieving peace and stability after decades of war and conflict, therefore it is the best option. Though our nation does intend to (should Palestine fulfill their end of the agreement) give back some land in question, we are still ENTITLED to, as all nations are, keep the land we had won. A country should not be expected to give up what it has won fairly, even though sometimes it is in the best interest for it to happen. Especially in the circumstances Israel is in and was in at the time that it acquired the land, we should not be expected to give it all up. We are being very generous in doing so given the circumstances we are in and the circumstance under which we acquired the land in question. The Six Days War, which gave us the land in question, was not a conflict initiated by Israel. In contrast, it was initiated by Arab nations whose intention was liquidizing Israel and wiping us off the map. What no one seems to remember is that, during the war that was NOT INITIATED BY ISRAEL, the Arab nations whose land we won ATTACKED US in an attempt to TAKE ALL OF OUR LAND! However, they were naïve and underestimated our military might. In turn they lost their land. Given the situation, we should not be EXPECTED to return it to them. However, we realize that doing so is for the better good of our people, the Palestinian people and the region as a whole, so we will return portions of it on the conditions outlined in our joitn peace proposal. Countries should not ALWAYS return territory won in war, but it is certainly, in some situations, best that they do. What are the positive and negative outcomes for Israel to keep all or some of the territory they have gained from war? There are many positive outcomes of keeping the land we had won. If we were to keep all of the territory, the Israelites who currently inhabit those territories would not be forced from their houses. None of our people would be displaced. They would not be inconvenienced and they would not have to start their lives anew in a different city. Our people would also likely remain pleased that we did not give into the terrorism we’ve endured. However, to keeping the territory to ourselves would also have many negative effects. Terrorist attacks against our people would likely continue and more unnecessary deaths would occur. Our people would have to live in fear of the Palestinian terrorism constantly. The conflict would continue to drag on as it has for the past 50 years, and the chances of reaching a peaceful solution would remain minimal. We feel that the negative effects of keeping the land outweigh the positive. Our first concern is and always has been the safety of our people, and though we don’t want to inconvenience them or disrupt their lives, we want to protect them and ensure their safety at all times. This cannot be done while acts of terror are being carried out. In the long run, being inconvenienced is better than being murdered, and we hope our people will realize that as we have. Because the safety of our people is our biggest concern, we have agreed to negotiate the return of some land to the Palestinian people. Even though some people will be upset with this, they will be safer. And whether they’re able to realize it or not, that’s what’s most important. What outcomes do you see as fair and just for both sides? What do you see as the benefits of your peace plan to your country and to the combatants, Israelis and Palestinians? The Peace Plan formulated between the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, George Bush and myself is as fair and just as possible. Having discussed it, we agree that it’s our best bet at finding a compromise that will upset the least amount of people and that this plan is our best bet at achieving peace. The Peace Plan includes the return of some land to the Palestinians, the establishment of a Palestinian state joined with Israel in an economic union, and the establishment of a democracy in this new Palestinian state. This is good for the Palestinian people because they’re being given a chance to become a self-governing nation with some of the territory they have demanded over the years. The Palestinian people will have a voice and be guaranteed human rights, social rights and political rights through the implementation of a democratic government. In forming a democracy, the United States has promised economic aid, which will help the Palestinians develop institutions, build homes and increase the standard of living amongst their people. The establishment of a democratic regime will also give them close ties to the United States, the most powerful country in the world. In return for this, Palestine will amend their national charter to remove all sections condoning and promoting violence against Israel and will pursue and punish those who fund or are in any way responsible for terrorism. This is good for us in Israel because it gives us the safety we’ve been seeking and lacking through our entire existance and brings with it promises of a better future free from terrorism and other horrific threats to our safety, our people and our culture. Jerusalem, an area of indescribable importance to both the Muslim Palestinians and the Jewish Israelites, will become international territory that neither our state not their's has control over. This is good for both Israel and Palestine because it allows both our peoples, the Jews and the Muslims, to worship freely and safely in the most religious area on earth. This plan, if implemented successfully, will also bring a degree of stability to the region by ending the conflict that has been raging here for decades. Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 09:17:55 PM

Queen Elizabeth II (Britain) Should you always keep what you win in war, or are there circumstances where you should give back some or all of the winnings? Throughout history borders have been drawn because of outbreaks of war. I feel that if you have won land because of war, then you should be able to keep that land, however I also feel that there are circumstances where you should give back some of the winnings. For example, Palestinians don’t have money for a strong military, nor do they have a form of government. So when it comes to war, it is most definite that they would lose, so instead of bringing war, they have chosen another method of making a statement. It is unfortunate that they have chosen violence, to show that they want their land back, but that’s when the opponent Israel must understand that this will never stop, until negotiation of giving back land occurs. But like I said before in the previous post, I do feel that the Israelis have rightfully earned that land because almost all of the Arab countries surrounding Israel brought war shortly after Israel was proclaimed in May 14, 1948. It wasn’t their fault; they just managed to conquer more land they had to star with and this was the time of building their empire, but now being only 50 years or so, the international community believe that morally some land should be given back; it should not be one sided. What are the positive and negative outcomes for Israel to keep all or some of the territory they have gained from war? The Jewish people came out of the “hole” after World War II and due to many countries not allowing them all to settle in each other’s lands, the UN gave Jews land for their people to grow prosperous. When the Arab nations surrounding Israel had attacked the Jews had won the war and this was very important to their people because this showed that Israel was ready to stand on their own and that they would not be taken advantage of. So they kept what they earned and many countries were shocked at how successful Israel had managed to take over more land. However being such a positive outcome for Israel had led to be a negative one. After the armistice in 1949, Jordan had taken the land on the West Bank of the Jordan River, and Egypt had taken the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians had nothing. This led terrorists or “Freedom Fighters” of Palestine to fight back because they felt that they were stripped from their land. So now negotiations must be made because now innocent Israelis are being killed and it seems that they can’t keep all of the territory they have gained from war. What outcomes do you see as fair and just for both sides? In a perfect society, I’d hope that both countries could coexist rather than drawing borders, however this will not happen. When starting this simulation, my emotions were very much involved and I felt sympathetic towards the Palestinians. Not until after the first post and the simulation time where one of the controllers had stated, “we must put aside our emotions and history because nothing will be accomplished,” did I realize that Israel is not to be blamed. Ariel Sharon was not in power during the time of war and that currently he has take steps towards peace amongst the Palestinians. What I feel is fair and just for both sides, is that: Palestinians should become a separate state, the wall that Israel has created should be torn down, some land that Israel had conquered should be given back to the Palestinians and there will be no more violence amongst the two nations; Yasser Arafat needs to deeply express that terrorism should and will be stopped. On the other hand, how do we ensure that the terrorism will stop, or be controlled? What do you see as the benefits of your peace plan to your country and to the combatants, Israelis and Palestinians? The peace plan that was created between the Israelis and the Palestinians wasn’t as detailed as I had thought but overall it’s a good start. The benefits of the peace plan are the fact that the Palestinians will be recognized as a separate state. The international community have decided to help out these two countries financially so they can start a new life again. This peace plan is beneficial to Britain because by Israel and Palestine negotiating and seeking out each other’s needs, Britain can help and seek other methods of solving issues between the two nations rather than fear of more violence that could occur. What I feel that was most accomplished was the fact that Palestine will be a democratic society, which is a huge jump to ensure the safety of the Israelis as requested by them at the peace conference. Also democracy will hopefully help Palestine and the people get their views and opinions out in the open, allow individuals the chance to run as a leader of Palestine or representative within they’re community once everyone has settled in. The result of the cooperation made between Palestine and Israel, has now made the world that much closer towards peace. Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 09:10:49 PM

Dubya "If both sides decide that they want all or nothing, then there is no outcome that is fair for both sides. A just outcome would be a Palestinian state, the wall coming down, and all land that has been acquired by war returned to Palestine. Unfortunately the Israelis see this as unfair. U cannot go into peace talks concerning this issue and expect both sides to be happy. A compromise was necessary, and we feel that both sides should be satisfied with the outcome." -Prince of Saudi Arabia Funny how just a few days ago, you and your Axis of Evil friends were wasting time and disrupting peace talks by attempting to pursuade Arafat to demand "all or nothing". No one was willing to compromise on that day, why the sudden change of heart? Also, dear Personal Friend of the Saudi King, please back up your claims with facts next time: Employed, January 2001: 137,790,000. Bush takes office Employed, October 2001: 136,447,000. Bush's economic programs passed Employed, September 2004: 139,480,000. Current numbers. You do the math. Net job loss? I think not. Source: BLS. (http://www.bls.gov/) Data series ID: LNS12000000 (employment level, seasonally adjusted) Cited and sourced, which is more than I can say for your post. -George W. Bush P.S. Contrary to popular belief, I am not planning on invading Canada. What could we possibly want in Canada? Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 09:06:38 PM

Tony Blair It is blatantly obvious that both Israelis and Palestinians are suffering, and that staying in this “suffering” stage will just prolong it. I’m sure despite anyone’s position on this issue, they could come to terms with this. So it is peace we are after. There are basic principals in war, and they must be followed or there will be repercussions such as this conflict. Let us all understand a basic concept. In war, there is a winner, and a loser. The winner is entitled to whatever he/she has been fighting for. Now that we all are aware of this, we can see how Israel and Palestine are involved. Very plainly, Israel and Palestine fought for land. There was a winner of this war. Israel managed to fight for their land, and reclaimed what they could. And ever since this happened in 1967, Palestinians were left with almost nothing. Presently, the Palestinian people have no real government, and have no real voice. They use freedom fighting to be heard. They want land back, they want an Israeli defensive barrier to be taken down and they want rights. Israel fought for land, and is now being ASKED for these things back through terrorist bombings. Israel being such a giving nation, offers improvements to a treaty they once had, offers the destruction of the defensive barrier, and offers portions of the land back… ALL FOR PEACE IN THE FUTURE AND THE END OF TERRORIST ATTACKS. Yet for some strange reason the great leaders of Palestine have still been arguing for all or nothing. This is a circumstance where you have to give back what you earned from war. But this is very despicable situation because this is so very once sided. Palestine has no control, and absolutely no moral view on this situation. Palestine claims they have nothing to offer in return for such a ‘deal’. The simple acceptance of the Israeli peace plan is something to offer on its own! There are so many positive and negative outcomes for Israel to keep all or some of the territory they have gained from war. Suppose: -Israel were to keep ALL of the land they earned, Palestine would continue attacking Israel with suicide bombings, and eventually, Palestine would force Israel to retaliate, thus providing a end to this conflict, Israel would live, Palestine would not. -Israel were to give ALL the land back, the government would lose control over its people, and essentially, Israel would become quite similar to Palestine. Israeli people would end up attacking Palestinians, and both would essentially fall apart due to more conflict. -Israel were to offer some of the land, and find a common middle ground. Israel would hand over what many have fought, and died for but only to preserve essentially what Israel really is. They would do so for peace. Both nations would be able to co-exist as individual democratic states in the long run. Obviously seeming to be the wisest and most mature choice to make. Israel did in fact offer some of the land back, and tried to find a common middle ground. But it seems the Palestinians have not quite come to terms yet, they are in a state of ALL OR NOTHING. Which is ironic, because they are at the mercy of Israel. It is clear to see that this would be the wisest, most fair, and most just choice because it allows both Israel and Palestine to end this stupidity, and to finally work towards building their states properly. My peace plan is not a complex and difficult concept to grasp. Israel HAS offered, land, and destruction of the defensive barrier. So Palestine should stop harboring and controlling terrorists, and terrorist attacks (which they have been caught saying) and Palestine should accept this generous offer, because it is the only step that both nation will take together to wards peace. Both nations must become separate states, and need to restructure their government. (Or in Palestine’s case build a real one.) Democracy is most just, and will help both states once formed. Democracy will provide stability, and structure, which is desperately needed. I am ashamed to share this earth with Yassur Arafat, and it is also a shame that Palestine could not even act as any type of unit, let alone think of a peace concept that would be presentable. (Unlike, ALL OR NOTHING) ____________________________________________________________ P.S. Tommy Siatskas says: How’s that for drama?! Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 09:06:07 PM

rock on ^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ i agree with the person directly above me Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 09:03:34 PM

prince of saudi i agree with the person directly below me Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 08:47:17 PM

straight politikin' my aunt Fanny What are you smoking? The White House interest in the Middle East is purely economic. The balance between supporting Israel while at the same time managing the interests of the Arab world is difficult at best. The United States can ill-afford a major Middle Eastern conflict given its and the rest of the industrialized world's dependancy on oil. There are many similarities between the relationship that the US and the USSR had in the 1960s and 70s. Some would argue there was a greater degree of world stability when it was recognized that both sides could obliterate each other at the push of a button. A moderate degree of conflict allowed for a controlled release of frustration. In the case of Israel, Palestine and the relationship with the rest of the Arab world, is it not possible that a moderate degree of conflict that currently exists today does in fact ensure that there is not a build up of pressure that would result in something more devastating? Face it, neither side(s) are prepared to create this ideal world that everybody else wants. Like the USSR and communism, eventually it changed. Responsibility for global stability does not rest in the hands of the United States alone. My goodness, they are the hegemon, not the babysitter of the arguing nations! Get a clue bud, and next time, think twice before “hollering” and making such a useless comment. Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 08:46:17 PM

Prince of Saudi Arabia As my king has already stated, we no longer live in an age where it is acceptable to just take. Israel had no right to take even more than they were awarded by the UN, jet they felt is was justifiable to go into land that has belonged to the Palestinians for centuries and put the Palestinians in a worse position than they were already in. The question here is, should you ignore the decisions of the UN and go off and make your own decisions that benefit no one but yourself? (Dubya knows a thing or two about that, don’t you Dubya?) The current circumstances include never ending suicide bombing attacks on Israel and poor and suffering Palestinian people who desperately need a structural government and the land that they are asking for. There are very few positives outcomes if Israel keeps all of the land. The attacks on its people will never end, and we will never again see a Palestinian state. If it is peace that Israel is after, then giving back at least a large portion of the land that they have taken is a definite must. Losing territory to war is never good for the nation that loses out. See Hungary post Treaty of Versailles. When a nation loses land at war, it loses the people who live on that land, the possible revenues from goods that are produced on that land, and tax dollars that now go to the other country. Israel was given a lot of land by the UN and unfairly used its military strength to take even more. This is completely unfair to the Palestinian people. Would Canadians like it if the Americans marched into Canada and took most of our land? Don’t get any ideas Dubya! If both sides decide that they want all or nothing, then there is no outcome that is fair for both sides. A just outcome would be a Palestinian state, the wall coming down, and all land that has been acquired by war returned to Palestine. Unfortunately the Israelis see this as unfair. U cannot go into peace talks concerning this issue and expect both sides to be happy. A compromise was necessary, and we feel that both sides should be satisfied with the outcome. The benefits to Saudi Arabia are obvious. Peace in the Middle East means more trading partners, more tourist dollars, and less threat of war. People will feel more secure entering the area, and we can start to build a stronger relationship with Israel, and the state of Palestine. Democracy is good for any nation, let alone a new one trying to establish itself. The current regime should get ready to move out though, because the people will probably not want someone like Mr. Arafat running the show any longer. What has Yasser Arafat done to help his people during his time in power? One criteria that Saudi Arabia feels must be met is a Palestinian born and raised leader. Right from the start, things have to improve from within, and the only outside help required should be financial aid. The obvious benefit to Israel is that with the Palestinians getting their own state, the continuous string of suicide bombings should stop, and peace should be the norm for the first time between the two nations. For Palestine, more land and no wall will only mean good things for the future. Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 08:46:13 PM

Sivan Shalom 1) Should you always keep what you win war? Are there certain circumstances where you should give back some/ all winnings? For the most part, yes you should keep what ever you have won in war because, that is the nature of war. However, this conflict between Palestine and Israel should be an exception. In order for this conflict to be resolved Israel needs to give some land back, and Palestine needs to become there own sovereign state. If it takes some sacrifices form Israel (giving some of the land back won in war) then that is what Israel must do. It is unrealistic for Israel to expect to solve the conflict without giving some land back and it is equally unrealistic for Palestine to expect all the land that Israel has won in the war of 1967 to be given back to them on a silver platter (for free). The Peace plan presented on Thursday includes evident sacrifices from both Israel and Palestine and will hopefully lead to the greater good of both nations. I believe that this was the best way to finally come to a resolution. 2) What are the Positive/negative outcomes for Israel to keep all/some of the land they gained in war? There are no positive outcomes for Israel keeping all the land gained in war. If Israel refused to give any land back, the conflict could have escalated even more into possibly both nations completely wiping each other off the map, which would have been the worse way to end the conflict. There are some positives for Israel keeping some of the land and giving some back to Palestine. By keeping some land, Israelis may be less angry then if Israel were to give all the land back. There needed to be compromise on both sides in order to find a reasonable solution. Mr. Sharon and Mr. Arafat are looking for the greater good of their nations. Not everyone will be happy but hopefully most will realise that with compromise both nations can finally learn to co exist and stop the unnecessary violence. 3) What outcomes do you see as fair for both sides? I believe that the peace plan that was proposed on Thursday took both Israel and Palestine’s needs into consideration. Both Israel and Palestine are willing to make some sacrifices in order to achieve the greater good for their nations. I believe that Palestine deserves to become a separate sovereign state and the wall needs to be completely taken down. Also, compensation for both Palestinians and Israelis (who have to leave their homes when the borders are established) is very necessary. The Palestinian Charter should be amended in order for Israelis to have some sort of security and the new Palestinian government should discourage violence against Israelis (laws against violence and consequences if violence occurs). Again, the proposed peace plan is fair to both Palestine and Israel. 4) What do you see as the benefits the peace plan to your country (becoming a democracy)? The greatest benefit of the peace plan is that we have found the best possible realistic way to end this on going conflict. Terrorism against Israel will decline and eventually stop once Palestine becomes a separate sovereign state, including getting there own rights and establishing a new government to finally meet their people’s needs. Amending the Palestinian Charter and establishing laws against violence will also help a great deal with stopping terrorism against Israel. Once this peace plan comes into effect, Israelis will feel more secure and will be able to live a more normal life. Jerusalem becoming a neutral territory is beneficial, because this way both nations will have the right to practice their religions freely (Judaism to Israel is equally important as Islam to Palestine). Israel is already a democracy, democracy is important for most countries who want their people’s voices to be herd and needs to be met. I think it is a good for Palestine to become a democracy because a lot of their economic help from other countries (U.S) depends on them becoming a democracy as well as following the peace plan. However, this will be a very lengthy and painful process but in the end, hopefully the good will out-weigh the bad for both nations. Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 08:42:25 PM

Media Tomorrow is the Press Conference. It is the world's last chance to work out a successful peace plan. It is also each world leader's last chance to speak publically about these issues, earning marks by the Controllers. The media will be asking questions to stir discussion on problems that have occured or about hypocritical statements that have been spoken. Be prepared, as each country will need to respond to specific questions posed by the media. So, know your stuff and good luck! Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 08:21:38 PM

World Politikn' - Gangsta Repaaasent! Israel sees Saudi Arabia as a thorn in its side because the importance of Saudi Arabia to the United States is undeniable. However this is not the prevailing factor in solving the issue at hand. What is the real white house position to solve this plan? Mainly, to adopt a clear-cut method and workable plan that will bring the Palestininans the dignity and just settlement they seek, as well as normalize the relationship between Israel and the Arab world as they have been saying, however its has not been done. However if they actually commit to this remarkable task it would solve the dilemma. It would represent the United States recognition as last that the root problem is not terrorism, as bad as it is, but the fact of 35 plus years of humiliating occupation. Once a Palestinian state is established then recognized and reconstruction money flows in from the western world, the atmosphere of tolerance for terrorism against Israel will eventually disappear. Holla atcha Boi' Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 07:00:18 PM

Bill Graham Should you keep what you have won in war, or is there a situation that would call for the return of the winnings? When I read this another question came to mind: are you really victorious if your prize was obtained through war, or have you just killed and taken what you wanted while your enemy was unable to defend themselves? You cannot win in war. It is not a game, it is life and death. Not only will the opponent feel the impact of their loss of life and property, so will the human race. If you have obtained the property of another country through unsavory means, it is only appropriate that you return what you have taken. In the situation of Israel and Palestine, it needs to be realized that Israel, although doing what they thought was right for their people, obtained land through inappropriate methods. In 1947 the world recognized the need for a Jewish state and took action to provide the Jewish people with their own country. Since that time, the Israelis have taken approximately 50% more land than they were allotted by the UN. It is understandable that during the first few weeks as a nation the Israelis faced serious opposition that called for the defense of the young state. However, taking the land that was not theirs was uncalled for. By doing this the Israelis created a more complex and negative relationship between themselves and the Arab nations. In such a circumstance, I believe it is appropriate that the Israelis return a significant portion of the land they “won” through military action. If the Israelis decide to keep all or some of the land they have obtained, there will be positive and negative outcomes. By maintaining control over areas like the Gaza Strip and West Bank, the Israelis will prosper and enjoy a comfortable amount of land in which to live. By keeping the land, they exercise their position of majority and are in a situation where it may be possible to take over Israel entirely. If the Israelis are able to create such a situation for themselves, they will be able to create laws and rights that benefit the Jewish culture. Unfortunately, there are a significant amount of negative consequences to keeping the land. By not returning some or all of the West Bank, Golan Heights and/or Gaza Strip, the Israelis face serious conflict from the upset Palestinians. Not only will the Palestinians be unhappy with the situation, but the global community and the UN may be reluctant to support Israel after they have been so unwilling to come up with a peaceful outcome to the conflict. Although by keeping the land the Jewish Israelis benefit themselves, in no way do they create a peaceful situation between themselves and other nations involved in the conflict. In order to resolve the situation, nations need to begin thinking of how their actions will impact others on a systemic level. To solve this conflict, small steps need to be made towards the resolution. It is not reasonable for the Israelis to return a large portion or all of the land at once. Over time an agreement should be made as to how much land the Israelis and Palestinians will both occupy. It should also be agreed that military and terrorist action against each nation will be minimal if any at all. What needs to happen is both nations making an effort to resolve this conflict in a calm, civilized manor without guns, bombs, and violence. A peaceful negotiation is the only solution to this conflict. It is imperative that the Palestinians install a democratic government. It is the most effective way for all Palestinian voices to be heard and the one method of ensuring that the nation is run efficiently and in the best interests of the Palestinians. By maintaining a positive relationship with both the Palestinians and Israelis, we are solidifying a relationship that has political, economic, social and cultural ties. The peace plan will strengthen these ties between Canada and the Middle East. Canada is a mosaic of cultures and religion. We respect all walks of life and feel that the unification of society regardless of race or creed is best for the evolution of the global community. ps. I hope this is not posted twice. I had a significant amount of difficulty getting it on here. Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 05:30:16 PM

tsk tsk I might be a little bit embarressed if I were you... Yes, that is the post. And if you would pay attention, you would realize that the criteria for the position paper is in the course pack. If you have somehow misplaced your course pack, the material is on the World Issues website. Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 05:11:14 PM

HELP ME PLEASE IS THIS WHAT THE THIRD POST IS SPOSE TO HAVE I DUN GET IT... ANYONE KNOW WHAT THE POSITION PAPER IS... Everyone acknowledges that both Israelis and Palestinians have/are suffering, now we can move on. To stay in the "suffering" stage will just prolong it. Here are some things to consider... 1) Should you always keep what you win in war, or are there circumstances where you should give back some or all of the winnings? 2) What are the positive and negative outcomes for Israel to keep all or some of the territory they have gained from war? 3) What outcomes do you see as fair and just for both sides? 4) What do you see as the benefits of your peace plan to your country and to the combatants, Israelis and Palestinians? (For example if you say democracy will/won't help Palestine, explain how.) Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 01:16:42 PM

Vladimir Putin 1) Should you always keep what you win in war, or are there circumstances where you should give back some or all of the winnings? The first thing to consider is the size of the land that is taken. First of all, the land Israel took from the Palestinian people was not an incredibly large amount. It is easy for people from Palestine to say that even though it wasn’t a large amount of land, that it was still substantial enough to put their country to ruin, and the Israeli's to take over the entire area. Now if we are talking larger scale, then yes it is somewhat necessary for people to return land that they have conquered. For example, say a world power such as the United States decides to take over the entire Middle East and claim it for their own. That is not fair, and most, if not all, of the land should be returned. It does not make sense to say that in every situation the resolution should be the same, because every situation where the land was taken was the same. In Israel's situation, the land they have taken is their God given right. What you win in war, depending on the scale, should be kept to yourself. It even says in their religion that the area is the area of their holy land, so they have just as much reason to be there as Palestine. 2) What are the positive and negative outcomes for Israel to keep all or some of the territory they have gained from war? Well, the positive outcomes for Israel to keep all their territory are obviously to have more land. With more land, historically, you have more power. This may not be the case for many countries, but for Israel, it is keeping them heads up on the Palestinians. Another positive is that in keeping the land, they do not have to bother their own citizens if they decided to give some of the land away. In giving some of the land away, they would have to bother some of their citizens just to appease the Palestinians. Negative issues are that the more land the Israeli's keep, the more they are likely to be attacked by the suicide bombers of the Palestinians. It is a large threat to the Israeli's to keep all the land, because the attacks by the suicide bombers will just keep coming, and if they fold to these attacks, they are just giving away land they rightfully earned. 3) What outcomes do you see as fair and just for both sides? As the peace plan stated, I believe that the countries have to divide evenly somehow. Because I am not completely aware of the region and where the population is situated, I am not at liberty to discuss where the split must be, but it should happen. Also it is a big issue that Yasser Arafat should be removed from power in Palestine. The Palestinians have not even voted on electing him, so in a way, he is much like a dictator, with not much support from the rest of the country. After he is gone, we must develop a structured system of government, most likely democracy. Democracy is the best for the region and will be accepted the easiest. 4) What do you see as the benefits of your peace plan to your country and to the combatants, Israelis and Palestinians? (For example if you say democracy will/won't help Palestine, explain how.) There are many benefits to the peace plan laid out by the world in this peace conference. First of all, democracy is a necessity for Palestine. With the system of government, or lack thereof, they aren't going forward, they are going backwards. With a leader who is leading in the way Yasser Arafat is, no country could survive. Democracy is a key because with this system of government, every Palestinian has a say in how the country will be run, and that is what this country needs. The country also needs to hunt down these terrorist organizations and shut them down. A country cannot survive with all these terrorist organizations attacking other countries. Overall, the peace plan was really well thought out and well written, and I hope to see Israel and Palestine in peace for the next many years. Sunday, October 24th 2004 - 12:36:55 PM

Ariel Sharon PM/King of Saudi Arabia, You are an enormous hypocrite. Your whole nation was built as a result of imperialism during the 20th century. Between 1902 and 1932, all your people did was take land from neighbouring states that you felt was "rightfully yours" because your forefathers had lived there. Oh, sound familiar? It should, because the argument of your people and the justification of your actions is strangely similar to ours. So tell me, why was it okay for you and not for us over in Israel? Is it because you did it during the time of "imperialism and empre building"? When did the time of imperialism and empire building end, then? In 1932, conveniently as soon as you had gained enough territory to call it a Kingdom? You say that our territory isn't rightfully ours so we shoudl give it back. I assume then that upon your return from these peace talks you'll be returning Riyadh to its rightful owners? Hmm? Give me a break. (And since I'm able to back up what I say instead of pointing my hypocritical finger like you've chosen to do, here are some links you may wish to check out before you start condemning other nations for things you've done yourself: http://www.saudiembassy.org.uk/profile-of-saudia-arabia/history/modern-history.htm, http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/middle_east/saudi_arabia/history.htm). Saturday, October 23rd 2004 - 11:08:40 PM

King/PM of Saudi Arabia Should you always keep what you win in war, or are there circumstances where you should give back some or all of the winnings? I think that during the time of imperialism and empire building, keeping all the land won in war was acceptable because that was the way of life. However today in our life of modernization people have developed enhanced morals and values so I think, especially in the case of Israel and Palestine, that the land “taken” by the Israelis should be given back to the Palestinians. The land that was given to them by the UN is Israel, not brutally acquired land. Especially in this conflict, the Jews knew what it felt like to have land and sovereignty taken away from them and they wanted it back so desperately, hence Hitler was voted into power. Therefore I think that this is a circumstance where Israel should give back all of land that was taken. What are the positive and negative outcomes for Israel to keep all or some of the territory they have gained from war? I think that there are only negatives for Israel to keep ANY territory. This is simply because it isn’t rightfully their territory. The negatives are numerous. It is because of this land that Israel kept is there so many massacres, deaths, and a growing hatred on both sides especially for the younger generations. This conflict and hostility will instill hatred on the young and will have them growing up thinking that violence is justifiable and right which in my opinion is the biggest consequence. The positives some may argue include more space for Israel as conciliation for the loss that they have lived through. However, this is an empty positive simply because what is a positive for Israel is a huge negative for Palestine. I’m sorry but there are no positives in a struggle of people that has been occurring for years now. What outcomes do you see as fair and just for both sides? In reality as opposed to our classroom simulation deeper emotions, drudgery of the past and personal experiences result in the differing opinions on what is fair and what is unjust. In reality the fairest solution that I can see is Israel returning 100% of the land taken to Palestine. At the time Israel was given to the Jews, nations across the world in the form of United Nations decided that the land allotted for the Jews was fair, nothing more and nothing less. Therefore my version of fair is based upon the original UN decision. However, the situation is different. In the classroom I recognize the urgency of compromise on BOTH sides. I think the peace plan developed by Israel and Palestine is as fair it is going to get. The wall being torn down and some settlements given back to Palestine is a great accomplishment. As for what is fair, I think when the violence stops on both sides; civilians will see the true meaning of fair because violence and brutality, in my code of ethics, just isn’t fair. What do you see as the benefits of your peace plan to your country and to the combatants, Israelis and Palestinians? (For example if you say democracy will/won't help Palestine, explain how.) I think the biggest benefits to Saudi Arabia’s peace plan include the recognition of the need for democracy. Democracy WILL help Palestine because people will be heard and the issues that the people face daily will be addressed. As long as no imperialistic governments come into power then peace has a chance to be maintained. The biggest benefit I see with Saudi’s plan is a separate state for Palestinians. This has numerous advantages. First the people of Palestine will be able to re-build national sovereignty and an identity. They will be bale to build hospitals and schools for children to be educated; they will be able to build a society based on merit and adopt values such as diplomacy and strength by knowledge. All of these will put Palestine and Israel on the right path towards accomplishing peace. Saturday, October 23rd 2004 - 04:41:53 PM

controllers Everyone acknowledges that both Israelis and Palestinians have/are suffering, now we can move on. To stay in the "suffering" stage will just prolong it. Here are some things to consider... 1) Should you always keep what you win in war, or are there circumstances where you should give back some or all of the winnings? 2) What are the positive and negative outcomes for Israel to keep all or some of the territory they have gained from war? 3) What outcomes do you see as fair and just for both sides? 4) What do you see as the benefits of your peace plan to your country and to the combatants, Israelis and Palestinians? (For example if you say democracy will/won't help Palestine, explain how.) Friday, October 22nd 2004 - 06:40:08 PM

Dubya This is in response to the previous post by the personal friend of the Saudi King. Yes, North Korea’s citizens have jobs, yet they continue to live in poverty and are reliant on international food aid. In America, there is the opportunity to prosper. In North Korea, every citizen is reduced to poor living conditions and poverty, with no opportunity for improvement. To even imply that the United States has more problems than North Korea is absolutely absurd. The tax cut did not only benefit the rich. Yes, the rich are larger tax breaks than before, because it seems they pay most of them. The top 50% of wage earners pay 96.03% of income taxes. And these are not only millionaires in the top 50%. These people earned $26,000 and up in 1999. The top 10% of wage earners pay 64.89% of income taxes. The top 5% of wage earners pay 53.25% of income taxes. Therefore, lower-income individuals receive smaller tax breaks, but they have much less of a tax burden than the rich to begin with. Furthermore, tax breaks are providing small business owners, and all classes of America (not only the rich) with tax relief. As for unemployment, CBS Marketwatch reported the following in September: U.S job growth snapped back in August after two disappointing months, rising an as-expected 144,000, the Labor Department estimated Friday. The unemployment rate fell by a tenth percentage point to 5.4 percent, the lowest since October 2001. Job growth in June and July was revised higher by a cumulative 59,000. Average hourly earnings rose by 5 cents, or 0.3 percent, to $15.77 an hour. Wages are up 2.3 percent year-over-year. The average workweek was unchanged at 33.8 hours. Aggregate hours worked in the economy increased 0.2 percent. Goods-producing industries created 36,000 jobs in August, including 22,000 in manufacturing. Service-producing industries created 108,000 jobs, including 42,000 in health-care. In the last 13 months the unemployment rate has dropped from 6.3% to 5.4%. America has experienced a recession, but the economy is recovering under my administration. There are those who are unemployed, but they are provided with social security (thanks to taxation) and are able to provide themselves with necessities. Their situation barely compares to the suffering experienced by the average citizen in North Korea. Also, I don’t appreciate cheap shots (ie. calling me ignorant). We are here to promote tolerant and civilized debate, not to engage in character assassinations. Thank you. -George W. Bush Friday, October 22nd 2004 - 12:59:03 AM

Personal Friend of the Saudi King P.S. Mr. Bush I find it ironic that you criticize North Korea's income. Atleast North Korea's citizens have jobs. You may not be aware of this Mr. Bush (due to ignorance) but you are the only president to lead your nation into a net loss of jobs. The poor are increasing and the rich get richer (recent tax cuts on the rich). I think you have to analyze your own countries numerous problems before providing a critique on anyone else. This track record of leading a nation into a loss of jobs is enough that would insult Ronald Reagan when you reference him. A little advice Bush deal with domestic affairs so that you establish credibility with your own people. Thanks... Thursday, October 21st 2004 - 11:49:44 PM

brethren of the King/PM of Saudi Arabia This is directed to Bush and his comment "Yasser Arafat can stand up and act as some benevolent leader all he wants, but he is still not to be trusted." So much for your wanting peace. BUT not suprising that we see more lies... the following will show who isn't to be trusted... U.S. Diplomats' Letter to President George W. Bush Dear Mr. President: We former U.S. diplomats applaud our 52 British colleagues who recently sent a letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair criticizing his Middle East policy and calling on Britain to exert more influence over the United States. As retired foreign-service officers we care deeply about our nation's foreign policy and U.S. credibility in the world. We also are deeply concerned by your April 14 endorsement of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unilateral plan to reject the rights of three million Palestinians, to deny the right of refugees to return to their homeland, and to retain five large illegal settlement blocs in the occupied West Bank. This plan defies UN Security Council resolutions calling for Israel's return of occupied territories. It ignores international laws declaring Israeli settlements illegal. It flouts UN Resolution 194, passed in 1948, which affirms the right of refugees to return to their homes or receive compensation for the loss of their property and assistance in resettling in a host country should they choose to do so. And it undermines the Road Map for peace drawn up by the Quartet, including the U.S. Finally it reverses longstanding American policy in the Middle East. Your meeting with Sharon followed a series of intensive negotiating sessions between Israelis and Americans, but which left out Palestinians. In fact, you and Prime Minister Sharon consistently have excluded Palestinians from peace negotiations. Former Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo voiced the overwhelming reaction of people around the world when he said: "I believe President Bush declared the death of the peace process today". By closing the door to negotiations with Palestinians and the possibility of a Palestinian state, you have proved that the United States is not an even-handed peace partner. You have placed U.S. diplomats, civilians and military doing their jobs overseas in an untenable and even dangerous position. Your unqualified support of Sharon's extra-judicial assassinations, Israel's Berlin Wall-like barrier, its harsh military measures in occupied territories, and now your endorsement of Sharon's unilateral plan are costing our country its credibility, prestige and friends. It is not too late to reassert American principles of justice and fairness in our relations with all the peoples of the Middle East. Support negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis, with the United States serving as a truly honest broker. A return to the time-honored American tradition of fairness will reverse the present tide of ill will in Europe and the Middle East - even in Iraq. Because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the core of the problems in the Middle East, the entire region - and the world - will rejoice along with Israelis and Palestinians when the killing stops and peace is attained. Signatories include Andrew I Killgore, Ambassador to Qatar, 1977-1980, Richard H Curtiss, former chief inspector, U.S. Information Agency, Colbert C Held, Retired FSO and author, John Gunther Dean, former Ambassador to India, Thomas J Carolan, Counsel General Istanbul, '88-'92, C Edward Bernier, Counselor of Embassy, Information and Culture, Islamabad, Pakistan, Donald A Kruse, American Consul in Jerusalem, Ambassador Edward L Peck, former Chief of Mission in Iraq and Mauritania, John Powell, Admin Counselor in Beirut, '75-'76, John Gunther Dean, US Ambassador to India, Greg Thielmann, Director, Office for Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, James Akins, Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Talcott Seeyle, Ambassador to Syria, Eugene Bird, Counselor of Embassy in Saudi Arabia, Richard H Nolte, Ambassador to Egypt, Ray Close, Chief of Station Jeddah, Saudi Arabia 1971-1979, Shirl McArthur, Commercial Attache, Bangkok, Thomas J Scotes, Ambassador to Yemen 1975-1978,Robert V Keeley, Ambassador to Greece, Edward RM Kane, CIA Deputy Chief of Station in Iraq. Thursday, October 21st 2004 - 11:15:10 PM

George W. Bush [h] Mr. Kim Il-Choi seems to forget the tremendous power of freedom. When living in a free, democratic, and tolerant country that is prosperous and offers good living conditions, such blind hated towards other countries is not fostered. He claims that an economic union will “only bring more conflict to the table”. This is false. An economic union will allow Palestine to build an economy faster than any financial aid from Arab states will provide. An economic union with Israel will allow Palestine to prosper while cooperating with Israelis. A prosperous population has access to quality health care, sufficient food, education, and social security. People who are free and prosperous do not blame problems on their neighbors, do not blindly hate their neighbors, and do not attack or oppress their neighbors. If economic cooperation succeeds, it is a significant step in the right direction for both countries, as radicals from both sides will be forced to cooperate in the name of economic progress and prosperity. The failure to implement an economic union would only ensure further divisions between the two states. Not only does this prospect threaten peace, but it makes little sense. To ensure fair division of territory between the two states, inevitably one state will be divided into two parts by the other. How can both countries possible prosper if one is divided by the other’s border? Of course, Mr. Kim Il-Choi may not be familiar with the concepts of freedom and prosperity, as the average North Korean living in the so-called “Democratic People's Republic” of Korea lived on the equivalent of $900 U.S. during the 1990s. As for your advocacy of a dictatorship, you assume too much. Every Palestinian does not have the “all or nothing” mentality that many leaders attending the peace conference seem to possess. Many Palestinians want peace and stability, they want the fighting to stop. Others even believe both the Israelis and the Palestinians can live in peace together. It is but a radical group that includes militants and terrorists; Palestinians who inhabit refugee camps, who use terror to promote their cause and indoctrinate young children and send them to fight. Governments must uphold the requests of the majority of the population, not various radical groups who do not make up a majority. If Yasser Arafat truly wants the best for the Palestinian people, how can he “free his people” from the “oppression” of the Israelis only to impose a totalitarian dictatorship on them? Is subjugating the Palestinians under the new and independent Palestinian state not contradictory to Arafat’s cause? We are limiting Palestinian military power at first, as it is necessary to prevent further violence. Mr. Kim Il-Choi should understand this, as throughout his entire post, he has criticized the peace plan by stating it will only promote more violence. Why, according to Mr. Kim Il-Choi, is it unacceptable for the United States to supposedly promote violence through its policies, yet it is perfectly legitimate for the Palestinians to promote violence? Yasser Arafat can stand up and act as some benevolent leader all he wants, but he is still not to be trusted. Following the Oslo Agreement, Arafat clearly went back on his word and continued to support terrorism. How can the international community be certain this will never happen again? Only by limiting his power at first. If Israel has made concessions, yet Arafat continues to support terrorism, this is unacceptable. Palestine, as an independent democratic state, needs military forces to fight terrorism and defend its citizens. Yet a military force cannot be born overnight, and Arafat cannot be trusted to take full control over it right away. Forces from peacekeeping organizations of the United States or Israel will work with the Palestinian government to fight terrorism, and will gradually be replaced with a Palestinian military. This transition will allow an effective Palestinian military to be built, while ensuring that this military force will not be used for oppression and aggression. I would like to thank Mr. Kim Il-Choi for his almost groundless critisicisms. Perhaps next time amendments that will actually be effective should be proposed. How do you propose Israel, which will most likely be divided into two separate parts at the creation of a Palestinian state, should keep up production and trade? How will Palestine, a newly establish country, build its economy quickly without the help of economic integration? How will the Palestinian people accept the idea of living under their own unique state, only to be ruled by a leader who is in power until death, accountable to no one, and told they are powerless over their own lives? “No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.” -- Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address, January 20, 1981 Thursday, October 21st 2004 - 11:05:27 PM

Yasser Arafat This post is directed to Kim IL-Choi of North Korea First, you have to understand that I alone did not make all the terms of the agreement. I’m not sure you understand negotiating is, or have an idea of what a compromise requires. Because a compromise is a settlement of differences, each side is required to make sacrifices. No one will ever come out of a compromise completely happy. You must keep in mind that you can never please everyone. No matter what I do, a number of Palestinians will be unhappy. What I am simply doing is making sure that number is the lowest it could possibly be. I would rather upset a few Palestinians, so that they, and their children, can finally live a life worth living. Is that wrong of me? I also want to point out how important it is to us to have the support from other Middle Eastern countries. However, without the support of the US or Israel, no form of peace could ever be reached, and Palestine would be in this hole forever. You must see this from my position, as much as you disagree with it. Just because the Middle East uses the US as a scapegoat, it will not stop me from trying to free Palestine. We are not trying to upset you. But we must do what is best for Palestine. If the US is providing Palestine with military and financial aid, does the distance really matter? I do believe that the US has a significantly stronger economy than North Korea. Correct me if I’m wrong. If you (combined the other Arab nations) can provide me with a stronger military and more financial aid than the US can, then we must talk. There are reasons for a democratic government, and one of them is so that the voice of Palestinian people will be heard. If they are not happy with my decisions as a leader, they may elect whom ever they choose. However, I am the one who is fighting to give them that right to choose. I am the one who is trying to give Palestine freedom, through the most realistic and achievable way. Would you rather have them live in this state forever? Would you rather they had no human rights? Would you rather they have no access to health care facilities, educational institutions, or places of work? Would you rather they eat one meal per day? Living in constant fear? Having their brother/father/mother blowing him or herself up, just so nothing can be accomplished? There must be a transitional phase. If you do not think so, then you are not thinking clearly. No matter how hard you try, you cannot go from zero to hero! If Israel ceases to support us financially, there will be ramifications. We have a binding contract with Israel, and any breach of if will call for extensive consequences. We will deal with Israel if they break the contract in any manner, as they will deal with us if we break the contract. Trust me, we will take care of it. I really do appreciate your input, as it is important to take your views into consideration. The agreement is not yet set in stone. However, I did not see any clear, alternative steps which would actually HELP Palestine. Maybe it’s easy for an established country with everything to criticize. Hopefully, one day, Palestine too can be in that position. Thursday, October 21st 2004 - 11:02:36 PM

Norht Korea-Kim IL-Choi I just wanted to say that I am very disappointed with Mr. Yasser Arafat. I was surprised about the fast peace plan contract made by the two countries. First I would like to go over some facts that I fully disagree with in the contract: 1. Palestine will enter an economic union with Israel. I do not disagree with the fact that people of Palestine need money and a good economy to help them out. However making a union with Israel would only bring more conflict to the table. This time it would the surrounding Arabic nations who have strong dislike towards Israel. Mr. Arafat pointed out that should such thing happen they have the United States to help them out, judging the fact that the United States is not exactly the favourite Palestinian country. In fact many Palestinians find U.S as an enemy just like they find Israelis, but who can blame them Mr. Sharon and George W. Bush seem to have a very good relationship with each other. More to the point U.S helps Israel in military funding. Mr Arafat should keep in mind that the U.S is not a very popular country in the Middle East. Besides the U.S is thousands of miles away, but the Arabic neighbours are only in a few kilometre distance, who should you worry about Mr. Arafat? In the case of oil which is what the economy is now rolling with the Saudi’s have the most amount, and they don’t see Israel as a friend. By siding with Israel not only you would jeopardize the friendship with Saudi Arabia but also you would create more conflict inside your nation. Moreover I understand that Palestine after when this peace plan comes to work will become a sovereign nation and also they would have their own government. Please do realize that as a separate government the Israeli government has no obligation to continue their economical help, and once they cut off who would help you? U.S? In the end it comes down to what people want, not what Mr. Arafat and Mr. Sharon want. 2. Palestine, with the support of the United States and the European Union, will establish a democracy. One thing to elaborate here, Mr. Arafat is perusing peace and the first step towards peace is a good working government with a good system. Democracy for one would be great. However during the debate I found that Mr. Arafat had decided to accept a partial figure of the land that was taken from them not all of it. Now I do understand that there has to be some compromises and that Israel cannot and will not be able to hand over all of the land, but shouldn’t the people in Palestine decide over that. After all it is democracy and if the majority says that they want all of the land and disagree with Mr. Arafat, is it justified for him to say that “then they are not thinking straight”. My suggestion to Mr. Arafat is to take the dictatorship way if he wants to make deals with Mr. Sharon without having to explain himself to his people. 3. Palestine will receive economic aid from the international community, namely the United States, on the condition that Palestine remains a democratic state that does not support terrorism. Again this is ridiculous, Mr. Arafat should know by now that his people hate the U.S. At a time of peace were many are going against the idea Mr. Arafat should not introduce another problem, which is the introduction of U.S. Mr. Bush may think that he is doing a favour but really he is not, he is already limiting the government to only certain amount of weaponry power so that the Palestinians would not back fire on them. Perhaps for help Mr. Arafat should think more in the lines of “My enemy’s enemy is my friend”. Perhaps the Arab nations and other nations who find Israel an enemy of peace should be the ones that Palestine should create friendship. 4. Israel will return Palestine’s designated land - to be negotiated. I understand that Israel would not be able to mover everyone out and therefore they can only return some of it. On the other hand the acceptance of such deal meaning that Palestine would only get certain amount of land back should, as I said before, be by the people not by one person. Keep in mind that the Israelis realistically would not give-up allot of land because there is large amount of opposition from some Israeli leaders from giving up land. I understand the Mr. Arafat is under pressure not only by U.S and Israel, but also from his own people. Therefore instead of agreeing with every deal offered he should seek help from other countries who willing to help without putting out conditions. North Korea is willing to help financially and military without putting out condition. I suggest to Mr. Arafat to look over the contract carefully and perhaps try to revise it in such a ways that would benefit his people as a whole. We don’t want to see Palestinians kill Palestinians. Perhaps there can be other ways to fix the problems that I have mentioned in this write-up. Again you have our full support. Thursday, October 21st 2004 - 07:27:41 PM

Peace Plan Peace Agreement Contract Between Israel and Palestine 1. Palestine will become a sovereign state, separate from Israel 2. Israel will terminate “Operation: Defensive Shield,” and the existing wall is to be torn down. 3. Palestinian refugees will have the right of return. 4. Palestine will enter an economic union with Israel. 5. Palestine will amend the Palestinian National Charter, all sections in the Palestinian Charter that call for the destruction of Israel are “null and void”. 6. Palestine will pursue and punish those responsible for terrorism. 7. Palestine, with the support of the United States and the European Union, will establish a democracy. 8. Palestine will receive economic aid from the international community, namely the United States, on the condition that Palestine remains a democratic state that does not support terrorism. 9. Jerusalem will be neutral territory, owned by a third party - to be determined (UN?). 10. Israel will remove the Jewish settlements - to be negotiated. 11. Israel will return Palestine’s designated land - to be negotiated. Thursday, October 21st 2004 - 12:32:34 PM

Bill Graham The declaration of Israel as the Jewish state occurred on the 15th of May, 1948. But what soon occurred was war. War was waged on Israel by the Arab states of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Israel fought back with a passion unmatched by any other and soon after the armistice between the Israel and the Arab states was created. Israel gained 50% more territory than allotted to it by the Un Partition Plan in 1948. The war had created over 780, 000 Palestinian refugees who fled or were evicted from the Jewish held areas. What followed was outrage from the Palestinian people. The PLO was created with the aim to destroy Israel and fight for their rights. Because of this, the Israeli military have been at unrest in attempt to “protect themselves from terrorist attacks”. But are the Israelis justified? Do they even have the right to be using such force against the Palestinians? One would have thought that after more than a millennium of violence, the Jewish people would want peace. One would think that they would do whatever possible to protect their people. Is the military protection from terrorism really for the people of Israel, or is it a way of protecting the land that was wrongly taken by the Israeli army. In 1982 the UN Security Council Resolution 509 called for Israel to withdraw all of its military forces from land that is occupied that is not a part of the UN Partition Plan. However, retaliation was not a part of the Israeli military agenda. It is a vicious cycle. The Palestinians use violence so their voices are heard, however the Israelis use violence to protect themselves from it. How can the Jewish Israelis treat a minority so poorly when they, who know better than anyone else, know what it is like to be oppressed. One might wonder if the Israelis really have a reason to be so violent, or if it is just an excuse to release years of pent up anger at their mistreatment and finally enjoy have control over someone else. “Treat others how you want to be treated.” It is a phrase we so often hear but so often disregard as a statement that means nothing and that would have no actual effect on our relationships with others. If both the Israelis and Palestinians could understand that they are wrong with their violence, that their message and wants for their people is lost within the anger and war, then maybe they would be able to find a solution. I don’t believe Israelis have put the Palestinians into a hole. I believe that both groups are making a very difficult situation for themselves and therefore, putting themselves into a hole. There is no doubt that neither state makes the solution any easier to find, but I do feel that while they continue to say “I’m killing your people because you’re killing mine”, nothing is getting accomplished. As an international community it is necessary for us to come together as one, as a team, and provide assistance to the warring nations. Not as allies for only the Palestinians or the Israelis, but as support for both. There needs to be an understanding that (and Israeli Jews should understand this the most) we are all human. All of the same species, all of the same planet, and this plant is all we have. Why further destroy it when essentially we are all the same? To an extent we need to disregard religion and nationalism, if only to get us to a state of compromise. Maybe a dilution of one’s national identity is necessary for the nations of the world to unite. The end does not always justify the means. There is a fine border and I think we know that both the Israelis and the Palestinians are infringing upon it with their animalistic war tactics. What end is in sight for this mess? What can possibly come of this conflict? An attempt at the extermination of the opposing peoples? Negotiation is the only solution to this issue. Military efforts and violence have no place in attempting to solve this complicated and upsetting conflict. Wednesday, October 20th 2004 - 11:57:34 PM

George W. Bush Mandatory Post #2 There is a clear difference between oppression, or putting someone into a hole, and doing what is necessary so that you yourself are not oppressed. The Israelis have had to fight for tolerance and acceptance throughout their existence. Today, they are able to inhabit a nation that is free and democratic, which upholds values of religious tolerance and religious freedom. Within their own nation, the Israelis have the right to practice their religion, the right to be free, and the right to not be oppressed by others. These rights and freedoms are non-negotiable; they must exist for a democratic society to be functional and successful. Yet the Palestinian leaders are undermining these rights. Terrorism is an oppressive force to the Israeli people, and regimes that harbor and support terror are fostering these oppressive forces, as well as acting as an oppressor themselves. Just as al Qaeda has carried out an assault on America’s freedom on September 11th, 2001, the Palestinian Authority has constantly assaulted Israeli freedom and fundamental right to live in a safe and tolerant society where they will not be victims of oppression. Israel’s intentions are not, and have never been, to put Palestinians into a hole, but to ensure that Israeli citizens never have to return to that hole. The Six-Day War in 1967 was not an imperialistic land-grab on Israel’s part, but a defensive war. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser demanded the withdrawal of U.N. peacekeepers, and called for Egypt, Jordan, and Syria to attack Israel. Before the Arabs were able to mobilize, the Israelis moved to defend themselves from their oppressors, capturing land in the process. In 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on the eve of Yom Kippur. Israel’s neighboring Arab states have attempted (although not very effectively) to oppress Israel. Is it no surprise that the United States has supported Israel financially and militarily? This oppression continues today, more so concerning the actions of the Palestinian Authority and terrorist networks. Israel, as a free democracy, has the right to protect its citizens from oppressors, and has done so quite effectively recently. For many Israelis, the violence of the intifada appears to be in recession. Jerusalem today does not resemble a ghost town as it did in 2002. During this period, Israel was the victim of, on average, one suicide bombing per week. Ramallah, a West Bank city, is calm and economically prosperous. Israel achieved this relative peace through military solutions to conflict. Last March, Israel’s assassination of Hamas spiritual leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin was internationally condemned, yet six months followed with a significant decrease in terrorism. During the conference, Arafat and leaders of other Arab nations claimed that military action against terrorism will only provoke more terrorism. Yet as a result of Israel’s firm stance against terrorism, the leaders of the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Aqsa Martyr’s Brigades have spent the past six months struggling to survive, not plotting further terrorist attacks in retaliation. Israel’s security fence has also proven to be successful. The security fence, I must stress once again, is a defensive measure. If there were no terrorism, there would have been no fence, ever. The result of the fence has been nearly six terror-free months. Israel’s actions have been very effective, and are therefore justified in protecting its population. Israel’s actions have been those expected of a democratic nation threatened by terror. Following September 11th, America has taken similar steps to combat terrorism. Israel has dealt with terrorism in an effective manner by taking action against terrorist groups. Any nation under the threat of terrorism that intends to protect its citizens must take the steps that Israel has taken against terrorists. The Israelis are not “putting the Palestinians into a hole”, they are fighting to stay out of the hole that the Palestinian Authority and terrorists have threatened to put them in. The Israelis do not intend to put Palestinians in a hole, but instead intend to defend their citizens. Yes, the security fence divides Palestine and may inconvenience some, but the wall has tremendously benefited the citizens of Israel, who now do not have to become victims of terrorist bombings. With war comes costs, but Israel must defend its people. The Palestinians have a valid cause, but they are by no means advancing or promoting it by terrorizing the Israeli population. Israel must go on the offensive, and refuse to make concessions as a response to acts of terrorism. Appeasement will only foster more terrorist activities, as it will reinforce the notion that violence and terror are legitimate means for achieving political goals. Fighting terrorists will have human costs, but it is Israel’s only means for defending itself. Realistically, to make sure that no one is in the hole will be almost impossible. To establish two separate, sovereign states with clear, defined borders, will inevitably force some settlements to be uprooted. Yet it is our best option to promote peace. We can minimize conflict by establishing a separate and democratic state of Palestine in economic union with Israel. We must also divide borders based more so on the population and settlements within the region than based on the group that owned the land first. By focusing on the human aspect of this conflict rather than the territorial aspect, we can minimize the number of people that are “in the hole”. We must also ensure that the state of Palestine is democratic. Yasser Arafat will no doubt oppose the creation of a democratic government, but in doing so, he will be putting his people into a hole too. How can Arafat possibly claim that he is fighting for the freedom of his people if he intends to rid them of Israeli rule, only to impose a totalitarian dictatorship on them? Being in the hole is never “a good thing”, yet sometimes it is inevitable. Throughout history, every war has involved civilian casualties. Today we are fortunate enough that our militaries have developed new technology that allows us to minimize civilian casualties, but no weapons are perfect. Yet terrorists intend to cause as much carnage and destruction as possible to draw promote fear among the civilian population. Where democratic governments fight terrorism while working to minimize civilian casualties, it is a terrorist’s goal to maximize civilian casualties to inspire even more fear. The Israelis intend to keep as many as possible, from both sides, out of the hole, while the terrorists intend to put as many people into the hole as possible. Do the ends justify the means? Different situations call for different measures. The Israeli approach to fighting terrorism by fighting both defensively and offensively has been very effective, and in this case, the Israeli population has been protected. Yet the phrase “the ends justify the means” can also be used to justify acts of terrorism. Terrorism is the evil of the twenty-first century, and regimes that harbor and support terrorism are using evil means to promote their political agenda. Terrorists are not furthering their cause by killing innocent civilians; they are betraying their cause by resorting to violence. Promoting fear among civilians through violence does not help achieve political goals; fully intending to kill civilians is not a justified means for promoting a cause, no matter how valid the cause. Israel and America will continue to fight evil until it is defeated, in order to keep our citizens free and "out of the hole". -George W. Bush -------------------------- Information regarding the effectiveness of Israeli military action and the security fence paraphrased from: Bret Stephens, "How Israel Won the War on Terror", Comment in the National Post, October 19th, 2004. Wednesday, October 20th 2004 - 11:52:09 PM

Mikhail Fradkov and Vladimir Putin - PM and Pres of Russia - Andrew and Scott No, the Israelis are not putting Palestine in the same whole they have been many times before. - I do not agree that the Israelis are putting Palestine in the same hole that they have been so many times before. It is way different to fight for the land that you believe that you had religiously than to be run out of every single country that you have been in. Israel fought for the land, and was mostly helped to get the land that they have today. They believe that it is rightfully their land from a long time ago and they feel that they should be able to live on the land that they have lived on for many years. That is many years before the Palestinians lived on the land. People don't think about the Israelis in the light that they should think about them. They always go back to the fact that Israel stole the land from the Palestinians. This is the wrong way to think because the Palestinian people aren’t the only ones suffering here. Israelis are getting killed everyday. People need to start realizing this. Do you think what they are doing needs to be done because anybody would do the same in that situation? How are the Israelis NOT putting the Palestinians into a hole? - Any other country would do the same thing in that situation. They were given land and they fought for their land. They are going to take the land and they are going to live off the land. The Israelis aren’t putting Palestine in a hole because the Israelis fought for this land. The Israelis rightfully conquered the land. The Palestinians are putting themselves in a hole because they don’t have a solid government. The Palestinians are in deep poverty and they are resulting to terrorist attacks against other nations. The Israelis aren’t doing this to the Palestinians; the Palestinians are doing this to the Palestinians. I think any country would be just to do this in the situation that Israel is now in. What as an international community do we have to do to assure that no one will ever be in that ‘hole’ again? The first thing that we must do is to establish a solid government in Palestine. This will fix a lot of the problems that there now are in the country. There are many points that I can go to from here. First of all they need a solid government so they can dig themselves out of poverty. Once the talks are over and peace is settled, the government needs to be established in Palestine. Then the world’s powers should fund Palestine to dig themselves up from this hole that they have put themselves in. If the world’s powers fund Palestine and they don’t have a government, there is no telling where the money is going to go. Second of all, they need a government to control their people. If the world’s powers fund Palestine, the money could even go to terrorist organizations. These people could kill more innocent people, and the country would be powerless or unwilling to stop it. What we need to do is to establish a democracy. We need that because we need someone who is from there, who can establish a way out of it because of what he/she knows already about the place. Is it sometimes a good thing to have people or peoples in that ‘hole’ at times? Usually this wouldn’t be a very respectable position. I say this because they country that is down will not benefit from the country that is up. The country that is in the hole could be bullied from the country that is up and they could not defend themselves because of how far down in the hole that they are. The country that is in the hole is definitely in a helpless situation. They can’t do anything about it just because they are so far in the hole that they can’t dig themselves out of it. Again this comes back to the fact that we should establish a democratic government and have countries fund Palestine to bring it out of poverty. Is that lack of power necessary for other countries to achieve the greater good? [ends justify the means?] I don’t think that it is necessary for this to happen. The reason I think this is because if a country is going to achieve the greater good, they have to do it for the good of the world and the good of themselves. I really don’t think that they have to step on other countries to make themselves prosperous. It doesn’t seem to me like it’s necessary. If a country is going to be a huge power, then they have to help the other countries and they have to do what’s right for the world. It shouldn’t be a question of “join us or lose your power”. It should be a question of helping each other out for the greater good of everyone. Wednesday, October 20th 2004 - 11:50:34 PM

Kim IL-Choi [e] It is true that Israeli people have been in many deep and scar full holes. It’s also true that in desperate times people put down all of their greed and wants aside and just beg for a way out. However I believe that greed and strong desire for power is in human nature and once you are released from that “hole” you are bound to be the next person who sets up a hole for someone else. And that is what Israel has done, they have forgotten about their past and they have thrown Palestinians into the same hole that they were in before. One can argue that the “hole” made by Israel for the Palestinians is irrelevant to that of what Israeli has gone through in the past. But this is only a mere illusion to hide the fact that the two are identical in many ways. Israel has done the same act to Palestinians that was done upon them long time ago. They’ve walked over the Palestinian rights and they have sent them out of their homes and lands. What’s next burning them? Some believe that the horrific past of Israel justifies the actions they have taken against Palestine to protect their nation. But there is no justification in rubbery. The Palestinian people have been rubbed from their land and their Palestinian rights. Just like the Germans inputted a horrific mark on the history of Jewish people. The same people are making their mark on Palestinian history. Why do they feel the need to do so? In history Jewish people they have had many battles against their race and culture and each of these battles has left a scar. These scars remind them everyday that unless they make themselves a home and secure themselves in their own ground more battles will happen. Sadly it’s evident that they will go through a battle once again to obtain that position of security. As I have said before Israelis have taken Palestinian lands and in the process damaged the freedom of Palestinian people. They have used force over reason and they have greedily taken the land that did not belong to them. What as an international community do we have to do to assure that no one will ever be in that ‘hole’ again? I think that the international community should work to find peace between nations who need help and cannot do it themselves. The international community should try to find compromises for nations in fight to end their conflicts. This said in some cases peace talks are not enough and force must be used to get the right results. In the case of Israeli-Palestinian conflict I believe that peace will not exist until one of the two country backs down, but which one? In both countries you have patriots who are not willing to give-up anything and will fight to the end. On the other hand you also have the citizens who have no idea in who’s land they are living in, and at all times they have the fear of being attacked. I think it’s never right to leave someone in a hole were theirs hands can’t reach anything. However I think that in some cases in order to teach someone a lesson a hole or cage is necessary. Once out the person would feel great relief and gratitude of what they have and their level of greediness will come down to simply none existence. On the other hand such risky attempts of putting someone in a hole may raise great conflicts in the future, and once out the only thing in mind is revenge. In the end holes or cages should be considered as plan B, and it should not happen often. Lack of power is good for some countries but again if they are in a cage were they are not allowed to practice power then resentful feelings will rise and once that power is achieved which is inevitable there will be serious consequences. The “ends justify the means” is a cruel idea, but people around the world do it to others all the time. If it doesn’t seem to be bothering the world why should it bother me or you anyone in fact, perhaps the solutions to these conflicts can be solved by this old saying. I for one believe in it very much and I think that sometimes you have no other choice than the wrong choice. Wednesday, October 20th 2004 - 11:39:21 PM

Dick Cheney (United States) Do I think that Israel is putting Palestine into a “hole”? Perhaps, but not on purpose. I do not believe they are putting Palestine in a hole on purpose, however their sheer size and war power and access to money makes them much more powerful than the Palestinians. I believe Israel is building the wall to keep out suicide bombers. Israel has the need to protect itself and is choosing a solid, intimidating and oppressive barrier. The Palestinians believe the wall separates farmers from their land and water. It is a threat to the peace process. I however, can understand why Israel is building the wall. If the only outcome of building the wall was to keep suicide bombers out and create peace it would be a benefit. Unfortunately, the Palestinians are losing land and water that is theirs as part of the peace agreements. The people of Israel and Palestine are being threatened by one another. It is an unending circle. As long as Israeli citizens continue to be victimized by terrorists, they will continue to defend themselves. Until the Palestinians believe they are being treated fairly, and not persecuted, they will continue to fight the only way they know how. According to the CBC News “Last week, the latest peace talks being held in Sweden were postponed because of escalating violence on the West Bank. The fighting began when Palestinians started marching through the streets demanding the release of 1,650 prisoners held by Israel. The Palestinians used stones as weapons and the Israeli’s used tear gas and rubber coated bullets.” Both sides were fighting, both sides had deaths and unjuries, and even a 2-year-old child was killed. Israel suffered one death, and Palestine suffered more than 100 deaths. These numbers would lead one to think that Israel wants to put Palestine into a hole. But really the balance of power is not evenly distributed, and Palestine is being hurt much more significantly then Israel. I believe the imbalance of power causes this perception when Israel is really only trying to protect itself. When something like this happens it is very hard to forgive. Who is to blame? Is it the Israeli’s for holding people they believe to be violent, or the Palestinians for reacting violently? It takes two to have a disagreement, and we must somehow be able to dialogue and try different methods to find a balance. Before people start to talk about a good treaty, the fighting must stop. Violence cannot go hand in hand with negotiation. As an international community we must build a world that accepts compromise. We must be tolerant of others and how they live. We can stop the creation of an imbalance that causes persecution to put people in a “hole.” I do not believe that any person or country should ever be put in a hole just to learn a lesson. This type of action causes harsh and negative feelings between others and demeans people. One of the problems in this dispute is Israel’s power. If the power is used properly it may come to some good. For example, if the wall is built and it stops the suicide bombers, will Israel feel safer? If Israel feels safer because of the wall, will they offer the Palestinians something else in return for their loss of land and water? This is an example of the end justifying the means. However, if Israel finishes the wall and continues to take steps to oppress the Palestinians then the ends will not justify the means. Wednesday, October 20th 2004 - 11:26:27 PM

Silvan Shalom(Israel) Although it is unfortunate that Palestinians are suffering, we (Israel) DID NOT! Put Palestine in the “hole”. The world knows the great atrocities it has put us through many years ago, and the many hardships we had to go through to finally obtain a land to call our own. Thus, we sincerely DO NOT wish, by any means, the amount of pain we suffered onto anyone, including Palestine. However, if the safety of the people of Israel is at risk, or in general, if our country is at risk then we will put our people first before others. I ask the countries of the world: if your own safety, as well as the safety of your people are at risk, wouldn’t you be willing to make some moral sacrifices to ensure your country’s safety? That is exactly what Israel has done. As for values, we always have and always will value our people and look for their best interest. The Middle East conflict has caused extreme pain for BOTH Palestinians and Israelis alike. NOT JUST PALESTINE, as some countries implied during the peace conferences. In the past couple months there have been many attacks made by Palestinians against our Israeli people, causing again numerous deaths of innocent Jews. The Palestinian charter supports violence against Israelis and there are several references in that charter which supports the annihilation of Jews. It is evident that the people of Palestine fallow this charter and it is equally evident that the Jewish people of Israel are suffering. Mr Sharon, the people of Israel and I (Silvan Shalom), are hoping to put an end to this suffering, and as importantly, an end to this conflict. One of the many reasons why Israel did not put Palestine in the hole may be that the land in which Palestine claims is theirs were conquered by Israel in the 6 day war of 1967. The land in question is the Gaza Strip, West Bank and Golan Heights. According to Palestine, this “stolen land” is blamed for much of their people’s suffering. Israel did not instigate the war but we did however, fight, defend our nation and even killed people (in defence), as a result we conquered some land. That is how war works. As for, “does the ends Justify the means” in this situation, yes it does. The lack of power for some countries is necessary for other countries greater good. If this were not the case, how would any country prosper if the world’s goal were to have equal power among all the countries? Although many of the countries believe that Israel built the wall to punish Palestine or make them suffer even more, this is a false assumption. Israel built the wall solely to protect the people of Israel. It is very dangerous for Israelis to have Palestinians walking freely through our land. Something had to be done to help prevent the mass murders committed by several of Palestine’s “freedom fighters”. However, we realise that this wall has caused more problems then were expected and we are willing to take down the wall with compromise. There will always be conflict between countries and as a result of those conflicts, some may have to suffer. It is a never-ending cycle. But, The international community can solve this dilemma by agreeing on a realistic peace plan that takes both sides needs into consideration. All countries must forget about their emotions and put forth, realistic suggestions that would help in solving the conflict. Palestine deserves to be a separate state and the same goes for Israel. I still believe that compromise and negotiation (on both sides) will end this conflict. We would like to achieve peace as much as any other country and we are willing to make some sacrifices (land) to achieve peace. As for assuring that no country will be in that “hole”, countries will continue to suffer hopefully not nearly to the extent as Israelis and Palestinians have; but the international community can help prevent such suffering by working together and making some personal sacrifices sometimes. After all, the ends do justify the means Wednesday, October 20th 2004 - 10:58:23 PM

Ahmed Qurei - Palestine Mandatory Post #2 I think that Israel is following the same principles, and putting the Palestinians in the same “hole” that they were in so many times before. In response to the quote in this post, another saying goes something like this, “two wrongs don’t make a right”. I strongly feel that this saying should be going through the minds of the Israelis, yet it doesn’t seem to be at all. They were once in a hole, similar to the one Palestinians are in today. They were being forced out of their land, basically powerless to stop it. In my opinion, I find it odd that the Israelis are causing people the pain that they themselves have felt before. They know firsthand what the Palestinians are going through, so shouldn’t they be sympathetic towards them and try to give help where it is needed? I feel that “strange” is definitely the right word to describe the statement in the post. It wasn’t that long ago that Jewish people were in a “hole”, but they seem to have already forgotten how it felt. Another thing I find odd about this situation is the fact that they remember much further back in history that they were the first to settle where Israel and Palestine are today. It seems to me that the people of Israel have a selective memory, only remembering the facts that will help them gain what they want. They have gained 40% of land that wasn’t granted to them by the UN, which to me does not seem fair. If the final goal is peace, then why is Israel going against the United Nations? In my opinion, when Israel was “helped out of this terrible place, and [got] a little more confidence and power…” which I believe came mainly from the United States siding with them, they seemed to forget their past all to quickly. I think that Israel feels they need to put Palestinians in the same “hole” to show the world that they will no longer be stepped on, yet they are proving this point at the Palestinians expense. They are putting the Palestinians in a “hole” by restricting their rights and freedoms, and practically banishing them from their own homes. I believe that as a national community, we need to devise a plan that will make both Israel and Palestine equally happy with what they have, therefore neither will be placed in a “hole” due to situations caused by each other. This means negotiations not only between the two countries, but also all of the allied countries. I don’t believe that it is sometimes a good thing to have people or peoples in that “hole” at times because it would create a vicious cycle of putting people in their place to teach them a lesson which would show power and dominance. I believe that this would give the powerful more power, and cause the weak to become weaker. I don’t think that lack of power is necessary for other countries to achieve the greater good . In this case, I don’t believe that the ends justify the means. Finally, I don’t think that discrimination should EVER be justified. Wednesday, October 20th 2004 - 10:57:20 PM

Paul Martin “…get a little more confidence and power you forget your past morals and values and adopt new, harsher ones and forget that promise that you made to yourself and the world.” This quote just goes to prove the saying, “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” We’ve seen time and time before, leaders promising that since they’re going through the hardships, like the people, they can provide the solution to their problems. So why are there so many corrupt leaders? Does power, confidence and freedom found in liberty at times blind you to your promises and past feelings? Considering this idea, so you think that Israel is following the same principles and putting the Palestinians in the same “hole” that they were in so many times before? Of course!! Although I believe that the Israelis are putting the Palestinians in a “hole”. The only similarity in the “holes” is that they are both “terrible place[s]”. As much as I agree, to equate 56 years of conflict and thousands of deaths to the Jewish torture throughout history would be greatly biased; therefore I won’t. Pain is all relative and the level of devastation depends on the person or persons and how directly or indirectly the situation affects them. The Palestinians are in a very disadvantaged state and it is hypocritical of the Israelis to do this to them. Although later I discuss the flip side to the equation. Why do you think they feel the need to do so? I think that they Israelis feel the need to do this as after so many decades of oppression and mistreatment, they want what almost anyone would, revenge and to get back what was taken. I understand the want for revenge, it’s only human nature, and passion just drives that want. Even as many of us would view it as revenge, it can also be seen as closure. Closure is very important when trying to close a chapter in history and trying to start anew. To go about it by doing similarly what was done to you, it is not only uncompassionate, but wrong. Revenge, closure, or whatever you want to call it, has never ended in anything but violence when force and oppression are used to achieve it. How are the Israelis putting the Palestinians into a hole? Referring back to the quote, especially the part, “…you forget your past morals and values and adopt new, harsher ones…” Maybe the group of people being thrown into this “hole” could be anyone, but that doesn’t change anything. The Israelis are putting the Palestinians in a “hole” because they have discarded their original morals and values from the days of oppression and turned them into harsher, more dominating ones. If the Israelis had tried to put a stronger country in a “hole”, would they have succeeded? Would we be in the situation we are today? Maybe not…”Strange.” Or it is? What as an international community do we have to do to assure that no one will ever be in that “hole” again? I’m not sure that right now, or even in the near future, we can ever assure that no one will ever be in that “hole” again. I don’t mean to take a pessimistic side, but until the ENTIRE international community can work together, accept each other’s differences and find a common ground of mutual respect, we can never ensure that people never end up in something like the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To go back to the peace conference on Tuesday, Canada is a cultural mosaic and microcosm of the world. Even with all our differences, we live under the cape of democracy and stand on the common ground of mutual respect. If we can co-exist so peacefully and efficiently, why can’t the rest of the world? The day that we can look at everyone around the world as a human being, creature of the earth, is the day we, as an international society, can assure that no one will ever be in the “hole” again. Is it sometimes a good thing to have people or peoples in that “hole” at times? With our current global interactions and relationships, maybe to keep other countries in check, we need people/peoples in the “hole” as an ‘example’ and reminder of where we’ve been. The basis of this is the same as above. Mutual respect is key. Mutual respect, kindness and tolerance does take compromise and patience, but war and conflict requires money, death, hatred and in the end, compromises of some sort. Going back to the question; for the time being, it is sometimes good to have people/peoples in the “hole”, especially when it detains them from causing more harm to themselves and the rest of the world. Is that lack of power necessary for other countries to achieve the greater good? Do the ends justify the means? The lack of power in the Palestinians, for this specific moment in time, is for the greater good. Although the Palestinians are in the “hole”, for this exact moment in time, it is to the benefit of the world. The Palestinians being in the “hole” gives the Israelis and the United States of America leverage in trying to instill democracy and the McWorld. To let the Palestinians out of the “hole” and to give them money would be to allow them to build up their arms and sufficiently attack the Israelis. This is only logical, as when you have nothing to live for; an offer to blow up the ‘enemy’ seems much more appealing than when you have a house, a family and a job. In the future, the Palestinians need to come out of the “hole”; it was never and will never be an option to leave them where they currently are. When they come out, they need to have the makings of a stable economy and government, which would ultimately eliminate the need for ‘terrorism’ and acts of war. In the end, peace in the Middle East does partially justify the violence, keeping the Palestinians in the “hole”, etc. The ends justify the means because if we are to all co-exist as one international society, we all need relatively level playing field, and by that I mean the makings of a democratic government, where voting in of the leaders in used, and also the makings of a stable, global economy. In the end, with these to two things in place and functional, the need for hatred and violence should eventually come to a head. *from your impartial(support both in that both are valid in some areas)Canadian Prime Minister* Wednesday, October 20th 2004 - 10:34:08 PM

Yasser Arafat Do you think that Israel is following the same principles, and putting the Palestinians in the same “hole” that they were in so many times before? Being “in the hole” appears to be a metaphor for being powerless, exploited, without hope, and in anguish. If this is what is intended, I would tend to feel Israel is indeed putting Palestine in the hole. No-one can deny that Israel has been in the hole many times throughout history, most notably during the Nazi occupation of Europe. One would think that the Jewish people know the amount of suffering ‘being in the hole’ entails: being cut off from freedom and hope by a fence, whether at Auschwitz or in Gaza, is being deep in the hole. The fear that a military force with disorientate power could strike from the sky at any minute, killing your family and children, is being deep in the hole. The old saying that “I wouldn’t wish this on my worst enemy”, does not seem to apply to the Israelis. It appears that they in fact DO want the Palestinians to experience the same hell that they knew. When people have suffered so much, why would they bestow the same hatred, discrimination and suffering on anyone else? But they have. The Israelis appear to have forgotten their past morals and values, and have definitely adopted a new set of morals, as it is they who are putting the Palestinians in the hole: ‘stepping on them, putting them thought pain and devastation’. I am going to use an example to help illustrate what I am talking about. It is often true of bullies that the bully was abused and bullied himself. He hates the pain that has been inflicted on him, and he feels weak. However, when he finds someone who is weaker than him, he feels more powerful. He abuses that power, and in turn bullies the weaker person. Israel is the bully, and unfortunately Palestine is the victim. Other than defending herself, what has Palestine done to justify what Israel is doing to her? What as an international community do we have to do to assure that no one will ever be in that ‘hole’ again? Is that lack of power necessary for other countries to achieve the greater good? (The ends justify the means) The lack of power is not the real issue here; rather, it is the balance of power. True peace cannot be guaranteed by a grossly unequal relationship. For peace to exist, one party always has to fear that the other party will retaliate, and defend itself, if it is threatened or attacked in any way. The Cold War is living proof of this fact: the balance of power between the West and the Soviet Union ensure that nuclear weapons were never used. As long as Palestine is expected to remain weak and at Israel’s mercy, peace can never be guaranteed. Instead, a strong and confident Palestine is needed, to ensure a stable balance of power. The international community is limited in what it can do to solve the problem permanently. While there is no way to ensure that no one will ever be in that hole again, a relationship of equals is the closes we can come to a guarantee. No one wants to be in the hole, but it is argued that sometimes it is necessary to have a nation in the hole for political gain; “we have to keep them under the boot, otherwise they will rise up and cause trouble again.” This kind of argument is a sure sign of someone who wants to keep lording it over someone else. If the international community, as a whole, can achieve a greater good by harming one nation, it may be quite tempting. If the stakes are high enough, such as world peace, wouldn’t hurting one country be beneficial if the rest of the world was being spared? But how does one determine which nation should be harmed in order to achieve peace? Does an Israeli life have more merit than a Palestinian life? Certainly not. I feel that the ends do not justify the means, as you cannot justify peace by obliterating an entire nation. No matter how high the stakes are, sometimes it is still not enough to justify inflicting pain on another nation. True peace can only come from justice for all. Wednesday, October 20th 2004 - 10:13:19 PM

Sadam Hussein (Billy) Yes, I strongly believe that the Israelis are putting the Palestinians in a hole that one that the Israelis/Jews have been suffering in the past. I feel that this is done because the Israelis finally feel more powerful than another state in this case it is Palestine and with this I believe it is an indirect form of revenge. As Palestine had been inhibiting the land centuries before the Israelis had invaded the Palestinian land and took over just supports the argument that it is revenge. If this were about whose the land had been occupied originally then all international borders need to be redrawn. The matter of the fact is this Israelis had pushed Palestinians out of their homes in the first place and now when it comes to making peace and returning the land they state that it is not fair to force people out of their homes. Well how was this fair 50 years ago when it was reversed? Since then the Israelis have been putting the Palestinians in a hole. First of all Palestinians as I recall are a majority and yet they are squished into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Not only that but to add insult to injury they have their human rights basically stepped on and cannot live a life as they dream of in their homeland. This forces many to migrate out of Palestine into surrounding countries with the stipulation that they are never allowed to return. This is slowly depleting the Palestinian population, it seems like it was planned like this. It looks like the Israelis are purposely putting the Palestinians through hell so that their majority population would diminish. Yet, after being put in a hole with nothing at all, the Israelis wonder why acts of suicide bombers occur. In a way it is saying I’m willing to kill myself to show you that I’m better off dead than living under this suppression. One way to make sure nothing like this ever happens again is by fortifying our United Nations, after the United Nations said that the land Israel took was wrong and that the wall they had been is wrong yet the United Nations did nothing to enforce this. If we had the United Nations add some kind of enforcement to any situation where they deem it is not justified, otherwise the conflict won’t be resolved. It is never good to have anyone in that hole, to be in that hole many of innocent people will have to suffer and it is not right to have them in their for something they have had no control over. It is right to limit one countries power by the agreement of the United Nations that it is for the greater good. To finish off, it is very obvious the Israelis are placing the Palestinians in a hole and if nothing is done the hole is only going to get deeper and deeper. Wednesday, October 20th 2004 - 10:05:10 PM

France ..alvin No. I don¡¦t think the Israel is following the same principles. And I don¡¦t think Palestinians is falling in that hole. After the conference happened last two days, my opinion of this is getting clear. The conflict was caused half the century before, both Israel and Palestinians need a Nation-State which have the power to government the place. Now Israel saying was ¡§the purpose of war was to get land¡¨, that was 100% true. In the six day war, Israel has against 37 attacks on their people that seems the world wanted to put Israel in the hole again. Think if you are Israel, would u like to share the land with Palestinians? If you are Palestinians, would you welcome the Jews and the Israel came in your country and shares the land with you? So will the people do the same in that situation?? If I am a Palestinians, I would plan suicide bomb and kill innocent people too. Now we can sit down and have a ¡§peace conference¡¨ because we really don¡¦t have much feeling on this conflict. But Israel and Palestinians have too much hate on each other, what we can do was helping them in some way like food, cloth and education. We can not let any one be in that hole again. The war between Israel and Palestinians have last too long. Look in the civilian there; have they ever see a computer? Have they finished high school? No! What they learn from their childhood was ¡§Hate them ( I/P). The I/P have to be peaceful. As a international community, we have to promote peace and JUSTICE at the same time. And nation like US, Great Britain should take a step back. With non bias view, we might develop some good idea to solve the conflict. France believe that Israel and Palestinians should a have it own nation and own government. So the Jews can settle down and the Palestinian can drop their weapon to have a better life. NO. No one should in that hole again. In this few year, what we heard was the 911, war in Iraq, middle east conflict, Taiwan problem, is it enough? If any country fall I in that hole again, there might be a huge crisis of the world. Maybe it seems to be cool if someone fall in the hole and then become smart and jump out the hole. But in real world, will it be that easy to escape? However, the Palestinian could not always say that they don¡¦t have terrorism ave nothing and we want lands back. They have to sacrifice something to achieve peace. Lack of power for a county will not achieve the greater good. Seriously I don¡¦t care something until it comes to me. Everyone does that too. That was the human nature. Lack of power of a country will just lead to another conflict which never can be solved. Ends will never justify the means. Like now, why can¡¦t Israel and Palestinian to become friend? I believe many of those citizens have done something bad to each other. When doing something bad, it not only affect that person, it affects more things than you can imagine. No Peace without Sacrifice. Wednesday, October 20th 2004 - 10:02:51 PM

President Jacques Chirac In my personal opinion, i believe that the Israelis are putting the Palestinians in a "hole". there are many factors to which i believe this. first the Israelis have built a massive wall around terrority that was not really theres but still saying that they should control it. they push Palestinians around at the same time by giving them no rights to do anything. not even allowing them to go to school without border checks and papers allowing them to go. of all this, the lack of freedom that the Palestinians have disturbs me. In Canada, we can do just about nething that we might want to do (legally). while in Palestine, u are limited and constricted to a whole bunch of unreasonable rules. i personally believe that once uve been that the path where you might have been mistreated or put in the "hole", u cannot turn your back and do it to someone else. playing the "eye for and eye" game where anyone who has been down a "hole" should do it to someone else because its happend to them is morally outrageous. as an international community, we should monitor more closely to others who similiarily been put in a "hole" and see that they dont do it to neone else. i also believe that anyone who has not digged themselves in a "hole" before should not critize those who have been in one. i say this mainly because they have not felt what it feels like to be there. Wednesday, October 20th 2004 - 09:42:44 PM

Yasser Arafat This post is directed to her Royal Majesty. You have to stop quoting "You have to give a little to get a little." We heard you the first time. It's getting old. It's just as bad as us saying "All or nothing". Wednesday, October 20th 2004 - 09:36:08 PM

Queen Elizabeth II (Britain) This post is directed to PM/King of Saudi Arabia You stated that “The Israeli army has reoccupied the West Bank and parts of the Gaza Strip, the Israeli military operations continue killing several Palestinians every day and are destroying dozens of houses every month are becoming a daily routine. These un-civilized methods seem familiar in the time of Nazi-Germany when the Jews were in the whole. Now the tables have turned but on Palestine.” Where did you get your resources? The Israeli military operations don’t just kill several Palestinians every day as a daily routine! Secondly, how can you compare Nazi-Germany to Israelis? The Nazi-Germany was trying to eliminate all Jews, and the Israelis ARE NOT killing all Palestinians because of their race. The Israeli military operations have been protecting their people by preventing terrorists from entering within the walls. I don’t doubt that they haven’t killed many Palestinians, but you as a leader of your country should be careful what you say, because your comparison is NOT AT ALL relevant to this situation. The Israelis fought in a war against Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq because they all attacked in hopes of destroying Israel. How is this singling out one race? Wednesday, October 20th 2004 - 07:41:31 PM

Queen Elizabeth II (Britain) Absolutely Not! Israel is not following the same principles and putting the Palestinians in the same “hole” that they were once in before. However people today turn something like an achievement for Israel and the battle they won in 1967 to Israelis “stepping” all over the Palestinians. This is not the case! The Israelis won the war and every other country in the world would do the same, for their people to live and start a whole new life. After WWII, which the Jews were out of the “hole” in 1945, the conflict of looking for homes for the Jewish people was very much in demand than ever before. The UN came to an agreement and gave consent to allow Jews to settle in the land of Israel today. On May 14, 1948 right after Israel was proclaimed many nations that surrounded Israel attacked and somehow Israel managed to capture more land than they originally started with. Who’s at fault? Egypt on the left, Jordan on the right, Syria and Lebanon above Israel, and with Iraq close enough to be a threat all attacked. They brought the problem. Now how is Palestine complaining that Israel took more land, when they didn’t want war, it was brought on them. Israel wanted a home for the Jewish people and if that means fighting for the people, than that’s what they must do. Today, the Palestinians are again attacking them, so the Israelis are taking a step forward and building a wall to protect their people; they do not want to be taken advantage of. However the wall is a problem and the UN has recognized this, but as a country representative everyone must understand that the protection of the people within a country is very important, otherwise you cannot call yourself a leader for your country. Simply “the ends justify the means,” and Ariel Sharon is thinking for his people; he wants terrorism to stop. Is that too hard to ask? As an international community we all must ensure that no one will ever be in that ‘hole’ again. In order to do this, I believe that we need to continue the efforts for peace in the Middle East and as politicians or leaders of our countries; we must put aside our emotion within the conflict and demonstrate passion – try to negotiate and come to a solution. Britain believes that Palestinians should be recognized as a separate state and should be given back some of the land taken in the 1967 war. However the Palestinians also have to sacrifice something, if not materialistic but show effort to stop terrorism. If these two countries come to a mutual agreement, we as the international community should recognize their cooperation by aiding them with resources our countries are all known for. Through initiative, cooperation and optimism from the international community, we can make peace. **WE NEED TO GIVE A LITTLE TO GET A LITTLE** Wednesday, October 20th 2004 - 06:51:55 PM

France now the time is ...10-20-04 ..6:47..why it say oct 20 ,1 am.... Wednesday, October 20th 2004 - 06:47:22 PM

Ariel Sharon (Israel) No, I do not feel my people are putting the Palestinians into any sort of hole. Us, the Jews, were offered a homeland by the United Nations, something we had been longing for as a people for thousands of years. After millenniums of exile, pain, being lost in a world with no allies, we were finally offered a break. We were finally offered a country of our own. You ask if anybody would do the same in our situation, and in response I ask, who on earth wouldn’t? No one. Absolutely no one. The land that is being argued over during these talks – the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Golan Heights – was all land conquered in war. The Six Day War of 1967 during which Israel gained the previously mentioned territories was not initiated by Israel, however, in our retaliation against the 37 separate attacks that took place against our people, we conquered some land that had belonged to Syria and Jordan. Would anybody in our situation do the same? Of course. That’s the nature of war. Of the nations present in our talks, nearly all have done it. Russia’s massive size comes from their imperialism during war. The US attempted to gain control of Canadian territory. Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, attempted to annex Kuwait in the first gulf war. Saudi Arabia’s territory all once belonged to neighbouring nations. So would anyone in our situation do the same? Yes. Better yet, has everyone, including the hypocritical diplomats in attendance at our conference done the same? Yes. It’s the nature of war. It always has been. We are not putting the Palestinians into a hole – instead we are protecting our people. It’s unfortunate that in doing this we have treated the Palestinians less than graciously, but it was all necessary for the protection of our people. As the leader of our nation, it is my job to protect my people at any cost. And the cost in the situation we find ourselves in is Palestinian discomfort. While the Palestinians may look at it as us purposely harming them, any rational thought can indicate that we are just looking out for ourselves. For example, the wall we are building was not designed to remove rights of the Palestinians, despite popular belief. Rather it is being built to protect the rights of the Israelites. As a democratic nation, we have to guarantee our people safety and freedom from harm as much as we can realistically provide. The Palestinians’ violence and terrorist acts threaten the rights of our people to live in safety, and thus they have left us no choice. We cannot provide the safest environment for our people with Palestinian terrorist traveling freely into our territory, causing threats to the safety of the Israeli people. In order to give our people their rights, we have had to cause the Palestinians some discomfort. It’s not putting them into a hole, as I regard that as an act done for the purpose of oppression. Instead it’s an unfortunate result of having to protect our people from the threat they pose to us. Israel and Jews across the world are clearly still hurting by the atrocities committed against us by the world in the past, but we are in no way out to seek revenge or justice. We came out of the situations we have been put into with one clear goal: not to be put into the situations again. To achieve this we must take a firm stance on our safety. We are not “stepping on people,” instead we are preventing those who pose threats to us from causing us further anguish. If the other side did not initiate the threat, we would have no reason to act harshly towards them. The conflict occurring between Palestine and our nation was not initiated by us in an act of bullying. As an international community, we must work to keep and promote peace. We must realize that justice and peace are not the same thing, nor does the first always lead to the second. I think that in our two days of peace talks, this has been the biggest problem holding us back. We must learn to negotiate and compromise, to understand where one another is coming from and to look at issues realistically and rationally. Though I stand by my statement that we do not see Palestinians as being in a “hole,” it is sometimes good for groups of people to be in their situation. Clearly not good for those people, but instead for the people who they actively harm. Restricting Palestinian access to our territory is good for us, because it protects us. I can however, understand and admit that it is not good for the Palestinians. The actions we have taken against the Palestinians has most certainly been necessary for the greater good of our nation, which is the issue of most importance to us. We wish it wasn’t so, and we wish the situation was different, but it’s not. We hope that through our peace talks we will be able to fix the situation so that the restrictions upon the Palestinians are no longer necessary, but as of right now, they are. In causing the Palestinians discomfort, we are promoting a better, safer lifestyle within our own territory. We are doing something generally accepted as “bad” for the betterment of our people and our country, and it has unfortunately all been completely necessary. In this situation, the ends do justify the means. Wednesday, October 20th 2004 - 01:03:13 AM

Mohammed Naji al-Otari (Ketan) -> Syria I DO feel after considering this idea and saying that this is the way of life for Palestinians, I think that Israel is following the same principles and putting the Palestinians in the same “hole” that they were in so many times before and not letting them get out of this “hole” and making them suffer. No one should be put in a hole because we do not need any more countries suffering in this world there is enough of that countries going though hard times already. The battle between Israel and Palestine has been going on for hundreds of years because they have been taking each others land and disregarding what the UN has divided for each of them. Now this needs to stop and they need to come to peace, not just for the country but for those thousands of people have died trying to make peace for their families to live with. The way how Israelis are putting the Palestinians into holes all over is by not giving Palestinians any rights to do anything they will not give Palestinians all their land back that was given to him, they have no money so they can not eat regular meals go to schools everyday and the most important they have a huge wall separating them from their family. The wall that separates Israelis from Palestinians was made by Israel and after the UN told Israel that they had to tear it down because it was not legal to have Israel said that they would leave it up and just make small changes, this is the thing that are making Palestinians so angry at Israelis because this it the thing that makes sure no one can cross grounds. As an international community what we have to do to assure that no one will ever be in that ‘hole’ again we would have to side with the country that is being taken advantage of and help them get out of there problem taken advantage of. We have to help one country but if that country too demanding then there is nothing we can do expect try to help negotiate. In the end you need to be allies with one country but when you debate and have decisions you need to think what is best for both states, so in the end everyone is happy and there is peace. ‘Holes’ is not a good thing therefore no one should suffer from it. If you where to compare the way people live in Israel to the people in Palestine you would see that Palestine is sure a run down area. This is the reason why so many countries feel bad for countries like Palestine because they don’t have money to go to war or anything like that so the only war they fight by killing themselves because that is all they can afford. The end will never justify the means. When you kill someone that is never good because you had to kill people and that is not right, especially when it is something that can be worked out with words. It does not matter why u had killed someone because now that person is not here and when someone dies it affects more then one person. Therefore the end never justifies the means. Wednesday, October 20th 2004 - 12:12:39 AM

Kim Jong-Il Leader of North Korea Considering this idea or saying, or way of life, do you think that Israel is following the same principles and putting the Palestinians in the same “hole” that they were in so many times before? Unfortunately I do feel that Israel is following the same principles that were once forced upon their people. After reading and understanding more about this concept my opinion of it is become more and more clear. Although my first post seemed %100 Pro-Arab there are always two sides to the story and I have been trying to hear the other side of the story, the Israeli's. The Israeli's are in quite the political predicament and as a result of being bullied by the rest of the world for the past century, their need for a sovereign state is critical to the guaranteed safety and security of their people. What they are essentially doing is putting the Palestinians in the so called "hole" to ensure their safety which doesn’t seem right but at the same time they really have no other choice. In the coming days I will TRY to take an unbiased view of the issue and provide my opinions on what should be done to achieve piece without bringing the two causes of this conflict: emotion and religion. Why do you think they feel the need to do so? Well the main reason I feel they have the need to do this is to ensure the safety and security of their people and to guarantee that all the pain and suffered endured over the years will never happen again but by ensuring the safety and security of their people they are jeopardizing the lives of the Palestinian People. How are the Israelis putting the Palestinians into a hole? The Israelis are putting the Palestinians into a hole by continuing Jewish settlements in the west bank and Gaza strip and by doing so taking the land of the Palestinians away from them. What as an international community do we have to do to assure that no one will ever be in that ‘hole’ again? I feel the most crucial part of the peace process is the involvement of the international community. I feel there will not be peace unless nations around the world step up to the plate for the greater good of two different peoples. Since we are not directly related to the conflict we must as best we can try not to take sides which are almost impossible and most importantly through diplomatic procedures concoct a peace plan without involving a key factor in this issue, emotion. Without emotion involved will come democratic talks and it will be much easier for both sides to come to an agreement. Is it sometimes a good thing to have people or peoples in that ‘hole’ at times? The most obvious answer seems like no but in some cases being in a "mercy position" will teach you once you get out of it to never put yourself or others in that position again. However in protecting yourself so that you don’t fall into that mercy position again, you might be compromising another nation which is the case in this conflict. If the world was perfect this proverbial "hole" would not exist but the world as we know it is not perfect and almost certainly will never be. Is that lack of power necessary for other countries to achieve the greater good? The greater good may be achieved for one nation at the sacrifice of another. This statement is in direct correlation with the principles of human nature and specifically self interest. Nobody in the world cared about the suffering of the Israeli people and they realized this so in order to counter act this they took action to come out of this hole thereby securing them self at the cost of the Palestinians. There philosophy which I feel is very important is that if you don’t look out for yourself, then nobody else will. Compared to my previous post I feel I have tried to present a less bias view of the conflict. And although emotion may get me good marks I don’t think it will bring peace between these two nations. I was pleased with the conference on October 19, 2004 as steps were taken by both sides diplomatically to achieve peace. If opinion, emotion, and religion can stay silent, then diplomatic talks will continue. I believe peace can and will be achieved. Wednesday, October 20th 2004 - 12:01:39 AM

PM/King of Saudi Arabia Mandatory Post #2 As the Israel and Palestine conflict has reached record numbers of killings and escalated animosity, I think that Israel is more and more everyday putting Palestine in the “hole” that the Jewish people were once in. As part of the saying, “…right when you get helped out of this terrible place, and get a little more confidence and power you forget your past morals and values and adopt new, harsher, ones…” These new harsher values come from Ariel Sharon’s “policy of force.” This mentality brings about the question how and why Israel is putting Palestine in the deep hole that they know the harshness of. How the Israelis accomplish this is quite simple. The Israeli army has reoccupied the West Bank and parts of the Gaza Strip, the Israeli military operations continue killing several Palestinians every day and are destroying dozens of houses every month are becoming a daily routine. These un-civilized methods seem familiar in the time of Nazi-Germany when the Jews were in the whole. Now the tables have turned but on Palestine. “All of this is accompanied by a continuous Israeli construction of the so-called Separation Wall, unilaterally dictating the future borders of Israel regardless of any damage caused to Palestinians or Palestinian interests. Security is the justification for any atrocities Israel commits against the Palestinians.” I ask the international communities what makes Israel different from the Nazi’s? Perhaps my comparison between Israel and Nazi-Germany is hard for some to fathom but this is what is clear in my eyes. With all this said, perhaps the more meaningful question is WHY are they resorting to this type of violence? Perhaps it provides solace for their losses, or maybe they think because their race was oppressed it is justified to oppress others. Could it be for power or authority, to show whose boss? Some even say that it is revenge, a statement to the world that they will no longer be killed but they will kill. I certainly hope that this isn’t the case because it would be too hard for me to stomach! To simply answer the question of why they Palestine is in the hole because of the Israelis; there is no simple answer. Only the Israelis know their reason/excuse for, in my opinion, oppressing Palestinians. Maybe each Israeli has their own reason but their goal is the same. Whatever the reason which I am uncertain of, I am certain that it is wrong, unjustifiable and really OUTRAGEOUS!!! Leaders of the world have been assembled to discuss and potentially solve this conflict. Not an easy conflict to solve with a clear solution but one thing I have come to realize over the duration of the peace conference is that compromises on both sides have to be made. However, I do not feel that history should be forgotten as it is the basis of this conflict and heritage, prestige and patriotism from the past till today are brought to the table. The international community has to take action now as neither side will defeat the other. The only way out of the current tragic situation is a political path. Violence and military actions are not the answer!! The horrors of the last four years have destroyed confidence between Israel and Palestine and deepened the hatred and suspicion between them. It is obvious that there is no chance to resume peace talks between the two sides without a third party. We as leaders of the International community are that third party. We must take both sides into consideration with least biased opinion possible. We do not want to repeat history of failed negotiations. In the past, negotiations haven’t contextualized any concrete solution. “In spite of the fact that all previous attempts have failed because of the lack of a persistent effort to make any real progress and the stubborn positions of both sides, which produced the vicious circle of violence and counter-violence - Israel’s iron fist and assassination policy and Palestinian suicide attacks against Israelis.” So as a solution, both sides have to put aside their stubborn attitudes (easier said than done but not impossible). The Berlin-like wall from Israel has to be torn down because it isn’t real security. It might provide temporary security/solutions but I think it will become an incentive for more violence. The money on the wall is better spent enhancing their economy and maybe starting an economic relationship with Palestine. They can learn to depend on each other for economic support. Palestine children can become healthy with hospitals, educated in proper schools, get jobs in proper institutions and enjoy democracy. I am hopeful that an economic relationship will turn into a social one and peace will be achieved. I accept and agree with Israel’s willingness to tear the wall down and give the RITE of return to Palestine of the Gaza Strip and areas of the West Bank. I think this is a step in the right direction and this also gives hope to the world that peace is possible. In the case of Israel – Palestine it isn’t good to have anyone in the “hole” at any time. Both the Jews and the Palestinians know the brutal, lack of mercy position that occurs when being in the hole. This suffering shouldn’t be implemented on anyone. If it is, it kills the hope of peace, co-existence and it kills civilians. If the world can put aside differences, there is land and resources for everyone to use fairly. Nobody deserves to be put in the “hole,” it just goes against the values and morals of humanity and civilization. I also agree with my Prince in saying that the “ends justify the means,” is not beneficial to anyone. Nobody should be able to have more power than anyone else. This defeats the purpose of co-existing. In my opinion one country shouldn’t have to suffer for the greater good of anyone else. But as I was saying before, to conclude, peace should be the goal of the international community and I am optimistic justice will be served!!! Tuesday, October 19th 2004 - 09:40:48 PM

Prince Faysal of Saudi Arabia No one deserves to be put in a ‘hole’. Has Israel simply put the Palestinian people into that same ‘hole’ because they were once in it? Do they have the justification to do what they are doing simply because it once happened to them? With this mentality, Israel and Palestine will never come to a complete peaceful agreement because they both want the same thing for themselves. The Israelis are putting Palestinians into a hole by literally blocking them off from land that was really theirs. The wall that is currently under construction is saying to Palestine that you have no rights, and we can push you around and put you wherever we feel necessary. This is not right. When the UN gave Israel all of that land in 1948, they took that as a signal to push the Palestinian people around, uproot their settlements, tear apart their families, keep their children from going to school, and men from going to work to support their families. In addition, they are surprised that poor Palestinians with nothing to live for are crossing into Israeli territory and blowing themselves up? There is no ignoring the fact that the Jewish people were badly mistreated in the past, especially in Europe in the early-mid 20th century. They were forced out of their homeland, then out of their new homes all across the globe, and then placed back into their original position. Simply put, its been a long road for the Jewish people. The question now becomes: would Arial Sharon have the Palestinian people go through that same unforgiving process? Would he stand by and watch them put into that same ‘hole’ that he has seen his own people in? If Israel is a supporter of democracy and human rights, they will do whatever they can to keep Palestine from falling into the same hole that they were once in. As an international community, we must support both sides to a certain extent, but realize that the situation in Palestine and the relationship between Israel and Palestine will not improve unless they get some land back. If this does not happen, and the Palestinian people are forced to leave even that small portion of and that they have left, we will have another occupier of that ‘hole’ again. It is the duty of the United States of America to provide aid to the people of Palestine, and to get their lips off Israel’s you know what. Because of all of the investments that Israel has in the States, the American government has Israel’s back no matter what. This is truly unfortunate, because they are helping the side that doesn’t need any help. By providing military support to an already rich nation they are promoting the idea of going into Palestinian territory and killing innocent people; punishing those who have done nothing wrong for the actions of a psycho dead man whose ideas and feeling aren’t necessarily those of the rest of the Palestinian people. It is never good to have people in holes. No one deserves that less than the people of Palestine. One day they are living peacefully in their rightful land, and then suddenly the United Nations drops millions of people onto their land because they feel sorry for them. (Why wasn’t Hitler stopped earlier in the first place?) The ends never justify the means. If I want a car and I have to kill 3 people to get it, does the fact that I get the car justify the fact that 3 people are now dead? If tens, hundreds, thousands of Palestinians have to die before this conflict is resolved, does that make the end result satisfying to Israel and the rest of the world? Saudi Arabia sure hopes not. Tuesday, October 19th 2004 - 07:54:48 PM

Canada ALL COUNTRIES INVOLVED IN TOMORROWS PEACE CONFERENCE: PLEASE REMEMBER TO BRING YOUR ITEM OF HERITAGE AS IT IS YOUR TICKET INTO THE ROOM. Monday, October 18th 2004 - 09:34:50 PM

THE CONTROLLERS Mandatory Post #2 The saying goes something like this, “when your in the hole you wish you were out and promise yourself and the world that you will never make anyone feel like you felt when you were in this hole; but it seems that right when you get helped out of this terrible place, and get a little more confidence and power you forget your past morals and values and adopt new, harsher, ones, and forget that promise that you made to yourself and the world. You find yourself stepping on others and putting them in a hole where they are going to go through as much pain and devastation as you were. Strange.” Considering this idea or saying, or way of life, do you think that Israel is following the same principles, and putting the Palestinians in the same “hole” that they were in so many times before? If yes: Why do you think they feel the need to do so? How are the Israelis putting the Palestinians into a hole? If no: Do you think what they are doing needs to be done because anybody would do the same in that situation? How are the Israelis NOT putting the Palestinians into a hole? What as an international community do we have to do to assure that no one will ever be in that ‘hole’ again? Is it sometimes a good thing to have people or peoples in that ‘hole’ at times? Is that lack of power necessary for other countries to achieve the greater good? [ends justify the means?] [Reminder: this is due Wednesday at 12AM NO LATER] [Also, these questions are given to you as a guide...so take advanteage of the hints...USE THEM] [You can all get 10/10...i BELIEVE IN YOU] Good luck, have fun Monday, October 18th 2004 - 06:31:08 PM

Dick Cheney [e] In a democracy, every person has one vote. The Jewish people were given back their land, Israel, following a vote of many nations to correct a wrong. Palestinians and their sovereignty were obviously considered very much before the vote. This decision was not made lightly. The Palestinians should not feel there has been a theft of their land. Furthermore, even if they do feel there has been theft, the only way getting change is via democracy and democratic means. Not through violence, killing and destruction. This can only happen through calm dialogue. We believe Israel has a right to the land, but we also understand the Palestinians strongly disagree with that. We do not know the solution, but we know we cannot find it without rational dialogue. We also know that we will not sit by and allow the Palestinians to continue to kill the Israelis as a means of solving their problem. The issue has moved past history, into the present because families, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, are being killed daily. Peace cannot be achieved under any means when lives on both sides are being taken and hatred is being passed on through the communities. Sunday, October 17th 2004 - 11:56:40 PM

Paul Martin Holding what would be classified as a grudge, is not and will never be a reason to force hardships and violence on other people. Everyone suffers at some point in their life, the extent of their suffering does depend on where they live and what they do, but to blame someone else for something they did not commit is not only wrong but immoral. The dealings of the Jewish at the end of the war were probably the start to the whole crisis we are facing as a global nation today. Their hardships and mistreatment over the centuries is very unfortunate and unacceptable by any standard but to then come back decades later and say that for ‘closure’ for their problems and prejudices endured in the past, they want what is ‘biblically’ theirs is also wrong. To do this to the Palestinians is not only wrong but hypocritical. The Jewish were forced from their homes and left to die and suffer in places of insufficient space and freedom. But now as a stronger force, the Israelis have decided that to regain their ‘dignity’ by will inflicting the same misfortune on others. Being Canadian we have a very American bias to the entire Israel-Palestine conflict. We picture Palestinians as horrible people with no boundaries or moral standards. To classify an entire nation as “rock throwers” or “terrorists” is extremely narrow minded and misinformed. Backed into a corner by the Israelis, the actions of the Palestinians are inappropriate in eyes of the world, but to take a view from their side, it is not easy. To sit back and not fight is cowardice to some and to others; resistance at any cost is simply terrorism. Both views I would conclude are extreme. Seeing as how this conflict has been raging on in violence, death, massacre and narrow mindedness, it is hard to see an end to the stubbornness and infinite bloodshed. As much as revenge is human nature, it is not necessary and moral. Canada, as a peace mediation country, believes that no one should have to pay for something that was done decades ago; the past needs to live and stay in the past. As unrealistic as it seems today, peace is the only answer to two suffering peoples who clearly want the same thing. To oppress one to let another flourish is wrong as is letting needless amounts of people die because no one cares to talk. People care about the death tolls and suffering children, now all we need is people to step up and work towards a peaceful resolution to the decade old conflict. Peace is a viable solution, but only if we can open mindedly come together as one world with one common interest; an end to this horror. Sunday, October 17th 2004 - 11:01:00 PM

Kim Jong-Il/Kim Il-Chol - North Korea We feel that the requests of the Israeli government are unjustifiable. “Jewish people have suffered for centuries. They have been oppressed , slaughtered, raped, used, imprisoned, exploited, murdered, hated, discriminated throughout history, and the hate and discrimination from the past has haunted them right through to the 21st century" To this I say SO WHAT! It is true that they have suffered but who in this world has not. Obviously we have sympathy for them but there have been many massacres all over the world so why should this one be more significant than the others. Genocides are occurring at this very moment in African nations and the good ol United States of America has taken no action. Why? Because they gain nothing from helping these countries, that is typical American Foreign Policy; when was the last time they lead campaign to aid another nation with no benefits in return? Now back to the original question should the Jews get whatever they want or what is biblically theirs? Absolutely not! This Land belonged to the Palestinians for over 2000 years and therefore it is there rightful land. Biblical ties or not the Jews do not have the right to waltz into someone else’s land and claim it as their own. This was an acceptable practice hundreds of years ago but we live in the 21st century where democracy exists and human rights are supposed to be universal. The Palestinian people have no rights whatsoever and are being forced out of their homeland by Israeli occupation. As a result of this, acts of terrorism have occurred because quite frankly the Palestinians have no other methods of defending themselves. They have no economic infrastructure, no established government, and most importantly no military. But let’s take a look at the definition of a terrorist as defined by www.dictionary.com Terrorist - adj: characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n: a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities The Israeli government is using Judaism as a cover for their actions. So it is obvious one cannot claim Palestinians as terrorists without stating the same about the Israeli government. North Korea sees Palestinian rebels as freedom fighters fighting against the real terrorists the Israeli government. Yet the Israeli government is not looked upon as a terrorist organization because of a few reasons. They do have a foundation of government, they have a very powerful military, and most importantly they have financial, economic, and military backing from the world's most powerful country in the world the U.S.A. Everybody in this world has the right to live in safety and security without fear of harm. With that said the question is raised where should the Jewish people live. Well it is proven in many towns in Israel/Palestine that many people of both nationalities can co-exist and live with each other. But when Jewish settlements force Palestinians out of their own home is where the conflict occurs. Most Palestinians aren't going to commit suicide bombing attacks and they aren't going to throw rocks. All they want is to live in their own land in peace. Is this too much to ask? North Korea suggests a possible solution of the migration of the Jewish people to their biggest ally the United States. The Israelis claims they need "a place to call their own" so why not turn a state in the U.S.A. into a Jewish state. I’m sure the lucky people of that state would love the idea of giving up their homeland and moving to a different state for the greater good of the Jewish people. And who should have to pay for all this pain, or should anyone? Ideally nobody should have to pay for all of the suffering endured by the Jews but that is not the case at the current state of the conflict. Thousands of innocent Israeli and Palestinian lives have been lost for no just cause. Human nature is what it is and it will never change so as long as the Israeli's settlements continue being built and the Palestinians keep fighting for their rightful freedom, the peace will never exist and pain for millions of lives will never end. Is it a thing of the past and should it be considered exactly what it is, history? What has happened in the past is tragic and unforgettable not only to the Jews but all peoples. We are taught to learn from our mistakes and move on, however it seems that the slaughtering of innocent Palestinian lives is reminiscent of the slaughtering of innocent Jews in Nazi concentration camps. We have obviously not learned from our mistake. It should be considered as history and only that. Incidents have occurred in the past that have set precedents, but these historical events should be looked upon as a guide to making a decision, not to making the entire decision itself. Our end goal is peace so we must as "civil" nations put aside our differences to achieve stability. The requests of the Israeli government are unfair and unjust to the Palestinian people, so the only way to engage the peace process is starting with compromise of certain issues such as the halting of Israeli settlements. We are certain with compromise will come negotiations and diplomacy from the Palestinian people. Sunday, October 17th 2004 - 10:58:05 PM

Bill Graham, Canadian Defense Minister Canada supports the security, well-bring and rights of Israel as an independent state. Canada has carried this policy since the founding of Israel in 1948. However Canada does not recognize Israel control over the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip as they were occupied through unconventional methods. Canada fully recognizes Israel's right to defend itself and its citizens against terrorism and has consistently condemned the terrorist attacks it has faced. In light of this, we do feel that any unnecessary military action taken by Israel is simply unacceptable and contrary to Israel's international obligations. Canada realizes that the legitimate rights of the Palestinians must be recognized, including the right to self-determination to be exercised through peaceful negotiations. Canada also recognizes that the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians goes beyond their own borders and involves other nations that would use this conflict to further their own means. In 1956 during the Suez Crisis Canada played a pivotal role in developing a solution to deescalate the conflict. It was the need for an impartial nation that enabled the world to step back from the brink of a potential third world war. UN Security Council Resolution 242 and 338 approved in 1993 recognized the equal rights of Israel and Palestine to live within their respective boundaries and required Israel to withdraw from the West Bank. Israel had occupied the West Bank since 1967 and it is currently the subject of contention today. While Canada’s position remains neutral it does not support the unilateral annexation or displacement of Palestinian communities located near the West Bank. Canada condemns all acts of terrorism and does not believe that extreme military or violent actions are appropriate solutions to this conflict. Only through negotiation can peace in the Middle East be achieved. Sunday, October 17th 2004 - 10:47:36 PM

George W. Bush Mandatory Post #1 In an address to the National Commemoration of the Days of Remembrance on April 19, 2001, I stated: "Through centuries of struggle, Jews across the world have been witnesses not only against the crimes of men, but for faith in God, and God alone. Theirs is a story of defiance in oppression and patience in tribulation, reaching back to the exodus and their exile into the Diaspora. That story continued in the founding of the State of Israel. The story continues in the defense of the State of Israel." The Jewish people have suffered from oppression throughout history. Israel needs to exist as an independent state to prevent history from repeating itself. The Jewish people as a stateless people were very vulnerable to oppression throughout their existence. To prevent atrocities like the Holocaust from ever happening again, the Jewish people are in need of their own state in which they are free to govern themselves and are free to practice their religion. Many of the Jewish people have come to America, where they are free to practice their religion and are protected from oppression and intolerance. America hopes that these conditions can be emulated in Israel, where today, Israel must defend itself from the oppression and violence of terrorism. America supports freedom of religion, and we uphold these values of religious tolerance throughout the world. We also support Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorists and hostile neighbors. That is not to say, however, that Israelis are entitled to "whatever they want", especially if it is at the expense of another group of people. Palestinians are also entitled to the lands that have been their homes for thousands of years. Israel also represents the holy land for Muslims, and it is not justifiable that Palestinians are forced out of their lands. America supports the creation of a Palestinian state to resolve this land dispute and to further promote peace and democracy in the Middle East. To reach a successful peace settlement, the Israelis must be prepared to give up territory and withdraw from Palestinian lands to enable the creation of a Palestinian state. However, America will not support the creation of this state if Palestinian leaders continue to support and harbor terrorism. Peace is not achieved by killing innocent civilians. These terrorists are not freedom fighters for the Palestinian cause, but threats to the Israeli way of freedom and democracy. Yasser Arafat has not shown any inclination of support for peace with Israel. Terrorism and violent activity has brought us no closer to negotiations and a prospect for peace. In May 1989, Arafat declared that the sections in the Palestinian Charter that called for the destruction of Israel were "null and void", and that the PLO advocated a two-state solution, making dialogue with the American administration possible. But in May 1990, the situation changed drastically. The Popular Liberation Front (PLF), a group member of the PLO, waged a sea borne attack against the Tel Aviv beach. Arafat took no actions to punish the leader of the PLF. This action ended the political dialogue between Washington and the PLO. In the Oslo Agreement Arafat and the PLO agreed that "disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Declaration of Principles or any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, shall be resolved by negotiations", which implied that violence and terrorism would not be used to promote political goals. Arafat has made no attempt to uphold this agreement. The Hamas and Palestinian Jihad suicide bombings had already started in April 1993, peaking after the Oslo Agreement from January to July of 1995. Arafat did nothing to stop this slaughter. He sees violence as a legitimate and effective way of promoting his agenda. The PLO has undermined the peace process, as the concept of the peace process was to achieve political goals through negotiations and settlements, not terror and violence. For this reason, peace through negotiations cannot exist unless Arafat renounces his support for terrorism. Arafat's failure to condemn terrorism has undermined peace talks for years. To continue effective peace talks, Arafat must cease to support terrorism and demonstrate they are willing to compromise and negotiate a settlement that will produce a lasting peace. Until Arafat renounces his support for terrorist activity, he will not be able to count on the support of America for the creation of a Palestinian state. The Palestinians have not lost the right to keep land; they must simply redeem themselves if they wish for progress in resolving this dispute. -George W. Bush Sunday, October 17th 2004 - 10:00:49 PM

Shrub "Also as an international leader Mr. Bush should know more than to be prejudice against the palestinians and labelling them as "terrorists"." -Saddam Hussein I haven’t quite concluded whether Saddam Hussein has not actually read any of my posts or listened to any of my statements, or if he is simply twisting my words to attempt to prove his point. Well, I would like to thank Mr. Hussein for completely misinterpreting my statements. I have NEVER asserted that all Palestinians are terrorists. I have, however, stated that the Palestinian Authority is harboring and supporting terrorists. With these actions, the leaders of the Palestinian Authority are betraying the Palestinian cause and undermining the peace process. Furthermore, they are using terrorism to promote their political agenda. This is unacceptable. For any U.S. support for a Palestinian state, the Palestinian Authority must cease to support terrorism. I have said this endlessly, yet many of my fellow world leaders still do not understand this statement. Sunday, October 17th 2004 - 08:22:10 PM

Sadam Hussein I find it quite interesting how the United States has dealt with situations similar to this in the past. Just a few years ago I am pretty sure we can all recall the war in Kosovo. As I remember America had stepped in and had defended the rights of the Albanians and felt that as a majority in Kosovo they deserved to have Kosovo as their own. Now from what i understand the Palestinians are a majority, and yet they are being pushed around by the Israelis and have limited if any rights at all. How does this fit in the American Dream of having a democratic world? After all the Americans are aiding the Israelis and giving them more power, when instead they should be aiding in a diplomatic manner. Also as an international leader Mr. Bush should know more than to be prejudice against the palestinians and labelling them as "terrorists". The war on terrorism has accomplished nothing and the war in Iraq has done nothing either but take me out of power and turn Iraq completly upside down. So all that is left to say is that the Americans should get their priorities straight and get the idea of peace across and not war. Sunday, October 17th 2004 - 07:18:58 PM

PM/King of Saudi Arabia "no peace with occupation" Since the beginning of civilization, history has dawned with tragedy, horror and evil of the kind. Many conflicts over territory and occupations have been imposed. For example in Algeria, the French throttled the natives and their national liberation movement but eventually concluded that there was no alternative to granting the country independence. Unfortunately the Israel – Palestine conflict has been one facing the world for years without a definite solution in place. Although a very delicate situation, Saudi Arabia does take a stance. History hasn’t been kind to the Jewish people to say the least. They have been faced with many misfortunes that leave a permanent stain on the world’s past. However, this is not justification enough to allow deaths, massacres, violence and brutality that occurs too often between Israel and Palestine. A solution seems far fetched but I personally agree with Fatah Central Council member Hani al-Hassan, a long-time trusted aide of Arafat since the late 1960s when he says “The solution is for Sharon and his tanks to withdraw. Whenever Sharon finds himself in a predicament he besieges President Arafat. He should learn that this is a dead end and cannot lead him to any result, and that all of this will backfire against him. Military power cannot solve anything. We will maintain our steadfastness and our struggle until the establishment of a Palestinian state frees itself of settlements…” There is no benefit while Sharon’s “policy of force” can inflict immense death and destruction on the Palestinians, break up their resistance networks, and impose full Israeli military control on the ground. This is a paradox when the force that Israel imposes is the same as the force that they lived through in history. The situation in Israel – Palestine has been an all or nothing type conflict. However, it is illegal for the Israel people to occupy land and establish settlements that do not belong to them. The Zionist movements who share a goal of an independent Jewish state (1890) impose and encourage violence but this is the violence that leads to dramatically increased malnutrition and anemia among Palestinian children and negligence of basic health, education and welfare needs according to a the study by the United States Agency for International Development. The settlements of Israel seek to control the education system, health system etc. The Jews know what it is like to be discriminated, killed, forced to leave yet they are discriminating, killing and forcing the Palestine people to leave. It seems too often that we hear of attacks by Israel in the news like “Israeli helicopter gun ships have launched a second day of attacks on Palestinian targets, including the headquarters of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in the West Bank town of Ramallah.” Egypt’s paper stated “Al-Ahram headlines that Arafat telephoned President Hosni Mubarak to “discuss the situation,” while Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher met the US ambassador to stress the need for Washington to “take a firm stand” against Israel.” As for our own daily Saudi paper, it was published that Washington has extremely “mild” criticism of Israel’s actions, which it describes as “shameful” given the fact that the whole world knows that it is within America’s power to change the situation, get the Israelis to lift the siege on Arafat, and move toward imposing a just settlement to the conflict. It is believed that these attacks on Palestine don’t aim to kill Arafat rather “to dissolve the Palestinian Authority and its leadership until the image of the Palestinian homeland is erased from the scene.” In the end, Saudi Arabia is hoping optimistically for a solution but our solution entails compromises on the Israeli side. So in response the given quote, I don’t think that it is justifiable to grant the Jewish people someone else’s land. The Palestine people seem to be held accountable for the misery the Jews had to face. This is clearly an invasion of another’s territory and what is a thing of the past shouldn’t be an excuse to invade Arab land because they feel they should get it. Historically it was always Palestinian land until Jewish settlements were established and they tried to gain complete power. As the Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti so diligently states about the illegal and brutal occupation of other people's territory, there can be "no peace with occupation". PM / King of Saudi Arabia (Raheem) Sunday, October 17th 2004 - 07:16:40 PM

Ariel Sharon (Israel) The Jewish people and the Israeli state are not asking for, nor expecting to receive, “whatever we want.” Instead, we as a people and finally as a nation are merely seeking equality in a world that has done everything within its power to keep it from us. For the past two millenniums, our people have been displaced with no place to call home, while other nations and cultures grew and flourished, we were scattered across a nation that did not accept us. This land had been ours dating back four thousand years. It is Israel where the Jews found refuge after being exiled from all other nations. Everyone says they understand that our people suffered – but do they understand the nature of our suffering? The centuries of slavery, being exiled from country after country, being forced from the land we settled and built with our own hands? Can anyone understand the suffering caused by watching the country you live in, though you were never able to refer to it as your own, turn its back on you and your people in your greatest time of need? Can anyone understand the suffering of having lost, to murderous anti-Semitic madmen, nearly two thirds of your population? How can anyone understand the suffering cause by millenniums worth of persecution without having lived through it? How can anyone understand the pain of knowing half the world has turned its back on you? It’s impossible to understand the suffering our nation has endured, and the saddest part is that the suffering could have been prevented. The Jews could have fought all those years ago. We could have saved all those lives. Instead, we had no way to defend ourselves because we had no nation of our own. We had no government of our own. We had no military of our own and no rights of our own. We had nothing. The only way for us to defend ourselves against the growing anti-Semitism in the world was to establish a Jewish state. The necessity for a Jewish state was realized on an international level. It was collectively decided that the territory initially belonging to the Jewish people should finally be returned to us. Not only did we need to establish a state to protect our nation, yes, we deserved one. After four millenniums of oppression, torture, exile and murder, after losing more than half our population, after countless tragedies, we were finally given what all other cultures in the world had already had for thousands of years – a nation. Reparations are standard after war. The world has been at war with the Jewish people for thousands years, and giving us our homeland, something all other people have taken for granted since the dawn of history, back is a very small attempt to undo for the enormous amount of pain the world has inflicted upon our people in the past. We do not want the Palestinians, or anyone fro that matter, to pay for our pain. We do not hold them to blame, nor do we place the blame on anyone.. We are not set out to damage Palestine in any way,. However, we must put our best interests above theirs. Britain and the United Nations chose Israel for a Jewish state because of it’s rich history of our culture. We’re already here. We have been here for fifty-six years. We have been exiled from Israel once before with the Roman invasions, from Egypt and our exile from the globe was plotted. We will not allow it to happen again. While do not hold blame, our pain can never be forgotten or consolidated. If we are to forget our pasts, if we are to ignore the pain, will be destined to endure a repeat of it. And we will not allow that to happen. We will do everything within our power to prevent further pain amongst our people. We have already suffered enough. Sunday, October 17th 2004 - 06:38:36 PM

Israel (just to clear things up because we switched roles before the whole thing started but forgot to post about it). Country: Israel People you plan to represent: Ariel Sharon (Andrea), Silvan Shalom (Rachel) Sunday, October 17th 2004 - 06:32:22 PM

Ahmed Qurei (Palestine) In the anonymous quote, it reads, “Israel must be given back to them because we owe them for the years of homelessness and division of families.” But why is it that Palestine ‘owes’ them for what the Jews have gone through in the past? Does ‘we’ represent Palestine and all of its people? Why is it that Palestine must make up for others wrongdoings? I do not think that the quote is justifiable. If Palestine were to give their land to the Jews, then wouldn’t Palestinians go through ‘years of homelessness and division of families’, just like what was said about the Jews in the quote. Then who will ‘owe’ Palestine. I believe that if the Palestinians give their land to Israel, it will cause a never-ending circle of who owes whom and who has suffered greater. Peace cannot be achieved by the satisfaction of one side, and the misery of another. As I see it, peace will only be reached through negotiations until both sides are equally content with the situation. Sunday, October 17th 2004 - 05:20:48 PM

Tony Blair (Britain) Peace usually follows war… But this is not the case with the Israel/Palestine conflict. The creation of a Palestinian state is central for my vision for peace. It is true that the Jews have suffered in the past, but they should not be granted a ‘walk in the park’ through any situation. It is unethical and unmoral to measure the extent of pain and suffering the people Israel and Palestine have experienced. Mostly, because such a topic is not viewed as who has been hurt more, and to what extents. The common goal is to reach an understanding, and a state of peace. It is the end, which we desire. A just peace in which Israelis and Palestinians live each in they’re own state, secure and able to develop and prosper. Mr. Arafat said that any peace deal should implement all existing United Nations resolutions, including UN resolutions 242 and 338, which call on Israel to withdraw from lands it occupied during the 1967 Middle East war. Freedom cannot be obtained without sacrifice Sunday, October 17th 2004 - 03:53:41 PM

Queen Elizabeth II (Britain) Based on the Middle East conflict, Britain had given Jews the right to share the land with the Palestinians, however we did not know that these two countries would be at war. British foreign secretary Lord Balfour put into writing Britain's support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." He didn't, however, suggest turning the country into a Jewish state. Although the Jews have suffered in the past, it is not something that should be presented today, for the Palestinians are not the ones to be blamed. There cannot be a comparison of who suffered more between the Jews and Palestinians. The issue today, is to prevent more violence from occurring, so in order to achieve peace, Palestine should be recognized, as a separate state and the United Nations resolution of its 242 and 338, asks Israel to withdraw from lands it occupied in the 1967 Middle East War. We must give a little, to get a little. Sunday, October 17th 2004 - 03:50:05 PM

Yasser Arafat Controllers: I wish to apologize for the lateness of this post. Ahmed and I have just returned home from camping. In spite of discredited attempts to deny the Holocaust, few people will argue with the fact that Jews have suffered much throughout history. Similarly, it is difficult to deny that they suffered without a homeland until 1948. The problem arises when one tries to compensate for this suffering today. It may seem justifiable to try and find Jewish borders than date back to Biblical times, but if historic rights are the criteria for land, who determines which period of history is used as a reference? Many people have occupied different regions in the Middle East over time; even if the Biblical record is correct, who can say who had the land before the Jews? The only principle that can be used is the one of fundamental fairness. How can it be considered fair for Jews to have a homeland, but not Palestinians? How can it be considered fair for the children of today and tomorrow to compensate for the wrongs of past generations? It feels comforting to compensate the Jews by bestowing all kinds of rights on them. It should be realized, however, that every right bestowed creates an obligation on someone else to pay the bill. If the international community wants to pay that bill, they are free to do so, but they should not expect the Palestinians to pay it in the form of sacrificed dreams, lost land, and the blood of their children. The Palestinians did not build the ghettos, concentration camps, and gas chambers. Perhaps Germany and their European allies want to sacrifice their land, aspirations, and future for the sake of the Jews. Sunday, October 17th 2004 - 03:43:42 PM

Silvan Shalom Mr. Sharon and I Feel that our people of Israel not only deserve this land, but it is rightfully ours. We won this land by the many wars we fought in the past. We see the West Bank as the biblical land of Israel and GOD gave this land to us so many years ago. It is our duty to except, protect and cherish this great gift instead of disrespecting God, by just handing it over to Palestine. Jewish people have been mistreated for so long and no amount of "help" from our allied countries will serve complete compensation. But we are not looking for compensation; we just want to establish a place to call our own. We are willing to negotiate with Palestine but it is awfully hard to negotiate with a state where their idea of getting what they want is through many terrorist acts against Israel (again results in the killings of many innocent Jews). We do not get whatever we want, all we are trying to do is KEEP what is rightfully ours Sunday, October 17th 2004 - 02:45:41 PM

Silvan Shalom Mr. Sharon and I Feel that our people of Israel not only deserve this land, but it is rightfully ours. We won this land by the many wars we fought in the past. We see the West Bank as the biblical land of Israel and God has given this land to us. It is our duty to except, protect and keep this great gift instead of disrespecting God, by just handing it over to Palestine. Jewish people have been mistreated for so long and no amount of "help" from our allied countries will serve complete compensation.But we are not looking for compensation; we just want to establish a place to call our own. We are willing to negotiate with Palestine but it is really hard to negotiate with a state where their idea of getting what they want, is through many terrorist acts against Israel (again, killing so many innocent Jews). We do not get whatever we want, all we are trying to do is KEEP what is rightfully ours Sunday, October 17th 2004 - 02:11:48 PM

Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei The same moral blindness evident in Britain's decision to kindly donate Palestine to the Jews is brought to us again. The Jews argue that without a land in which to concentrate, they will be forever the pariahs of civilization. Oh, how great their torments must be that the value of an existing country's populace is as nothing to them! The execution of six million jews has not only bought them their own country, but masses of protectors, too! Perhaps this marvelous trade could have been offered to the Russians, who spent their lands and people (twenty million and more, no less!) to secure their place of belonging. Another point of interest: The lands the Jews desired were a focal point of three holy sites; each central for a different religion. Whether the land was given to them by God is irrelevant. Do not we Muslims hold sacred Mohammed? Ever our minds are swayed by the towering single acts rather than the machinations that permit these acts to be. American President George Bush now stains the sky to the West with his hollow proclamations. The Great Satan is to monitor and police the world based upon our affinity for Jews. True Arabs, look how The Enemy revels in sowing discord. We are to believe that Christian Bush would lend moral aid to a country that worships the man who has killed his beloved Christ? My laughter is a howl on the wind, echoed by a chorus of a thousand thousand Arabs who see through the deceptions of Israel. Muslims of Palestine, know this: Mohammed has gifted me with his thoughts often of late, and has so brought to me the way with which we shall reclaim what is ours. We are told always never to lift our hand against others; and when we are struck to retaliate with equal force only. The Jews have sought to fragment us, and the Americans too back them - their aspirations are well known. The Jews have been too long from the place of their birth, for they have forgotten a vital teaching of the desert: sand does not shatter, it flows. We shall become a tide of sand, eroding the great walls they erect to divide the Middle East. We in turn shall divide the nations who stand against us. Many grains of sand shall come to rest at the base of this foul wall, but know that if you die, not once shall I, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, use your life to fight a war of sympathies. Sunday, October 17th 2004 - 04:38:49 AM

Kassad Iran Brendan: Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, Supreme and Divine Leader BJ (just B, I guess): Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati of the Guardian Council codename: Kassad Sunday, October 17th 2004 - 04:06:31 AM

Bashar al-Assad (Syria) It is true that the Jews have suffered horrible things in the past, this is undeniable. However, this does not justify what they have been doing with the Palestinian territories. Yes, they deserve a state of their own, but to obtain it through war and the suffering of others is not an acceptable way to go about it. What this boils down to is that the Israeli's justification seems to be "an eye for an eye"- We have suffered, so it's okay if we make others suffer in return for our gain. Unfortunately, that is not acceptable in the 21st century. You do not hurt someone just because someone else hurt you in the past. Although I understand and empathize with the past hardships the Israelis have gone through; their way of going about things is not beneficial to the Middle East and is causing others suffering. It will be very hard to attain peace if their only way of solving things is through war and occupation. Sunday, October 17th 2004 - 12:01:59 AM

Melnyk Hey Everyone, I hope you are all doing well! A couple of people asked me about signing the book. Once you submit, go to the book and hit refresh... your entry should then pop up... do not submit multiple times. See you Monday. All the best with Mandatory Post # 1!! Give Peace a Chance (Thanks John Lennon) Saturday, October 16th 2004 - 11:21:32 PM

France-Alviin In the Middle East conflict, we understood some main issues to justify if the should Jews get whatever they want, or whatever is biblically. The Palestinian¡¦s side had insisted that its state should own all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel in the war of 1967, including Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Israelis disagreed and pointed that Israel's security needed to require a presence in strategic parts of the West Bank and some Jewish settlements built during the years of occupation should be incorporated into Israel. The status of Jerusalem was one of the most contentious issues in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Ground zero in the dispute was a hill in Jerusalem known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif, or the Noble Sanctuary. That precious piece of real estate was believed to contain the ruins of Judaism's holiest temple, on top of which stands the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque (Islam's third-holiest site). The 1999 Camp David talks broke down in part over the issue of which side would have sovereignty over the land on which the holy sites stand. Jews were persecuted and their entire race was almost annihilated in the previous centuries, but doing the same things back to the Palestinians, would result that conflict in the Middle East will never be solved. The Jews didn¡¦t have their country until now; US helped them to re-build their country in the Middle East. Yes, they were right. They have been suffering for years, and we (Countries) should give helping hands to them. ¡§No freedom, without sacrifice.¡¨ That¡¦s why I/P (Israeli/Palestinian) have fought for thousand of years. No one should pay for this. The histories determined the fate of the Jews. Saturday, October 16th 2004 - 10:30:36 PM

Lauren and Jennie Country: Canada Name(s) (First name only): Lauren and Jennie Codename: Bacon People you plan to represent: Paul Martin (Lauren) and Bill Graham (Jennie) Friday, October 15th 2004 - 10:10:08 PM

THE CONTROLLERS Mandatory Post #1 “Jewish people have suffered for centuries. They have been oppressed , slaughtered, raped, used, imprisoned, exploited, murdered, hated, discriminated throughout history, and the hate and discrimination from the past has haunted them right through to the 21st century. They deserve a place to call there own, a place where they can establish themselves properly and build a new history, and the minor complaints from others, like the Palestinians, will be disregarded because they say that they are suffering now, they don’t understand what it means to suffer. If you take all the pain that the Jewish people have had to undergo throughout history and added it all together, it would be MUCH greater then the Palestinians ever have had to go through. Israel is their home. Israel must be given back to them because we owe them for years of homelessness and division of families. It is their, and the Palestinians have to negotiate and understand and stop being so stubborn. They have lost the right to keep and land, because they haven’t shown the international community evidence that they are putting an effort forward to establish themselves and keep control of their people. If they don’t show self -control, the desire for peace, and if they don’t stop bombing buses and buildings and killing innocent people then they will never see aid from countries like the States and Britain, and nobody will care” -- Anonymous Quote When hearing something like this, do you think that it is justifiable? Yes Jews were persecuted and their entire race was almost annihilated, but does that mean that they should get whatever they want, or whatever is “biblically” theirs now? And who should have to pay for all this pain, or should anyone? Is it a thing of the past and should it be considered exactly what it is, history? [Remember this post is due by Sunday at 12AM NO LATER] [And a revision on what was said in the classroom today, all participants of the IR simulation must submit a post for a couple reasons. 1. There might be one person in a group doing all the work, and the entire group shouldnt benefit if thats the case.] So, have a good weekend, and see all of you monday. Friday, October 15th 2004 - 03:36:02 PM

George W. Bush The United States is promoting peace through negotiations, but we realize that this is a particularly hostile period in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as Israel is currently going on the offensive, while building the defensive security barrier to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks. The United States will do what is necessary to protect Israel, and this could mean supporting them militarily, or engaging in peace talks (as we plan to during the next few weeks), depending on the situation. We believe we are supporting peace by providing Israel with arms to defend itself against war-mongering Arab nations who are bent on destroying a free and democratic country. The Prime Minister needs to realize that negotiating with terrorists only breeds more terrorism. The United States will never give in to the demands of terrorists. You cannot negotiate with someone who straps bombs to himself with the intent of destroying civilians. I believe this policy is known as appeasement, and we all know how successful that was in the 1930s. If the United States surrenders to the demands of terrorists, they will continue to make unreasonable demands. Winning the war on terror does not involve surrender. It involves going on the offensive to destroy terrorists and terrorist networks, as well as the governments that harbor and support them. This is why the United States will never support the creation of a Palestinian state unless it ceases to support and use terrorism to achieve its ends. And this is why the United States provides arms to Israel; so that their armies can defend Iarael’s civilian population by destroying terrorists. Israel is not embarking on some sort of imperialistic land-grab with these weapons; it is defending itself. Similarly, the purpose of Israel’s security fence is not random oppression of the Palestinians, but to protect Israel’s civilians. As the supporters of Israel have stated: “There would have been no need for a security fence had there not been an orchestrated campaign of terrorism that targets Israeli men, women and children. Israel's desire to protect these innocent lives provided its only motivation for establishing the Security Fence.” America is only guilty of aiding Israel in defending itself. A dead terrorist does not mean we are supporting and propagating war, it means Israeli women and children will not be killed in a suicide bombing. As for your assertions regarding the war in Iraq, you are also ignoring the evidence. America went to war to prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of the terrorists who planned the September 11th attacks, whom the Iraqi government has harbored and supported. There is clear evidence to support this, which is put together nicely for you in one paragraph by Stephen F. Hayes, in his book The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2004). And I quote: “Iraqi intelligence documents from 1992 list Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset. Numerous sources have reported a 1993 nonaggression pact between Iraq and al Qaeda. The former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence now in U.S. custody says that bin Laden asked the Iraqi regime for arms and training in a face-to-face meeting in 1994. Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer al Iraqi met with Iraqi intelligence officials in 1995. The National Security Agency intercepted telephone conversations between al Qaeda-supported Sudanese military officials and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program in 1996. Al Qaeda sent Abu Abdallah al Iraqi to Iraq for help with weapons of mass destruction in 1997. An indictment from the Clinton-era Justice Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda "weapons development" in 1998. A senior Clinton administration counterterrorism official told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had supported al Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999. An Iraqi working closely with the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur was photographed with September 11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar en route to a planning meeting for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11 attacks in 2000. Satellite photographs showed al Qaeda members in 2001 traveling en masse to a compound in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Iraqi regime. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, senior al Qaeda associate, operated openly in Baghdad and received medical attention at a regime-supported hospital in 2002. Documents discovered in postwar Iraq in 2003 reveal that Saddam's regime harbored and supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attack...” You claim that we attacked Iraq “without justification”. Iraq supported and harboured terrorists, as you can clearly see above. As for Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, the fact that stockpiles have not been found does not change our position. As David Kay (a UN inspector) reported, there is overwhelming evidence that Saddam Hussein had extensive chemical and biological weapons programs, that he made great efforts to conceal his activities from inspectors (in violation of numerous U.N. resolutions) that would let him produce weapons in the future, that facilities were built for future production, and that manpower was secretly mobilized for this purpose. His effort included work on unmanned aircraft and missiles that could attack well beyond the Iraqi borders. Despite the absence of stockpiles, Saddam Hussein’s programs were a serious threat. Presidents must make decisions based on the available evidence. If we had taken the risk and decided that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, it could have led to disastrous consequences. Action to remove Hussein, despite uncertainty, involved costs of war, yet this posed less risk than leaving Hussein in place and discovering too late that he did indeed possess chemical and biological weapons that he was known to be producing. We do not wish to run the risk of discovering we had waited too long for action. I do not believe we should wait until there is a mushroom cloud over Manhattan to conclude that there is enough evidence that Saddam is a threat and must be removed. A clear example of this choice is found in Clinton’s actions in 1996. When bin Laden was expelled from Sudan, the Clinton administration would not take custody of him. If critics of my foreign policy are correct, Clinton did the right thing in 1996, as bin Laden did not pose an “imminent” threat at the time. America waited too long to dispose of bin Laden, and bin Laden became an imminent threat before killing three thousand people on September 11th. This example clearly illustrates the hypocrisy of foreign policy critics. The responsible actions to follow when confronted by a foreign threat are to act when we can, before it is too late, before the threat becomes even more imminent. By ending Saddam Hussein’s rule, we have accomplished many things. We have put an end to any threat from any weapons of mass destruction Hussein had or has been producing. We have eliminated a regime that is one of the leading sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East. We have learned lessons from the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq, making us more capable and effective in the war on terror. Most importantly, we have ended the rule of the Arab world’s cruelest and most tyrannical ruler. We have liberated a formerly oppressed country, leading the way to a humane civil society in Iraq. No justification? Evil doers? Perhaps the international community should look at some actual evidence before making a decision on this issue. In Iraq, we have removed a dictator who could potentially have supplied terrorists with weapons of mass destruction, and oppressed the Iraqi citizens. Those are the facts. Friday, October 15th 2004 - 01:50:24 PM

Ariel Sharon After having read Fahd ibn `Abd al-`Aziz Al Faysal Al Sa`ud's attack on the United States, I find myself in a genuine state of confusion over the hipocrisy of it all. All people present during this ordeal are here for the purpose of promoting peace. Israel, Palestine, Russia, the UK, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and yes, even the US. That's the whole reasoning behind meeting here over the upcoming weeks. And surprisingly enough, all of the countries here, with no exceptions, have militaries and weapons and histories of war. Why should the United States be looked at critically for being no different than any other nation, including your own, whose military record, though unimpressive, is rather extensive. I'm also not sure if your government is aware of this or not, Mr. Prime Minister, but your country harboured and financed terrorist cells. Your country harboured and supported fifteen of the terrorists who commited the crimes against the United States on September 11th. You should be thankful the US did not hold your nation accountable for your contributions to the slaughter of 3000 innocent Americans. Instead of criticizing the American foreign policy, you should instead be thankful for it. We are clearly not here to wage war or even to justify wars that have already been waged. Our only intent is to end the ongoing conflict between our nation and the Palestinian people, and to bring a state of peace and stability to the Middle East. What has held us back from reaching peace beforehand was focusing on the past. While it is clearly of great importance due to the nature of our conflict and though it cannot and will not be dismissed by any party involved, we must attempt to focus on our future. Friday, October 15th 2004 - 01:44:09 AM

THE CONTROLLERS Hello countries of the world, and welcome. We are the Controllers, and we hope that this experience is both educational and fun. This is our online chat room, where opinions are voiced, and instead of yelling at eachother we just type a little harder. Here are some of your due dates for the following two weeks regarding your IR SIM. FIRST MADATORY POST: Posted on Friday October 15th Due Sunday October 17th, BEFORE 12AM SECOND MADATORY POST: Posted on Monday October 18th Due on Wednesday October 20th by 12am THIRD MANDATORY POST: Posted on Thursday October 21st Due on Sunday October 24 by 1 AM [there is an extension of a day and an hour for the 3rd post because your position paper is due Monday Oct 25] World Wide Rules & Laws will be sent to your country on Monday October 18th, 2004. ****Remember your costume, character, seriousness, and understanding will all come into play when being marked overall for the IR simulation. So be on your best behavior, and watch the Controllers because we are watching you (and marking)****** P.S You get extra points for taking initiative, and making the peace conference more interesting, which will go towards your fianl mark. (remember interesting doesnt mean a comedy show, or making a mockery of your country ... and your mark)(points can also be taken off for fooling around and off topic discussion) That is all for now, check for your post tomorrow, and have a good night. -THE CONTROLLERS Thursday, October 14th 2004 - 06:05:51 PM

CONTROLLERS!! [e] Hello to all the countries and welcome. The controllers welcome you to our online chat room, where instead of yelling at eachother, we just type a little harder. I would like to remind you that there will be no personal attacks at any student in the classroom at any time. We are here to have fun, learn, and achieve peace. The first madatory post will be posted Friday October 15th, 2004. The deadline for this post is on Sunday October 17th, 2004 at 12AM. [pre peace conference] Then the second post will be posted Monday,October 18th, 2004, and will be due on Wednesday October 20th, 2004 by 12AM. [post peace conference] The third and final post will be posted on Thursday October 21st, 2004, an will be due on Sunday October 24th, at 1AM. [One hour more because your position paper is due the monday, and leaving things to the last minute is international] World Wide Rules will be sent to your countries by the controllers Monday October 18th. Remember To dress up on Monday, the top three costumes during the entire IR Simulation get a special prize from the Controllers. Also, be good and suck up to the Controllers, we are marking your work you know. *winkwink* That's all for right now. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, feel free to come talk to Anna G or Christy. - THE CONTROLLERS Thursday, October 14th 2004 - 05:50:14 PM

PM/King of Saudi Arabia I'd first like to thank George W. Bush for his ignorance and failure to recognize the real issue. Lets analyze Bush's contradictions. The President says that he promotes peace yet supplies weapons to Israel. I ask other nations how this promotes peace. To me this is another example of the United States saying one thing but commiting actions that suggest another. With all this Bush still calls Kerry a flip flop thinker. Anyone recognize the irony? The president did an excellent job in citing Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton promoting peace in the Israel and Palestine conflict although the current president can't live up to or match the efforts of those presidents. Bush is in fact a dull comparison when referring to Carter and Clinton. This is directly to Bush... the 9/11 commision states that there was NO CONNECTION between 9/11 and Iraq but you refuse to listen and still attack them WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION. There seems to be much deception and manipulation when it comes to Bush and the "reason" for attacking Iraq. To the international community, you decide who are the "evil dooers." I'm sorry but suppling arms isn't in harmony with our goal and just to remind the President (if he can forget about Osama - Bin Laden then he can forget our goal), our goal is to come up with a PEACE PLAN not more terrorism between nations which the president himself claims he wants to stop. Both the Prince and I feel that Iraq wasn't justified and again is using manipulation to make it appear that his country is involved in the Israel - Palestine conflict. This is simply not the case. Perhaps President Bush will take on the role of smart and responsible government because as it currently stands, the Foreign Policy of the States just reads ignorance. - Prime Minister/ King of Saudi Arabia Thursday, October 14th 2004 - 11:33:07 AM

Shrub This is in response to Saudi Arabia’s verbal attacks and finger-pointing on Tuesday. Although America wishes to maintain the friendly relations we currently have with Saudi Arabia, I must set the record straight. I want to thank Prime Minister/King Fahd ibn `Abd al-`Aziz Al Faysal Al Sa`ud for completely wasting my time with his totally unfounded accusations. Despite listening to the Prime Minister for five minutes, without even interrupting his diatribe, I am still not entirely sure what his point was. My best interpretation of this tirade is the following: The Prime Minister is accusing the United States of concentrating our efforts in Iraq, while avoiding the issue of Israel and Palestine. The United States has been a central figure in this conflict for decades. In fact, America was the first country to recognize Israel as an independent state in 1948, something most Arab countries have refused to do. We have provided Israel with economic and military support, and continue to do so. Since 1962, we have sold military equipment to Israel; becoming its largest arms supplier shortly after the Yom Kippur War. Economic aid has been given to Israel since 1949, increasing during periods in which Israel has been forced to fight defensive wars. America has taken, and will continue to take a firm stand with Israel. We believe Israel must defend itself against terrorism, even if this involves going on the offensive, as the United States has in Afghanistan and Iraq. Furthermore, the United States has set out a clear position on the creation of a Palestinian state. The United States will support the creation of a Palestinian state only if that state is democratic, tolerant, and liberal. Palestine must also cease to support terrorism. Once these demands have been achieved, America will aid negotiations between Israel and Palestine to establish peace. Over the past three decades, the United States has exercised diplomatic efforts to promote a peaceful solution to this conflict. In 1979, U.S. President Jimmy Carter mediated during negotiations between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, which eventually led to the signing of a peace treaty, the Camp David Accord. The Camp David Accord represented significant progress in the Arab-Israeli conflict. U.S. President George H.W. Bush called the Madrid Peace Conference of 1991. Although this conference broke down, it was replaced by meetings between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators hosted by Norway, which produced the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords. The Oslo Accords did not produce any lasting peace, and in 2000, Clinton convened a peace summit between Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Despite the lack of success achieved by these talks and agreements, it is obvious that the United States is very involved in the peace process. It is ludicrous to suggest that the United States does not have a clear position or objective, or even to suggest that we are avoiding the issue. Fighting terrorism is our primary concern, whether it involves attacks on our citizens, or citizens of Israel. The Prime Minister has criticized America for intervening in Afghanistan and Iraq, but not in Israel and Palestine. There is a difference between these two situations. Israel and Iraq are different situations, involving different circumstances, and we cannot base our response to the situation in Israel on our response to the situation in Iraq. The war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq was to protect American citizens from terrorist attacks. We cannot respond in the same manner in Israel, even though we have a duty to protect citizens of Israel from terrorists. This is why we have supported Israel economically and militarily for the past four decades. America will not resort to direct military intervention unless it is absolutely necessary and we have exhausted all other options. The Saudi Prime Minister is clearly ignoring the facts. I suggest he pick up a history book or read a newspaper next time, before spouting nonsense at America. I have concluded that the purpose of the Prime Minister’s diatribe was not to challenge America’s position on this issue, but simply to hear himself speak. Wednesday, October 13th 2004 - 05:43:59 PM

Leslie and Barbara Country: USA Name(s) (First name only): Leslie and Barbara Codename: Shrub People you plan to represent: Dubya and Dick (George W. Bush and Dick Cheney) God bless America. Tuesday, October 12th 2004 - 05:49:16 PM

Sarah and Andy Sarah and Andy Country: Palestine Names: Sarah and Andy Codename: Pallies People we plan to represent: Andy - Yasser Arafat Sarah - Ahmed Qurei Friday, October 8th 2004 - 11:40:18 AM

Shayan & Arash Country - North Korea Codename - Kabob Shayan - Kim Jong-Il Dictator of North Korea Arash - Kim Il-Chol,vice chairman of the North Korea's National Defense Commission and the Minister of the People's Armed Forces Friday, October 8th 2004 - 11:24:41 AM

Billy and Brian Country: Iraq Name: Billy - Sheikh Ghazi Ajil Al-Yawar Brian - Mr. Hoshyar Mahmood Mohammed Zebari Codename: vw_vr6 Thursday, October 7th 2004 - 11:53:57 AM

Thomas, Raheem [h] Country- Saudi Arabia Codename- msssaudi Raheem- King/Prime minister (Fahd ibn `Abd al-`Aziz Al Faysal Al Sa`ud) Thomas- Prince (`Abd Allah ibn `Abd al-`Aziz Al Faysal Al Sa`ud) Thursday, October 7th 2004 - 11:25:14 AM

Sarah and Andy Country: Palestine Names: Sarah and Andy Codename: Pallies People you plan to represent: Andy - Yasser Arafat Sarah - Saeb Erekat Thursday, October 7th 2004 - 11:25:10 AM

Ceri and Ketan Country: Syria Names: Ceri & Ketan Codename: Baath People we plan to represent: Bashar al-Assad (Ceri), Mohammed Naji al-Otari (Ketan) Thursday, October 7th 2004 - 11:22:35 AM

Raheem, Thomas [h] Country: Saudi Arabia Codename: msssaudi Raheem-Prime Minister/King Thomas-Prince Thursday, October 7th 2004 - 11:22:20 AM

Rachel & Andrea Country: Israel Name(s): Rachel & Andrea Codename: Eight People you plan to represent: Ariel Sharon (Rachel) & Silvan Shalom (Andrea) Thursday, October 7th 2004 - 11:21:15 AM

Steph and Tommy S Country: Great Britain Names: Tony Blair (Tommy S) Queen Elizabeth II (Steph) Code Name: Tea Time Thursday, October 7th 2004 - 11:18:01 AM

Darryl and Alvin [e] Country - France Name - Darryl/President Jacques Chirac Alvin/Minister Dominique de Villepin Codename - ghosted Thursday, October 7th 2004 - 11:15:45 AM

Media hello! its kaitlin, kati and jenna and we are your media reps for the IR simulation, so if you have any inside info for us or need anything to be published, let us know. Our code name is Media Thursday, October 7th 2004 - 11:13:56 AM

Andrew and Scott Country - Russia Codename - Frobisher Scott - Vladimir Putin Andrew - Andrei Kortunov Thursday, October 7th 2004 - 11:11:34 AM

Raheem, Thomas [h] Thursday, October 7th 2004 - 11:10:17 AM

Melnyk Signing In... Country: Name(s) (First name only): Codename: People you plan to represent: Saturday, October 2nd 2004 - 09:16:07 PM

Melnyk [e] A few rules for the IR Chat room: 1. You will be evaluated on three mandatory posts provided by the Controllers. 2. No inappropriate comments, racial remarks or slurs will be tolerated on the chat board (these will be removed immediately). 3. All secret messages and spies must report themselves to the Controllers (all information will remain confidential). Enjoy. Saturday, October 2nd 2004 - 12:22:29 PM

|| sign | CPW4U World Politics ||