Recent Israeli actions and massacres
 

Recent Israeli actions in Palestine:

Systematic killings of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli state.

Anonymous mass graves (making it impossible to trace was was killed).

Human shields (using civilians).

The destruction of civilian infrastructure and entire neighbourhoods.

Helicopter assaults on civilian streets, preventing ambulances
from reaching the injured and dying.


The Israeli foreign secretary and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shimon Peres concurred, calling the campaign in Jenin "a massacre", in how it would be perceived. Before taking time to reply, please do read the 'Background' links. Thanks.

And still we watch.

Links:

Background:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...681625,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4391612,00.html

[Jenin massacre, UK]
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=284108
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...683098,00.html

[Jenin massacre, US]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Apr11.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...202jenin.story

Warning: This is a bit long and may jump around a bit, as various thoughts about the crisis keep coming to me as I type.

In trying to find something to do between 7 and 8 pm Eastern Time, I've become a regular watcher of "Hardball" on MSNBC. I've found it interesting how each side of the conflict spins it to make their side sound more credible, particularly Dore Gold, an adviser to Sharon. The one night, he said something to the effect of, "We are in the beginnings of a pull out as requested by President Bush." Essentially, it was Gold coming up with a different interpretation of the demand than probably most people saw it.

I've been on the Israeli government's website a lot recently too. I find some of their positions disturbing, particularly on the "right of return."

A lot of people dislike the US b/c they feel we stick our noses where they don't belong. But now, it's like we're being looked to as a savior of sorts. Strange.

I think a good way to break the ice for both sides would be to look at the commonalities of each:

--Both have been oppressed for centuries.
--Both are looking to the US to intervene.
--It is my understanding that neither devout Jews nor Muslims eat pork.

*shrugs*

How can "suicide bombings" be called "homicide bombings" when other casualties beyond the bomber do not always occur?

I was watching MSNBC earlier today...and there was talk of possibly holding Israel to the terms of the Geneva Convention, since this is apparently considered a war over there. I didn't see the term "war" mentioned on Israel's site, although the term has been used rather loosely lately.

BBC has had good coverage too...to me, it seems rather balanced.

Some of the questions that have been running through my mind (and my thoughts):

--If we immediately cut aid off to Israel, would Israel immediately pull its troops out of the Occupied Territories, thereby cementing its place as the bitch of the United States? (Possibly. But then the US would probably be accused of being anti-Semitic. Not to mention, the region is full of surprises.)

--Does the US support Israel so vigorously because the US government feels guilty about its lack of response to the plight of the Jewish people during WW2? (I'd say that's part of it.)

--If Jerusalem were divided between the two factions, would that be the deal-sealer? (Possibly...but again, the region is full of surprises.)

--Does Arafat really have any sway over the Palestinians? Could he really stop Hezbollah or Hamas? (I don't think so, and no. Even if Israel can achieve peace with Palestine, I could see Syria becoming a bigger pain. They seem the least likely to support an Arab-Israeli peace deal. But then again, Bashir Assad is not his father.)

I think Israel's current military tactics are ridiculous, and a lot of innocent people are dying. And in the end, I would say Israel is responsible to a degree for its civilians that are being killed by suicide bombers. After all, if there were no occupation, then there might not be suicide bombers.

I think I understand why a number of Palestinians are strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up. They feel this is their last opportunity to make a point...and there is nothing left to lose for them. But innocent people are being killed, not to mention the bombers themselves. The bombings only appear to make Israel more determined to keep the Palestinians under their control. The Arab world has to take a hard stance against them. Besides, isn't suicide condemned in Islam, as it is in Christianity?

(As a side note, since suicide is considered mental illness in some circles, one COULD make an argument that suicide bombers are indeed mentally ill. I don't think this is the case...but there is that possibility.)

Arafat condemned Friday's Jerusalem bombing...in Arabic. I am suspicious of Arafat, but his successor could be much worse.

As long as there is violence on both sides, there will be no respite.

Hell fucking yes i wish. Watch the arrogant motherfuckers whimper for the aid they are dependant on. The beauty of this is is that it is now completely essential to the US's National Interest to stop the confict, and tell Isreal where to get off.

That's one theory. Another theory is that we give them money so that we DO have sway with them, and without it they would have nothing to lose and no reason not to wage massive war on the entire area - a war they would win quickly and easily.

The right thing to do would be to wean them off of support over about a decade.

We have sway? The president ordered a withdraw how many times over 11 days? What happened? Where is this sway? Instead, Isreal demonstrated how a US President has no backbone - will not back up his demands. Is that sway? That is arrogance because they know we cannot stop the money flow. This, which is really common knowledge, is from The Economist of 6 Apr 2002:
Israel is addicted to that $3billion that we all but cannot stop giving them. Israel has even rechanneled US donations into military projects in direct violation (see the exposed history of their jet fighter and who was really paying for much of its developement). That 'sway' exists only in theory.

Having said that, weaning Israel off the money is the worst thing. It is a card to keep Israel in line with a responsible world community. The card can only played once - if we could only figure out how to play it. It should be played digitally - massive cutoffs or no cutoffs. Furthermore threats of using the card also have political value. But notice on 'Face the Nation' et al, blunt questions, with followup blunt questions, about playing the card are immediately quashed and sidestepped. Politicians have too many back room deals to even let a reduction in that money be discussed.

The real problem is not the money. AIPAC is a lobby easily as and probably more powerful than the NRA. It has power well beyond the less than 2% that it represents. It is an example of why so many elite in Washington want unlimited campaign bribery.

Sycamore has honestly exampled what most of the world is saying. If one has a problem with some of his points, then one should be questioning his own news sources and personal biases. We should all be very upset that the Israelis cannot even trust world news reporters into Jenin (or any other Palestinian town), or even to the Powel / Arafat conference. The latter example so characterizes Israeli fear of world knowldege that the world should be questioning everything that Israeli mainstream (extermist right wing) government says. Isreali later backed down on that Powel / Arafat restriction only because it makes routine Israeli censorship too obvious.

Isreal is so dishonest that Sharon even promised to withdraw when first orderd to by George Jr. Watch. There will never be a Sharon withdraw from the occupied territories. Sharon lies are normal. We know simply because of everything Sharon has done previously. Sharon openly lies to everyone. Why has he changed this last month?

Just from the coverup, it becomes obvious that Jenin was a massive civilian massacre. Isreal even refuses to let any of the hundreds (maybe thousand) of Palestinian bodies be returned to their relatives. Israel says it is to keep the Palestinians from having those funerals. Reality is what forensic science calls "Best Evidence". The best evidence of an Isreali massacre would be those bodies. Just like in Bosnia. Best not to let you know the truth about Jenin - as was always Sharon's history.

This is the same man who arranged the massacre of 5,000 women and children only 20 years ago in Lebanon. Massacres are routine for this man as also may have been the massacre of hundreds of captured Egyptian soldiers in 1967 - and the resulting 1.5 hour attack on the US Navy ship USS Liberty. Only one person here even suggests taking Sharon to The Hague for crimes against humanity. It raises serious questions as to how knowledgeable the American public is about this man.

Why does Israel fear the world press? Why was the greatest danger to reporters the Israeli soldier? These are disturbing questions about a democracy that has so changed - that was once an American ally - that now acts just like the man who leads it. Even Hilter was democratically elected.

<i> We have sway? The president ordered a withdraw how many times over 11 days? What happened?</i>

He said it once and clarified and repeated it when asked by reporters. But you need to get your story straight, as do I. It was your theory, which I pointed out was first advanced by the Egyptian press, that Bush gave them the green light.

If you believe the theory you advanced on Friday, you can't say on Sunday that we don't have sway.

<i>Just from the coverup, it becomes obvious that Jenin was a massive civilian massacre. Isreal even refuses to let any of the hundreds (maybe thousand) of Palestinian bodies be returned to their relatives.</i>

Israel is claiming 70 people deal at Jenin and 95% of those armed combatants. The truth? Today, we don't know, because there are still people shooting and international observers won't go in until tonight. Is it a coverup because they don't want reporters or observers in? Maybe. Today, 4/14, we don't know.

You don't know either, and you know you don't know. So why are you spinning it so early?

If you don't know details behind this quote from Sycamore's hyperlinks, then you have chosen to remain ignorant while people are massacred by American weapons.

I would bet most here would find the Guardian and Independent news story unheard of - new information. Go read, carefully, what Sycamore has hyperlinked. Much, well, for example, would never be reported by the dingbat Liza Thomas Laurie or Jim Garner on Action News - which is why so many understand so little of why the US condones, by inaction, a massacre. Do you see blood on your hands? We pay for it and support it.

Ummm...tw, I think you might be mis-attributing. Xugumad posted the hyperlinks. The only one I posted was for the Israeli government's website.

Cited erroneously as spin is what news services suggest as reasonable death numbers. Unfortunately and again, you given credibility to numbers from an extremist right wing, anti-humanity government. They are about as honest as Milosevik's Serbian claims of the Srebrenica massacre - that those dead Bosnians were combatants. At least in Srebrenica, international observers were there to dispute that claim. Sharon made sure he has no such problem.

Real world numbers start at hundreds of dead. Just from news reports already provided by Xugumad's hyperlinks - '95% were combatants' is only for the naive to believe. Only 4 were innocent civilians? Did you also believe Nixon when he said we did not invade Cambodia?

There comes a time when you must answer this. Is Sharon an honest man or is he guilty of crimes against humanity? That is basically what your dispute with anything I have posted comes down to. An honest man would have stopped believing numbers from the Israelis long ago - just as honest men in VietNam called US government reports in VietNam the 5 o'clock Follies.

Any responsible person wants reporters directly on the battlefield just as in WWII, in Vietnam, and in the Gulf War. Where armies fear reporters on the scene, historically, coverups are underway. Do the lessons of history not apply to Israel? For some reason, is Israel god's chosen people who can be trusted to provide honest facts?

We don't have facts because one fact is reported bluntly by news reporters. The most dangerous actor for a reporter on the battlefield was the Israeli soldier. Who shot and killed that Italian reporter? Who shot up the clearly marked NBC News armored car? Who keeps reporters from doing the job they do everywhere in the world? We had good reason to suspect a coverup weeks ago. It is the history of Sharon to massacre innocent civilians in major military operations and to then lie. Why then would his army fear to have reporters on scene? It does not take a genius to understand.

No spin here. That Israeli number of '95% were combatant' is equivalent to saying that Nixon was not a crook because Nixon said so. Those numbers are only reported as facts to the naive. Clearly there was a massacre in Jenin. It is simply a question of how large.

The Israeli army is commanded by a mass murder with intentions and history to violate international law, US demands, and UN resolutions. He has massacred innocent civilians previously and got away with it. Why then would Sharon ban reporters and international observers when it is normal for both to be at the battle scene? That, and the numbers you have cited, both stink of 'coverup' - if your news has been international - which means you had no time for the pathetic Channel 6 Action New or Daily News. I doubt either reported what Xugumad
cited in his hyperlinks.

We know the death figures will be high and will include many MIAs. We have multiple, independent, international news reports that Israelis are burying people in mass graves. We know the Israelis intend to have Jenin policed before international observers and reporters are let in. We know that the Israelis have done everything humanly possible to keep honest facts from reaching world news services. If the battle was as vicious as Israel claims - including Israeli use of human shields - then 1,000 dead just in a refugee camp called Jenin is a good starting number. If the reports in the Guardian, Independent, LA Times, and Washington Post are in proper perspective, then a major percentage of casulties were innocent civilians.

Shameful for giving Israeli numbers any credibility. Those numbers are the real 'spin'. Israelis are reporting honestly (cough) when their own leader has a long history of insubordination, mass murder, outrightly lying directly to George Jr. with intent to deceive, and providing dishonest numbers to the press. So are so easliy decieved as to believe it takes time for military to disengage from an invasion - only because Israel said so.

What do you call the 5 o'clock follies when numbers are provided by an extremist Israeli government? Does a different time zone change the name? Yes I am mocking anyone who would cite Sharon government numbers as facts - because history alone says otherwise - in spades. In fact, when did Sharon not lie? After all, Sharon is Likud - also the party of the petty theif Netanyahu.

<i>There comes a time when you must answer this. Is Sharon an honest man or is he guilty of crimes against humanity? That is basically what your dispute with anything I have posted comes down to. An honest man would have stopped believing numbers from the Israelis long ago - just as honest men in VietNam called US government reports in VietNam the 5 o'clock Follies. </i>

This is, I think, your problem. Having determined that Sharon is a dichead, you have decided that the entire government is not to be trusted under any circumstance. It gives you license to entirely dismiss any facts you don't like.

Which leads to the obvious question: exactly what sort of statesman do you think Arafat is that you would believe <i>his</i> information?

Since journalists have not been there, how can you trust any of the information you have?

Here's a WashPost editorial that's really swaying me. What happened the last time Israel agreed to stop a defensive occupation? It was Lebanon, two years ago... and it's where Powell is going tomorrow, to ask whether they might consider not lobbing rockets across the border at random, for no apparent reason.

Stop with the he-said-she-said of today and think of the big picture. Israel is, to the Arab world, a little practice ground where they can focus all their energies; it is, to a lot of folks in that part of the world, a place where they can gather up a lot of hate. It's a place to keep shit afire. The entire Arab world is funding the Palestinian side. And why?

Because they hate the west.

And if they are successful at exporting their approach to the world, Europe and the US would be next.

From MSNBC:

"Israel’s high court orders the Israeli military to turn over Palestinians killed in Jenin to their families for quick burial. Israel had announced it would bury the dead in mass 'enemy' graves."

I saw this on the news first before going to the site. I know it's been done in the past, but something about the original decision disturbs me. I guess it's that it would have made those that died anonymous. Not quite sure though.

Go to Charles Krauthammer's archive (the author of the editorial you linked), and read his previous articles. Some of them have titles such as 'Banish Arafat Now', and 'Arafat's Harvest of Hate', just to name a few. Reading them, it is immediately obvious that he has a <B>very</B> strong pro-Israeli agenda, and that he is on the far right of the US political spectrum.

He spends much of his time unquivocally bashing the left, and bipartisanship; in fact, he even briefly wondered why Bush even thought about cooperating with the Democrats, as bipartisanship is wrong. His rant against anti-religious liberals is truly something to behold as well.

(Including such gems as unqualifiedly and praisingly stating that "It is a tenet of conservative faith, as it were, that religion ought to have--and until relatively recently did have--an honored place in the public square.")

(He also unequivocally equates 'Islamism' with 'anti-Americanism', which is something new and interesting to many Muslims I know.)

I was most impressed with his complete condemnation of Vladimir Putin, blaming his ascension entirely on Clinton. Now that Putin and Bush seem to be bosom buddies, he has fallen remarkably quiet. But all of this was only drawn from briefly skimming his archive for five minutes. Do give yourself an hour to understand why the far right is infused with such vitriol; it's good reading.

His archive is linked at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...hammercharles/

People would instantly jump and attack a column by, say, Hillary Clinton; it is necessary to understand where the author is coming from. In Krauthammer's case, it is the far right of the political spectrum. As is the case with all extremes, his vision is impaired, the same way that a Communist's view of politics would be channelled through his own ideological framework. (Interestingly, Krauthammer was briefly a speechwriter for Walter Mondale in 1980.)

As a complete aside, Charles Krauthammer is one of the star columnists of the Jewish World Review. Of course this has nothing to do with his fervent pro-Zionist views.

Something to think about, if nothing else.

X.

Huh. Good point.

But is he lying about the rockets?

I'm not certain which part of the article linked you are referring to, so let's address the critical parts separately:

Krauthammer (CK) writes that...

<I>Hezbollah is armed with 8,000 Katyusha rockets.</I>

CK has no way of knowing this, unless he has privileged access to either US intelligence satellite data or an agent inside the Hezbollah. Thus, the mostly likely source for that precise data (note how he doesn't even claim 'approximately', he specifies exact numbers) is Israeli data. Without wanting to call them liars, it is only in their best interest to vastly exaggerate the danger and capabilities of their opponents. CK is basically reading off a press statement straight from the Knesset.

Naturally, the Hezbollah were sponsored in the past by the USSR, to fight America's ally, Israel. Katyusha rockets are Russian-made; we can see eerie parallels to the US Stinger-missile armed Afghan forces. So yes, of course the Hezbollah have rockets, and they want to fire them at the Israeli troops who they think are occupying their territories. They are guerilla fighters, and some of them are terrorists. Will they fire them at Haifa or other population centers? Probably not - their main beef is with the army, much closer, and a much more convenient enemy to fight.

<I>
Syria could not withstand such an Israeli attack conventionally. It might then launch its missiles equipped with chemical weapons into Israeli cities. And that could trigger Armageddon. Israel was established so that never again would the gassing of Jews be permitted.
</I>

This is where it gets interesting. We leave logic behind and switch into emotional pleading mode. We invoke the image of the holocaust, but not even as the abstract entity, but rather specifically 'gassing of Jews', as the humane, approachable image. We emphasize that the whole purpose of the state of Israel is to avoid gassing of Jews (which is patent nonsense, the Balfour declaration, Zionist movement, and steps to establish a Jewish state are much older than that), thus showing us the supposed gravity and threat of the situation.

Oh my.

We are of course ignoring the fact that Syria using chemical weapons is an entirely hypothetical scenario that we have no reason to believe would be true. Whatever they might be, the Syrian leadership isn't made of complete imbeciles. Israel is a nuclear power. Striking the focal Israeli population centers would be suicidal, and not even in a good, 'dying-for-Allah' way of suicide, either. The most commonly invoked chemical weapons spectre was Iraq, and did the Iraqi ever launch any chemical weapons at either Israel or the US troops, even when a far superior army to that of Israel was invading the Iraqi homeland?

Hell no. And the Iraqi leadership was a lot more radical than the Syrians.

<I>
Western observers totally missed the irony of the Arab summit whose "Saudi peace plan" ostensibly offered Israel peace in return for full territorial withdrawal.
</I>

Western observers totally missed any willingness to compromise on the Israeli side. The deal was full recognition of Israel as a state from its Arab neighbours. This would be a first, incredibly important step. It's been obvious for more than two decades that a land-for-recognition deal is the only viable solution.

<I>
Look at Lebanon, where Israel gave up a defensive occupation and is now looking squarely in the face of Armageddon.
</I>

The hyperbole is so thick that he is practically frothing at the mouth. Israel is looking at Armageddon because it's struggling for survival. I feel very deep sympathy for the Israeli people, but the Arabs aren't going to go away, they've been there for entirely too long. Persecuting and murdering them at every turn isn't going to work, that's state-sponsored terrorism. Israel, as a supposedly democratic state with the US as its backer, ought to be able to come up with a better solution than the one described in my thread-starting post. A land-for-recognition deal must be the first step.

X.

<a href="http://rense.com/general24/jeninslaughterhouse.htm">Read this</a>.

No, what I meant to ask with "Is he lying about the rockets?" was "Are you saying that guerillas are not lobbing rockets into Israel from land that Israel previously occupied for twenty years so that nobody would lob rockets into their nation?" How many rockets they currently have is not really at issue. If they want more, all they need to do is ask Iran, Iraq, or Syria.

Regarding Iraq's enormous sense of restraint (!), I <i>don't know</i> whether they used any chemical weapons. Do you? It is one possible explanation of the "Iraqi War Syndrome". Do you believe that they did NOT use such weapons against their own people? Did you believe that the Iraqi war propaganda showing "Baby Milk Factory" in English on the backs of Iraqi workers' uniforms was evidence that they were really producing "Baby Milk"? Why did they throw out the weapons inspectors, at the price of sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands? Because they didn't like their shoes? Do you believe that Iraq's seeming lack of use of such weapons in a 1991 war is indicative of their good faith against using them in 2002? Is it possible a month of preliminary strikes prevented them from employing defensive weapons effectively? Do you own a gas mask?

By the way, you've convinced me about Krauthammer, but your "read this" source is also alarmed about the NASA cover-up of chemtrails, details the most recent UFO sightings, and has an update on the face on Mars. And sells CHI machine "brain tuners" on its front page. You might have missed this. HTH.

Meanwhile, it took Arafat ONE DAY to go back on his "commitment" against suicide bombing. I'm not impressed.

I feel like I should clarify where I stand on all of this... I do believe that Sharon is a dichead and war criminal. I do believe that the visit to the Temple Mount was intended to incite. (I also believe that, when someone is trying to incite you, becoming incited is really, really dumb. I don't believe that a visit to a piece of land should incite anyone to anything.)

I believe that there is not one speck of sense amongst the leadership of either side, and that whomever wrote the rules of engagement of the current invasion is an idiot and is also possibly a war criminal.

I believe that I do not have adequate understanding of the current situation to definitely claim anything. Individual facts come at me and I react with what I think makes sense.

I believe that the real reason for the clashes is racist and cultural. I believe there is racism on both sides. I believe the only reason the Palestinians find occupation demeaning now is because they are offended by the religion and race of the forces that occupy them. I believe that religion and race are not reasons to be offended.

Sharon has proven himself to be a dichead extraordinare. There is no doubt about his history over generations. I did not 'determine' that. Sharon has proven himself to be that dishonorable. What he is and what I have posted are irrefutible facts.

Sharon represents what has changed in Israel. When right wing extremists suddenly feared loss of the occupied territories, then a facade was removed. They remember the humiliation of peace with Egypt - and the removal of Sinai settlements. Never again. Outright racism has replaced the "ohh poor Israel has so much to fear" lie. We need only look at the Nightline Town meeting or listen the extremist 'preaching' by Ed Koch on Bloomsberg radio every weekend to see how suddenly racist and outright 'cold war' lies are being promoted. Ed Koch was an honest man. But with a new reality for the occupied territories, even Ed Koch sounds like a "Twana Brawley was raped" Al Sharpton.

Was the Barak - Arafat deal in Camp David an honest deal? Of course not because it was not complete. It suffered from the same problems with previous agreements - too many holes that an extremist Likud government would obviously utilitize to destroy the deal. The Guardian only gives another reason why the deal was unworkable. However you would not know those facts if limited to domestic news sources. Furthermore, Barak did not have Rabin's advantage. The right wing then was not yet so militant - so fearful of what is absolutely necessary to create regional peace. The right wing Likud party was not yet ready to demonstrate how racist they were.

After Oslo, Israel changed. The right wing rose up to grab power and to promote racist actions. Israel is now considered one of the world's most racist nations. This from Amensty International and from the UN Conference on Racism that convened in South Africa. Virtually the entire world considers this new Israel to be a government of racists. Racists, especially when criticized by 90+% of the world, become defensive and lie more often. We have that with the current Israeli government - outright lying in the Sharon tradition.

And so we have the rediculous number - 95% of all killed were combatants. Yes, they lived on the same block as combatants and therefore they too must have been combatants? Put this spin on it and a lie can be turned into truth? This Likud government has no credibility in the world. It exists, in part, because its members advocated the murder of an Israeli Prime Minister. A man killed because he moved in the only direction possible for peace.

Isreal will always fear enemies, real and imaginery, as long as Israeli settlements exist in the occupied territories. But extremist right wing, anti-humanity Israelis cannot even be honest enogh to admit their agenda - the total annexation of all occupied territories and ethnic cleansing therein. Tell me that is or is not Sharon's agenda. Tell me that the Likud government is not racist, and wants to annex the occupied territories.

This from Andy Rooney on 14 Apr 2002 Sixty Minutes:
A comment based upon facts and the history of Prime Minister dichead.

Originally posted by Undertoad

Regarding Iraq's enormous sense of restraint (!), I <i>don't know</i> whether they used any chemical weapons. Do you?

Yes, I do know. Note how I referring to using chemical weapons against Israeli civilian population centers. They used C-weapons against the Kurds in northern Iraq, before and after the Gulf War, yes. They did not use any against Israel, as they'd threatened to. That's what I'm talking about. (see my reference to Haifa) They weren't stupid. If they'd gassed Tel Aviv, Israel would have wiped Baghdad off the face of the planet.


It is one possible explanation of the "Iraqi War Syndrome".

It is. The more likely explanation is that US soldiers were given a number of chemical agents prior to going to the Gulf, partly to immunize and strengthen them against potential chemical attacks. Many of those preventive measures had not undergone any long-term testing of any sort. This is the most likely current explanation, but since the US government is refusing to admit that Gulf War Syndrome even exists (malformed babies and radically increased occurences of cancer apparently don't suffice), it's difficult to do any real research.



Do you believe that they did NOT use such weapons against their own people? Did you believe that the Iraqi war propaganda showing "Baby Milk Factory" in English on the backs of Iraqi workers' uniforms was evidence that they were really producing "Baby Milk"?

They did use chemical weapons against the Kurd minorities, sure. I was talking about using those weapons offensively against population centers.



Do you believe that Iraq's seeming lack of use of such weapons in a 1991 war is indicative of their good faith against using them in 2002?

Yes. Remember George's 'we will use nukes whenever we feel like it' policy change? Remember that Sharon is in power now? It's actually much less likely that Iraq would use chemical weapons now, unless Saddam suddenly turned both suicidal and incredibly desperatel whilst he's a murderous totalitarian dictator, he probably isn't either of the others above.



Is it possible a month of preliminary strikes prevented them from employing defensive weapons effectively? Do you own a gas mask?

Yes. Scud missiles did fly against Israeli population centers, and hit. None of them had a chemical payload. Iraqi sources (defectors) have in the past indicated that those had been removed on purpose.
And no, I don't own a gas mask, or a gun, or any other type of offensive or defensive weapon or device.


By the way, you've convinced me about Krauthammer, but your "read this" source is also alarmed about the NASA cover-up of chemtrails, details the most recent UFO sightings, and has an update on the face on Mars. And sells CHI machine "brain tuners" on its front page. You might have missed this. HTH.

The 'read this' link was an article from the British broadsheet The Independent. (see link at the bottom of the article). I linked it from that site because it's a nice, speedy mirror that doesn't frame the article in 20 frames and doesn't pop up any windows.
(and it's easier to read font-wise, as well) I didn't check the rest of the site for 'dubious' material; The Cellar has stories about dhamsaic's ass - I would hope that doesn't invalidate the political discussion we're engaging in :-)

If you prefer, go to the original link:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=284823


X.

But more details make things interesting. Those details change all perspective. When Clinton was 'short' and pushing Arafat to settle for a bad deal (Camp David and Wye Plantation), and when Barak knew his time was limited, quietly, low level diplomats met, productively, in Taba, Egypt. No leaders tied to political agendas. This was discussion about peace, security, and the technical realities of regional life.

Unfortunately, two things happened. 1) Extremists replaced Barak. 2)Israeli extremists want annexation - thereby canceling or even making everything in Taba impossible. Sharon's agenda is annexation of the occupied territories - made obvious in how he has even openly annexed Palestinian lands negotiated in Taba. Taba is described in this week's (13 Apr 2002) The Economist which includes detailed maps, or at:
http://www.economist.com/displayStor...1%21%20%20L%0A
This is what Sharon had to stop. This could have resulted in a final peace settlement.

The Economist continues with information not known to most Americans. Again, I complain about how the US public remains ignorant as Liza Thomas Laurie and Jim Gardner - while maintaining emotional opinions. For example, I suspect most here have heard of Har Homa only from a previous 'The Cellar' post - and not from their domestic news sources. Har Homa has long been center to news of Jerusalem. But how many ever heard of Taba? Did you know how close the little people came to a final and lasting settlement?

Mass murder extremists could not let peace happen. When peace was visible, then extremists openly called for and got the murder Rabin. When peace was visible, those same extremists restarted the Intafada. Sharon's desecration of Temple Mount was not the only action that restarted the Intafada - it was just the only incident that was reported by most American news. However 60 Minutes also demonstrated how Jewish extremists would march though Arab neighborhoods on Muslim Sabbath banging pots and pans - as but one example of how to create violence. Land outrightly stolen for access roads to extremist right wing Israeli West Bank settlements (I believe that was NBC News). Death by one billion pin pricks, almost none reported in America, is akin to outright military attack without the corresponding TV pictures. Those are the same reasons why Colonials signed a Declaration of Independence and then conducted a terrorist campaign against the British (and why British signed up Indians to do same against the Colonials).

In short, Sharon got exactly what he wanted - all negotiations quashed because the alternative was no annexation of occupied territories. Bottom line: Annexation, including ethnic cleansing, is the objective of Israeli extermists - even if it means never having peace.

Right wing extremists will do anything, incite any violence, blame anyone else, even lie outright, and 'finger fly' to a direct order by a US President - in order to make annexation a de facto reality.

Did you know about Taba? To understand this conflict, one must appreciate reams of details. To appreciate who is guilty, one must have known about Taba. Instead most Americans have the Daily News / Channel 6 Action New / Hardcopy version.

I read a Philly Daily News article and reach a conclusion. Then read the same story in the Inky that provided the details. Because of those details, I reach a 100% different conclusion. The Daily News outright lied by telling half truths. Details of the Middle East demonstrate one thing. All conflicts would have been resolved if extremists - instead of Rabin - were massacred. One extremist group with a plan to intentionally destroy any peace process is Likud. The man with that plan of destruction is Sharon. The violence we have today was explicitly part of his strategy. The current violence is trivial compared to Sharon's past mass murders. Sharon had to escalate violence because things like Camp David, Wye Plantation, Oslo Accords, Madrid, and Taba were his enemy.

Sharon's strategic objective is the annexation of all occupied territories. That fact makes every Sharon response predictable. After every news story, ask yourself, what will Sharon do next?

Middle East peace will never happen if Palestine is not a sovereign and independent nation. IOW someone or something has to kill Sharon - or thousands of Israelis must die in numbers equal to or greater than dead Palestinians. It is a lesson of history. When extremists drive all moderates into extremist positions, then only massive death rates can bring sanity back to any negotiation table.

BTW, that is the purpose of war - to return negotiation to the table. Terrorism is war just as guerilla attacks and saturation bombing of cities (the US and UK in WWII).

I hope Colin Powell fails miserably. He cannot be successful enough to do anything but prolong the existing, painful situation. A ceasefire without concrete settlements and negotiations is counterproductive. Sharon will never negotiate when his only intention is to annex the occupied territories.

Either a fully independent Palestine is created, or the violence must escalate in numbers sufficient to drive intelligent people back out of extremist mindsets. Without the outright murder of Sharon, then the only other alternative is daily terrrorism that makes current death rates pale. Ironically, violence is the only path remaining for peace because most intelligent people (the moderates from both sides) are now working for rather than condeming the extremists.

The sooner we have massive deaths on both sides, then the easier it will be to settle peacefully. Ironic? Cold-blooded? Heartless? Callous? Maybe. But then emotion was never part of my analysis. My bottom line is a sincere and lasting peaceful settlement. There is no place for emotion in understanding the Israeli - Palestinian conflict.

Well, the UN envoy was just on CNN, I didn't catch his name, and here are the facts about what he said. Since this will be spun every which way...

He said it was horrifying, a disaster. He talked about mostly the smell of the bodies. He talked about seeing a 12-year-old boy dead in the rubble. Talked about family members trying to remove bodies. Said the town looked in places like it had been hit by an earthquake.

Asked directly whether he could determine whether it was, as the Palestines say, a masscre of innocents -- or, as the Israelis say, massive firefights in door-to-door conflict -- he said that he <i>could not determine that</i>. He asked for a further investigation to determine the truth of the matter.

So we STILL don't know what is closer to the truth.

I assume you are not referring to Kofi Anon, Secretary General of the UN. Last week's call for an international peace force to separate Israelis and Palestinians is a first from the UN. The Europeans were demanding same - about when - end of last year?

Colin Powell's trip was such a disaster that the President of Egypt suddenly and quite bluntly cancels scheduled talks with Powell without any reason as Powell arrived. It is how a country declares an envoy as irrelevant. Powell was made to look like a buffon on this trip. Powell's resignation is a possiblity - not likely - but clearly possible in the near future.

A former member of the National Security Council (now a VA professor - name forgotten) noted (on a PBS radio news show?) that White House 'zig-zagging' helped undermine Powell. First the White House put full support behind Powell, then started undermining Powell's position after Powell left Washington and while he was wandering the Med. I swear, White House opinion changes constantly depending on who last met with the President. It really makes one wonder who is making decisions in that White House. As tough talking as Condalezza Rice sounds, I don't think she pulls any strings.

You can appreciate how furious Arafat was after his last meeting with Powell. Arafat was told that he was the problem - he was the first step to creating a ceasefire. Ironically BBC analysts put up that same list except listing total Israeli withdraw from all Palestinian areas as step one. BBC says without full Israeli withdraw, then no other steps for peace are possible.

ABC News also stated bluntly, by example. They iterated how the Israelis broke into the PA Education ministry demanding that Ministry employees, used as human shields, demonstrate there were no armed Palestinians in the building. Then, as ABC News stated it, "next they went after the computers". ABC stated it that bluntly. Israeli soldiers destroyed all Education ministry computers because computers "were being used for terrorist activities". Then Israelis broke into the safe and stole all canceled checks and $8,500 of petty cash. ABC News demonstrated that Israeli objectives are to destroy all Palestinian infastructure. That is consistent with destruction of sewers, water mains, and electric lines. That is consistent with the raid to destroy the Palestinian Census bureau (that was provided by the EU). That is consistent with the destruction of local PA TV broadcast studio and transmitter equipment. Israel's invasion was another step in ethnic cleansing. Does Powell understand that? He can't be that naive as to not see any of this.

No matter what kind of spin we have from the White House:
1) George Jr ordered an Israeli withdraw, was humiliated internationally by Sharon, and is now trying to make it appear as if Sharon did not mock George Jr.
2) The Powell mission was a total waste of time, in part, because the White House is in denial of Sharon's objectives - the total annexation of the occupied territories - and because the Executive Branch is deeply divided between Powell moderates and Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz extremists.
3) OPEC will not use oil as a weapon this time unless the number of OPEC nations can cut off more oil than Saudi and Kuwait capacity can make up for. At least that is the word from Saudia Arabia now. Saudis and Kuwaitis can make up for up to four other OPEC nations. But if more join a boycott, then a 1973/1979/1992 type oil crisis is inevitable.
4) Any talk of a unilateral attack on Iraq - the Bush doctrine of eliminating three 'axises of evil' - is no longer coming from the White House. Maybe the White House has finally heard what the entire world has has been saying for months. Maybe they just did not believe that Cheney was told this by everyone? Denial by right wing George Jr extremists?

I just cannot believe the White House does not hear what every Arab and European nation and the UN Secretary General is saying. BTW, many and maybe most Americans also have not been hearing those words.

An Egyptian english-language publication for Egyptians and Arabs has an article about a Jenin fighter who talks in great detail about their plans during the month before the invasion.

http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2002/582/6inv2.htm

If it's true, it explains an awful lot. If it's true, this was no massacre. <i>IF</i> it's true. And that's hard to know.

A key excerpt:

"Of all the fighters in the West Bank we were the best prepared," he says. "We started working on our plan: to trap the invading soldiers and blow them up from the moment the Israeli tanks pulled out of Jenin last month."

Omar and other "engineers" made hundreds of explosive devices and carefully chose their locations.

"We had more than 50 houses booby-trapped around the camp. We chose old and empty buildings and the houses of men who were wanted by Israel because we knew the soldiers would search for them," he said.

"We cut off lengths of mains water pipes and packed them with explosives and nails. Then we placed them about four metres apart throughout the houses -- in cupboards, under sinks, in sofas."

The fighters hoped to disable the Israeli army's tanks with much more powerful bombs placed inside rubbish bins on the street. More explosives were hidden inside the cars of Jenin's most wanted men.

Connected by wires, the bombs were set off remotely, triggered by the current from a car battery.

This NYTimes story tells more of the story of the Jenin booby traps: they're still there.

The story tells of several people who have been hurt by explosions from booby traps.

That, in turn, says that when the Israelis disallowed journalists and humanitarian workers because conditions were too dangerous, they weren't lying after all.

Interesting.

Bush reactions etc.
 

There's an interesting story regarding Bush's (re)actions to the whole issue. I posted it in another thread, but since it's so closely linked, I am posting a link to it right here..

http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?threadid=1360

Link:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?u=/.../79/1fclt.html

I stumbled across this article linked to a libertarian website. It's an eyewitness account of the situation on Bethlehem.

http://www.hcef.org/news/news/newsvi...621&nType=News

This is the part I found interesting...


"There are more than 300 people inside the nativity church which is under siege for more than 18 days now. Among them are families with their children, priests, nuns and some security guards."


Most reports I've seen fail to mention any noncombatants other than the priests.

The official story is that, if the folks involved are not on the terrorist list, they can come out whenever they like.

And yesterday 5 guys came out, were held overnight, and released. A few days ago a kid came out because (according to him) he was hungry and bored.

But if all the innocents leave, the rest of them face a different sort of firefight, and so I'm sure that the women and children still there are being "encouraged" to stay.

"Encouraged" as in you'll be seen as pro-Israeli if you leave, and we all know what happens if you're pro-Israeli:we had an image of the day that showed it. You get strung up.

And stabbed. And shot at. All sorts of wonderful things.

Tell that to Palestinian policemen, not terrorists, who early on sought refuge in the church. Long ago when the invasion of Palestine began, Israelis captured five Palestinian policemen and executed them with shots to the side of the head. Is this true? It was reported as accurate from a western news service. But does truth even matter? Those Palestinian policemen saw Israelis previously murder other comrades (before the invasion) only because they were Palestinian policemen. Now one from The Cellar will tell those policemen that it is safe to leave the church? Who are they going to believe? History, or the word of Israelis commanded by Ariel Sharon?

I cannot blame any Palestinian for staying inside that church - regardless of what they have done previously. Just down the street from Arafat is an American woman whose carpets were pissed on by Israeli troops after she claimed to be American. There is nothing trustworthy or honorable about current Israeli thugs because they are commanded by and reflect the attitudes of the mass murder and now outright "liar directly in the face of George Jr" - Ariel Sharon.

Lets keep this in perspective. Anywhere that an Israeli soldier goes, a war correspondent must be permitted - as is standard in wars far more danageous. War correspondents and their resulting honesty are historically the enemy of Ariel Sharon. But some would claim, despite facts, that Palestine is too dangerous for war correspondents. True. Israelis were doing most shooting at correspondents. Only Israelis killed war correspondents. Israelis openly shot up the NBC News amored car knowing full well who was in it. The only significant threat to war correspondents were the attitude of Sharon and the actions of his thugs - soldiers that are racists.

It is not too dangerous to keep Palestinian women and children trapped in the same 'too dangerous' location? Of course. To many Israeli commanders, all Palestinians are the enemy - even though reality says otherwise. Israelis fear to have journalists see facts until the battlefield has been sanitized - as demonstrated by comments from a Norwegian observer. And so The Ecomomist notes of a building, being used for dead bodies, then collapsed by Israeli D-9s. The Israelis were reported removing the bodies. Why? Is it really too dangerous for war correspondents - or too dangerous for Israel if the world sees evidence of a massacre?

Israel lists something like 48 Palestinians dead in Jenin. However, testimonies I have read in so many western publications - each event clearly different - amounts to about the same number. Have I read of every Palestinian death? And were so many of those women and children part of the 95% who were combatants - as Israel claims?

One thing is clear. Information from the Israeli side has no credibility unless it can be independently verified. This is what has changed with the election of a dichead. Israel is not just a racist nation. Its government statements are no longer credible. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management - which is why it is not safe for any Palestinian to leave that church without an international escort - of war correspondents.

Remember those war correspondents - people with so much credibility that Israel's Likud government fears them.

Natalie "Queen Amidala Portman" Hershlag on Israel/Palestine
 

So Natalie Hershlag, better known as Natalie Portman, even better known as 'Queen Amidala', Harvard Student, 1988 immigrant from Israel, and apparently middle-east scholar extraordinaire, writes <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=205143">this</a> to the Harvard Crimson, in response to an article claiming that the Israelis are instituting a sort of Apartheid regarding the Palestinians.

Without wanting to claim whether or not she is correct, the following passage is most interesting:

"At one point, Chaudhry even compares the situation to apartheid. This is a distortion of the fact that most Israelis and Palestinians are indistinguishable physically."

That's true, but it's also a distortion of the fact that the perceived persecution is religious, and only to a certain point racial. Or is it? israeli Muslims and Eastern Orthodox Israelis (a minority, to be sure), have spoken of persecution and aggression in the past. What is the true motivation behind that - is it racial, religious, or an inextricably linked amalgamation of the two?

X.


Links:
Washington Post <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13965-2002Apr19.html">article</a> regarding the issue
Harvard Crimson <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=205143">letter</a> written by Natalie Hershlag/Portman (who asked the Post not to mention her actual family name, which is well-known on the Harvard campus)

NY Daily News says:The AP reports:Some serious fecal matter is going to hit the wind-generating device. I recommend investments in precious metals and keeping your car full of gas. In fact, keep a few gallons in the garage too.

OT I know, but..
 

Having determined that Sharon is a dichead, you have decided that the entire government is not to be trusted under any circumstance

I alway though that dichead was spelled with a k..

I.E. your head is like a dick.

I'm not a gramer nazi by any means I am just interested..is this an Americanism or a net convention I don't know about.

anyhow.. Sharon is a dickhead

... and Jimmy Carter throws his hat in the ring.
 

Jimmy Carter made a very well-reasoned proposal; have a read in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/21/opinion/21CART.html">New York Times</a>.

Free registration required, or bypass that registration process right <a href="http://www.majcher.com/nytview.html">here</a>.

Interesting points:

* UN Resolution 242 (withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian lands in exchange for full acceptance of Israel and Israel's right to live in peace) was accepted in 1978 by Prime Minister Menachem Begin and ratified by the Israeli Knesset.

* The US is giving Israel $10million every DAY. (That's only official financial aid, of course, exempting all military assistance...)

* Normal diplomatic efforts have failed. It is time for the United States, as the sole recognized intermediary, to consider more forceful action for peace. The rest of the world will welcome this leadership.

Is he right?

X.

tw wrote it that way, and I've been following him for fun. Sharon is a dickhead and a dichead.

It's amazing. Carter is more popular and respected now than he probably was when President.

First, is there a way that we can actually find out whether Israel used American weapons in Jenin?

This op-ed was just mentioned on Hardball tonight. I believe a man from the New York Sun was saying that we cannot stop aid to Israel b/c they are our ally in the War on Terror. I guess he does have one point--Israel is probably our only unconditional ally...besides maybe Britain (and now that we've probably pissed off a lot of Canadians).

Of course, I'm all for it--dry 'em out. If we DID do that, we would probably be labeled "anti-semitic." I could live with that...let 'em believe what they want. But IMO, I don't know if peace is truly possible anymore without using such a forceful tactic.

I don't think I'd call Israel an unconditional ally. As the world is presently arranging itself, Britain and Canada are our allies (hopefully conditional) and Israel is a client state. Israel has been using a lot of resources spying in and on the US, which is fine, they need to take care of themselves first, living as they do on the edge of destruction. However, I think we need to remember that this precludes them from ever being true allies of the US. They will work with us if its in their interest, as in the Gulf War, but they are in no position to follow our lead without condition. We could only wish our leaders would similiarly put america first (to use a loaded phrase).

As far as american weapons go, you'd have to pop over to Janes for confirmation but since much of our financial aid to Israel is predicated on them using using the money on US weapons systems, I'd assume that almost everything used in the Jenin assault was Made in USA and paid for by you and me. There is a growing movement of folks withholding their tax payments in protest and one organization I've read about is using the interest on accounts holding these withheld payments to pay for charity work in countries our taxes destroy.

This "anti-semitic" business has become quite an effective weapon in the US. I'd say that a lot of the conservative Republican support for Israel, when not related to wacko end-times religion, is based in fear of the label. I don't think you necessarily despise your Jewish neighbors if you see Sharon as a dic. (Maybe we should have a cellar glossary with prefered spellings) There is dark humor in this situation if you look in the right places. Have you seen Hillary repositioning herself? hilarious
Of course this has the potential of blowing up in my face this summer on our family vacation.... but of course I'd never say anything provocative. ;)

Re: ... and Jimmy Carter throws his hat in the ring.
 

And since there isn't any pro quo to that quid, it's a dead letter. If Israel were to pull back all troops and all settlers to its 1967 boundaries would the Arab world

a) Accept that Israel had a right to exist and leave them in peace if not harmony or

b) Use their now-stronger tactical position to continue launching both terroristic and conventional attacks against Israel?

Hint: anyone that believes a) probably also believes in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

What forceful action, specifically?

Well... we could start by suspending financial assistance and loan guarantees to the Israelis. That'd get their attention.

Re: Re: ... and Jimmy Carter throws his hat in the ring.
 

Seeing how 'a' was the whole point of the Saudi peace plan proposed by the Arab League a few weeks ago - which was ridiculed and flat out rejected without discussion by Israel - you just proved the point.

You can of course sit there and continue to claim that Israel needs to butcher people to ensure its security. That's fine. That's the attitude that is condemning the Middle East to permanent warfare and murder.

After all, that's exactly how to protect yourself from having your enemies hate you and intensify their war against you: fight as viciously as you can.

No offense, but this is fallacious. There is a sizeable (VERY sizeable) majority in the Arab world that is VERY keen on a peaceful return to the 1967 borders. Sure, many of them do want to see Israel and the Jews destroyed - but only because they are occupying the lands the Palestinians see as rightfully theirs. Without the USSR fighting an ideological war, supplying the Arabs with weapons and intelligence data, the Arabs are ludicrously outclassed in terms of military ability; everybody knows this. Once the major issue is settled, there are many different ways to ensure security, first and foremost being the stationing of UN troops in the area, second being that of a heavily secured border, many other alternatives coming to mind. The problem is that Conservative Israelis refuse to give up what they believe is rightfully their ancestral holy homeland, including Jerusalem. That's why this is going on: the more they aggravate the Palestinians, the more radical the Palestinians will get (out of sheer desperation), and the more publicity Israel will get as the US media publishes images of the horrific 'homicide bombings' every day.

When Israel launches a major 'anti-terrorist' offensive, and refuses to allow the press to see what's actually going on, the people who had to see the images of the 'homicide bombings' will nod and say 'Good for them. The Israelis aren't putting up with this violent Muslim shit anymore. First the Romans, then the Nazis, then the Muslims. Enough is enough!'

This is so absurd.

X.

Re: Re: Re: ... and Jimmy Carter throws his hat in the ring.
 

All that proves is that Israel doesn't believe in the tooth fairy.

It's a bad alternative, but it beats surrendering any day of the week. Certainly Israel has often fought in counterproductive ways, but to just hand over everything in exchange for a promise which won't be honored would be more counterproductive.

Re: Re: Re: Re: ... and Jimmy Carter throws his hat in the ring.
 

You didn't actually provide any sources, arguments, evidence, or proof that this would clearly be how the Palestinians would act.

I argued that since the results of implementing UN Resolution 242 is what the vast majority of Palestinians want, and what the cause of their suicidal struggle is, they would become significantly less radical and less willing to sacrifice their homeland and lives again since they would have achieved their primary objective. The vast majority of Palestinians are only radicalized because they believe that Israel is unjustly occupying their homeland; the radicals would be marginalized if they regained what they believe is their. Sure, some would continue to fight for the removal of all Jews from the Middle East, but for most Palestinians this would be sufficient reason to - if necessary, violently - oppress those radical minorities as to not risk the greater achievement.

This not without precedent: the moderate Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland started attacking and often brutally oppressing the more radical and violent splinter groups and individuals in Northern Ireland in the late 1990s in order to prevent those radicals from risking the achievements of the IRA/Sinn Fein that have given them a lot of concessions (including the setting free of many convicted IRA members).

Or, to be very clear: the small radical splinter groups will be suppressed by the majority, if necessary by death. The majority will be silent and support the moderates, since risking the achievement (the reclaiming of the West Bank) would be a return to 35+ years of misery and desperation that led the Palestinian people to disaster after disaster.

That was my point. I believe I have reasoned it through fairly logically and provided backup from previous similar situations. Could you please point out flaws in the argument rather than invoking the tooth fairy, please?


Why would implementing an UN resolution seeking to bring peace to the region be surrender? Why is this 'handing over everything', when handing over some land for - perceivably - peace is the best home for peace in the Middle East? How can you know it won't be honoured when the Arab League is unanimously backing it, knowing that Israel and the US' wrath if not kept would be devastating? You argue that it wouldn't be kept - in the longer statement above I tried to demonstrate how it is in the best interest of the Palestinians to keep it. Again - could you please point out where I'm wrong? I have studied the region in some depth as part of a postgraduate University course; I am genuinely interested to see if there is any better hope for peace, since the fairly unanimous belief of Political Science at this point is that a land-for-peace deal, under whatever details (and necessary, probably military, protection), is the only realistic hope for the Middle East, short of annihilation of either the entire Arab or Jewish races in the region.

I may of course be wrong, but the choices so far are a land-for-peace(and full recognition of borders and right of existence) deal, or a continued bloody stalemate costing the lives of primarily civilians on both sides. (With Palestinian casualties outnumbering Israeli casualties by roughly 3.5:1, I believe)

Opinions?

X.

Xug -

not to take sides here, but I want to ask a question.

What does conceding land to the Palestinians get for Israel? Is it not true that if Israel gives up the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights, it shows that it can be bullied by suicide bombers? What is to stop the extremist Palestinians from continuing suicide bombing to get even more (such as the removal of Israel)? I know you say that other Palestinians will fight them - er, in theory, anyway. Hopefully, anyway. Logically, anyway.

Palestinians (or roughly 80% of them, anyway) have shown that they don't support logical tactics or maneuvers - they support the killing of innocent civilians with human bombs.

What to do now? If Israel gives in, what is to stop the Palestinian extremists from demanding (and working toward) more?

Peace. It is fairly likely that the majority of Palestinians will not support any further attacks once their major aim of restoring their homeland has been reached. I explained that reasoning above, and why/how it would most likely be enforced by the Palestinians themselves.

Right now, a land-for-peace deal is the only hope for the Middle East. I am very, very keen to hear any alternatives.

it's time to drop the macho posturing. Nobody in Britain or Northern Ireland believes that Britain gave in to the IRA bombers, yet agreements have been reached there, and comparative peace and tranquility (relatively speaking) have come to Eire. Yet for decades people yelled that we mustn't give in to the IRA bullies; strangely enough, co-operation was reached, and trust was built. Don't forget - like the Palestinian radicals, like Hamas, the extremist Northern Irish are a *small minority*. The silent majority will support whatever they consider to be their main aim - in NIreland the majority of Catholics doesn't support violence; in Palestine, if there was such a country, the majority wouldn't support violence either: they have seen what the last 35 years brought them, and they wouldn't risk it again. Don't underestimate the Palestinians - the western media may portray them at times as bloodthirsty savage towelheads, but that impression is wrong.

It's interesting to see how suicide bombers work: there are two general types, the first being the young susceptible men who are put under immense pressure by extremists, set into a stage of semi-religious fanaticism, indoctrinated to hate and destroy, and then sent to kill. The second, currently more common type, are normal individuals who are experiencing enormous psychological stress due to their environmental hazards, pressure, and directed hatreds. The fanatic radicals usually belong to the first group, the second - much more spontaneous type - is a reasonably recent phenomenon. People are cracking under stress, fear, hatred, and anger.

If the Palestinians were given that what they believe belongs to them rightfully, the second group would be eliminated almost overnight. During Rabin's time, the second group was practically non-existent. There were still occasional fanatics belonging to the first group, but the rate at which incidents occurred was significantly lower; the second group that has grabbed so much attention is a fairly recent phenomenon, started as part of the second intifada, (cf. tw's postings regarding the Temple Mount and Sharon)

Psychologically and historically speaking, I believe to have evidence on my side, as outlined above and in my previous posting. Again, I would be very happy to be given ANY INDICATION WHATSOEVER that this is incorrect; it's easy to doubt and claim that 'XYZ wouldn't happen', but can we get any indication for that whatsoever?

You are assuming that you know exactly what the average Palestinian is thinking. How do you know that? Have you spoken to any non-radical Palestinians lately? Unfortunately, I have: one of them is a local student at my University, and he came to discuss the terrorist actions against the US at an University debate. I got chatting to him, and realized that the vast majority of Palestinians want exactly TWO things:

1. A non-occupied country, a nation, a home land. They believe Israel is illegally and against US conventions occupying the West Bank. Whether or not they are right in that is debatable; it isn't debatable that this is the main thrust of their desires.

2. Peace, no gunfire at night, no tanks flattening houses, no travel controls, no daily friskings, no Israeli children kicking at their old and weak, relative security. Not even prosperity .. just a place to call home, a country where they can live in peace.

Local, regional, and international pressure? Signed border contracts? The Arab League's acceptance of Israel's border, and the threat of being tortured by your friendly Palestinian brothers so you won't fuck up again, risking having Israeli tanks flattening the country you shed so much blood for over the last 35+ years? The fact that 80%+ of Palestinians don't give a flying fuck about anything apart from wanting a place to live, a roof over their heads, and no harassement from the Israelis?

I am happy to give the Northern Irish example again. People were yelling how once the Catholics were given representation and rights and things, they would immediately start plotting to overthrow the British government in NIreland, and attempt immediate unification with the Republic of Ireland. Did that happen? Fuck no. People are entirely too happy to be able to go out of their houses without getting shot because they happen to be Protestant or Catholic. The vast majority of the Palestinians will be too busy to rebuild their country and try to make a living to care about anything. The few radicals that will undoubtedly remain will be found and killed, by the Palestinian authorities, by the Mossad, by US spies, by whoever wants peace in the region. Frighteningly enough, that's the vast majority of people there, despite what you may thing. The major instigators of the 6-Day War and the Yom Kippur wars, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan... well, you'd be shocked at how desperate they are for relative peace in the Middle East.

However, I am happy to be enlightened to the opposite. If a land-for-peace deal seems to be too fraught with danger that the radicals will get greedy and start risking everybody's lives and their incredible achievements over some tiny strips of land, what's the alternative? Do tell.

X.

X, It appears that the right of return is a non-starter with the Israeli public, have you seen any estimates for the cost of reparations?


A Confederation is one option I've read about, but its probably not hard-headed enough.

http://www.secession.net/israel-pale...ederation.html

I have alway found it hard to understand why somebody who was forced out of his village, or tricked out of his village by scheming bad leadership, have it whatever way you want, 50 years ago has less right to return then somebody who's ancestors where kicked out 2000 years ago. I think if the Palestinians are to give up the right to return to Israel (which is impractical anyhow) then Israel should remove the right of Aliyah for Jewish people and become a state for Israelis who ever they are rather then a Jewish homeland (an idea incompatible with real democracy IMHO). Jewish settlements should then be removed from the West Bank and hell since I'm in happy dream wish land anyhow..yeah a confederation of the Israeli and Palestinian states since they are so economically and geographically entwined.

Justice, and the Middle East way of life...
 

I believe I've gone on at great length why I believe that a land-for-peace/recognition/etc. deal is the only realistic hope for the middle east. Rather than bore everyone with my point-by-point deductions YET AGAIN (and I know nobody's looking forward to that), could anyone elaborate on alternatives to continuing, ever-radicalized bloodshed?

Since the Jews and Palestinians currently hate each other, and since the Palestinians believe (rightly or wrongly) that they have been oppressed systematically even if they are Israeli citizens, simply due to inherent racism and constitutionalized prejudice in the Israeli system (known as the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1859843778/">Israeli Apartheid</a>), I'm uncertain whether any sort of non-separation (such as a Confederation) would work. (naturally, the distrust is reciprocal: would you accept a Confederation with people who you believe are just waiting to run into your favourite bar with sticks of dynamite strapped to them?)

Regarding the issue of why the people expelled from the West Bank recently have more of a right to it than those who were expelled 2000 years ago: It's fairly simple, really. Some of those expelled 35 years ago (1967) are still alive. They will continue to seek return to what they *remember* as their homeland, and continue to struggle for it. The only claim that Israel has to the West Bank is right by conquest - and they never led a war against a Palestinian state, did they?

Unfortunately, everybody else sides with the Palestinians in that the West Bank ought to be returned to them. The much-babbled-about UN Resolution 242. Since the Palestinians have recent history rights and world opinion on their side, the only thing that's opposing them is unconditional US sponsorship and support of Israel. It's the only realistic hope for peace.

Just as an aside: It's easy to claim that 'right through war' is a justifiable means of conquering and taking over more land, especially if there was aggression of some sort. This is of course true. Smart people, however, recognize that taking over land without having a pretty fucking good idea of how to either expel or kill the local people is a brilliant recipe for fabulous long-term problems. Even if you are 'right'. Even if you were the ones who got attacked. Europe was stuck in feudalist warfare for centuries due to the constant redrawing of borders over such issues.

X.

PS: Maybe <a href="http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war9.html">this</a> will help us gain a change of perspective... (it started back <a href="http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html">here</a>.)

<IMG SRC="http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.053.gif">
<IMG SRC="http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.055.gif">
<IMG SRC="http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.056.gif">

Sure it would, but if you put Israels back to the wall that way I can guarantee you (with 70% confidence) how they will react: They will become MORE aggressive, believing it to be necessary to move decisively against their enemies NOW before they are slowly bled to death. Not much of a formula for peace.

They've already tried that; that was the whole idea of the Palestinian National Authority. Either the other Palestinians can't fight them, or (as Israel claims) they won't. Given that the PLO never removed the bit about demanding the destruction of Israel from their charter, it seems Israel may have a point.

What about basic security measures?
 

This article from the Sacramento Bee by Ron Unz maintains that a simple fence would have stopped many of the suicide attacks. He charges that Sharons government, because of their adherence to the idea of a Greater Israel will not build a security barrier on the frontier, because that would imply that Israel has no claim to ancient Judea and Sumeria (the West Bank).

"By all accounts, the Palestinians of Gaza are considerably more militant in their anti-Israel Islamic fervor than those of the West Bank, yet Gaza's simple existing fence has prevented the infiltration of even a single suicide-bomber and also kept ordinary terrorist attacks to a negligible level. If a border fence has worked so well in Gaza, why have the Sharonists not considered one for the West Bank as well?"

Does anyone here have specific knowlege of the area in question?



http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinio...-2860142c.html

Re: What about basic security measures?
 

I don't know much about Gaza, though there are a few obvious differences (like size and location). There's also the point that the West Bank/Israel border is not (usually) closed; many Palestinians enter Israel on legitimate business.

Re: What about basic security measures?
 

Re: Re: What about basic security measures?
 

Yes. :)

Re: Re: What about basic security measures?
 

The obvious reason would be that the infrastructure supporting the bombers has been damaged. If that's so, it appears the invasions have had their intended effect, and Sharon did the right thing.

Whoa... I originally posted that. Is it a db problem or did I mess up somewhere? I'll edit the post so that my words aren't in TW's post. I think I accidentally edited his instead of starting my own... what a foulup... sorry.

Human Rights Watch
 

HRW's report is in. According to the BBC synopsis, there was no massacre but war crimes, such as using civilians for human shields, were committed.




http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...00/1965471.stm

Lost in that deleted post are some interesting facts. One is that Israel has constructed at least 39 new and illegal settlements in the West Bank since Feb 2001 - during Intafada 2. One of those recent, illegal settlements is where a Palestinian gunman, dressed as an Israeli soldier, shot some of those occupied territory settlers.

But Nightline's town meeting also suggested that 54 more illegal settlements in the occupied territories are also under construction.

Nightline's town meeting also reminded us who started the first suicide mass killings. It was a right wing extremist Jew who murdered 29 Palestinians before he was finally stopped. Again, Sharon got the murders he wanted.

Bushwacked
 

Israel's ruling party rejects Palestinian state

Arafat prepared to accept Israeli state

The US government expects that Arafat should control or influence Palestinian extremists ... in the interests of peace.

Likewise, the US government should also expect that Sharon should control or influence Israeli extremists in his party... in the interests of peace.

The American people and their leaders are being asked to choose sides between terrorists and racists, which terms may be applicable to both factions on any given day.

It is said that, in democracies, the people deserve the leadership they elect. Both nations desperately need changes of leadership before peace can be achieved. It is a sad commentary for these peoples if these aging militants represent their best leadership for the future. All their citizens, men, women and children, not just their militaries, will suffer for this world-class lack of leadership.

In the end, both the Israelis and the Palestinians will suffer the failures of their political leaders to structure a political solution for peaceful coexistence in the region.

In the middle east peace process, Sharon has said that Arafat is irrelevant ... So is Sharon, evidently. Is Bush, also? We'll have to see what he says to Israel's government.