Bush overturns 40 years of US Israeli/Palestinian policy [Archive]

Sayhey

Apr 15, 2004, 12:35 AM

This column is worth a read on the statement of Dubya coming out of his meeting with Sharon.

The first wire reports I saw this afternoon didn't really reflect what an enormous victory Sharon and his neocon heavies have won. But it seems to be sinking in now:

"In an appearance with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and in an exchange of letters to be made public later today, Bush accepted essentially all of what the Israeli leader had sought. The move substantially changes U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, softening the American objection to Israel's settlements and dropping a reluctance to dictate terms of a final peace settlement."

Sharon came to Washington hoping that Bush would endorse -- by name -- a list of West Bank settlements that could be kept by Israel as part of any final settlement under the so-called road map process. This would have cleared the way for a land grab so enormous as to make any future Palestinian "state" a collection of postage stamp-sized bantusans.

In the end, Bush refused -- which seemed at first glance to verify pre-summit promises from the usual anonymous administration (read: State Department) officials, who promised the text of the statement would be vague enough to keep the peace process stumbling forward.

But to me the statement looks like an Israeli ten-strike. Small wonder Sharon emerged beaming from his audience with boy emperor. If Bush didn't actually delineate the future borders of Greater Israel, he did everything but:

"In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949 ... It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities. (emphasis added)"

This is a shameful capitulation. As the Reuters story notes, the statement overturns in one stroke almost 40 years of official U.S. policy -- a policy Shrub's father actually showed a fair amount of political courage in defending. For decades, Israeli leaders (Likud and Labor alike) have worked to create those "new realities on the ground" -- as the statement, with the usual neocon arrogance, describes them -- through illegal land expropriations, relentless discrimination against Palestinian landowners, and lavish government subsidies for Jewish settlers. And for decades, the U.S. government has refused to accept Israel's bully boy tactics, despite the relentless, continuous efforts of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington.

link (http://billmon.org/archives/001401.html)

IJ Reilly

Apr 15, 2004, 01:24 AM

No doubt this will also go over in the Middle East like the proverbial fart in a spacesuit. Score another one for W.

numediaman

Apr 15, 2004, 08:37 AM

No doubt this will also go over in the Middle East like the proverbial fart in a spacesuit. Score another one for W.

I think we have our new poet laureate!

It will take the American public and the press a while to understand what this really means. But I agree with both of you that this will resonate in the Middle East. The idea of "winning over the Arabs" is dead for good.

miloblithe

Apr 15, 2004, 09:06 AM

Is the Bush administration, sick of fighting two wars, trying to create one massive regional war instead?

Bush 2004
'Surely there must be other Muslims we can piss off'

MongoTheGeek

Apr 15, 2004, 09:23 AM

Sayhey

Apr 15, 2004, 10:14 AM

I think its a good thing.

This sets the ground for a permanent Palestinian state, hopefully one that won't be destroyed and enveloped by its neighbors again. Israel is talking about a permanent pull out of Gaza. With the wall up the two sides can cool off for a couple of decades and everything will be sane

What it means, from the Palestinian perspective, is the "two state solution" is no longer a possiblity. The leadership will quickly go back to the demand for one "democratic, secular state" in all the lands of what used to be Palestine. It means no negotiated settlement in our lifetimes. That is not a good thing.

SlyHunter

Apr 15, 2004, 10:22 AM

What it means, from the Palestinian perspective, is the "two state solution" is no longer a possiblity. The leadership will quickly go back to the demand for one "democratic, secular state" in all the lands of what used to be Palestine. It means no negotiated settlement in our lifetimes. That is not a good thing.
They should've stopped the suicide bombings for then they would've been more likely to get allot of the stuff they wanted. With the suicide bombings fewer and fewer people are going to listen to anything they have to say.

zimv20

Apr 15, 2004, 11:58 AM

They should've stopped the suicide bombings for then they would've been more likely to get allot of the stuff they wanted. With the suicide bombings fewer and fewer people are going to listen to anything they have to say.
nice of you to walk the moral high ground when neither you nor your country has been in the weaker position of asymmetrical warfare. at least not since the revolutionary war.

how'd you like it if france and canada conspired to give california to canada?

SlyHunter

Apr 15, 2004, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
They should've stopped the suicide bombings for then they would've been more likely to get allot of the stuff they wanted. With the suicide bombings fewer and fewer people are going to listen to anything they have to say.

nice of you to walk the moral high ground when neither you nor your country has been in the weaker position of asymmetrical warfare. at least not since the revolutionary war.

how'd you like it if france and canada conspired to give california to canada?
that does not justify terrorism.
That does not justify walking into a movie theater full of women and children and setting off a bomb.
That does not justify walking up to a school bus stop and setting off a bomb.

Having bad things happen to you does not justify you doing bad or worse things to someone else.

poopyhead

Apr 15, 2004, 12:27 PM

that does not justify terrorism.
That does not justify walking into a movie theater full of women and children and setting off a bomb.
That does not justify walking up to a school bus stop and setting off a bomb.

Having bad things happen to you does not justify you doing bad or worse things to someone else.

and this is a valid argument how?
this in no way realtes to the wrest of the thread
and is completely off topic.

IJ Reilly

Apr 15, 2004, 12:34 PM

Is the Bush administration, sick of fighting two wars, trying to create one massive regional war instead?

I do wish we had a President who didn't have the biblical, apocalyptic view of the world.

Sayhey

Apr 15, 2004, 12:38 PM

I do wish we had a President who didn't have the biblical, apocalyptic view of the world.

Perhaps his use of the word "crusade" right after 9/11 wasn't just an insensitive slip of the tongue after all?

Backtothemac

Apr 15, 2004, 12:42 PM

IJ Reilly

Apr 15, 2004, 12:48 PM

Perhaps his use of the word "crusade" right after 9/11 wasn't just an insensitive slip of the tongue after all?

I never thought so. You might call it a Freudian slip. The article recently posted here (from the LA Times) suggests that Bush's view of the world is deeply biblical, and you can't be deeply biblical without believing in the bible's forecasts of end-times.

SlyHunter

Apr 15, 2004, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
They should've stopped the suicide bombings for then they would've been more likely to get allot of the stuff they wanted. With the suicide bombings fewer and fewer people are going to listen to anything they have to say.

Originally Posted by zimv20
nice of you to walk the moral high ground when neither you nor your country has been in the weaker position of asymmetrical warfare. at least not since the revolutionary war.

how'd you like it if france and canada conspired to give california to canada?

that does not justify terrorism.
That does not justify walking into a movie theater full of women and children and setting off a bomb.
That does not justify walking up to a school bus stop and setting off a bomb.

Having bad things happen to you does not justify you doing bad or worse things to someone else.

and this is a valid argument how?
this in no way realtes to the wrest of the thread
and is completely off topic.
it is a direct answer to his post. He made a statement and I replied to that statement. Because his statement does not justify terrorism. Simple fact.

zimv20

Apr 15, 2004, 01:04 PM

given the original name of "Operation Infinite Justice," i find it hard to believe that "crusade" was an accident

SlyHunter

Apr 15, 2004, 01:05 PM

Why are we giving the terrorists, sorry, Palistinians everything they want? Why should that be the goal?

Why are we giving the terrorists, sorry, the Israeli's everything they want? Why should that be the goal?

They are both guilty as sin, both wrong as sin, and both going to cause the deaths of thousands of American's over time.
How many suicide bombers are Jewish?
Fact over half of Palestinians are christians.
How many suicide bombers are Christians?

Israel is fighting terrorist they are not terrorist.
Killing civilians that are being used as shields by terrorist is not terrorism.
Bulldozing houses or plants in houses front yards that are covering up tunnels used to smuggle weapons is not terrorism.
Returning fire on terrorists firing from within a mosque or other religious building while not recomended is not terrorism.
Bulldozing homes built on soil claimed to be owned by Israel because they didn't have a building permit (something we Flordians do to people in everglades from time to time) is not terrorism even if they are wrong about who actually owns that land.

Setting off explosions at a bus stop to committ "terror" is terrorism.

Backtothemac

Apr 15, 2004, 01:11 PM

How many suicide bombers are Jewish?
Fact over half of Palestinians are christians.
How many suicide bombers are Christians?

Israel is fighting terrorist they are not terrorist.
Killing civilians that are being used as shields by terrorist is not terrorism.
Bulldozing houses or plants in houses front yards that are covering up tunnels used to smuggle weapons is not terrorism.
Returning fire on terrorists firing from within a mosque or other religious building while not recomended is not terrorism.
Bulldozing homes built on soil claimed to be owned by Israel because they didn't have a building permit (something we Flordians do to people in everglades from time to time) is not terrorism even if they are wrong about who actually owns that land.

Setting off explosions at a bus stop to committ "terror" is terrorism.

You are correct in your eyes, they are not, in mine they are not, but in the average Palistinians eyes, they are. Terror is in the eye of the beholder. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Sayhey

Apr 15, 2004, 01:45 PM

You are correct in your eyes, they are not, in mine they are not, but in the average Palistinians eyes, they are. Terror is in the eye of the beholder. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

The use of terror by the Israelis goes unnoticed by most Americans. When children who have rocks for weapons are gunned down by Israeli occupation forces or when Israeli helicopter gunships fire rockets into housing complexes and open streets then the Palestinians see that as terrorism. How many innocents were killed when the leader of Hamas (a despicable man IMO) was blown up by such a rocket? I have no sympathy for those who organize terror. That goes for Palestinian Islamic Fundamentalists who would trick children into carrying bombs or Israeli military forces that have no regard for Palestinian lives in the indiscriminate fire of shells and missiles. We should be about ending the support of such actions on both sides and then we might have some credibility in the Arab world.

IJ Reilly

Apr 15, 2004, 02:02 PM

SlyHunter

Apr 15, 2004, 06:06 PM

SlyHunter

Apr 15, 2004, 06:07 PM

The use of terror by the Israelis goes unnoticed by most Americans. When children who have rocks for weapons are gunned down by Israeli occupation forces or when Israeli helicopter gunships fire rockets into housing complexes and open streets then the Palestinians see that as terrorism. How many innocents were killed when the leader of Hamas (a despicable man IMO) was blown up by such a rocket? I have no sympathy for those who organize terror. That goes for Palestinian Islamic Fundamentalists who would trick children into carrying bombs or Israeli military forces that have no regard for Palestinian lives in the indiscriminate fire of shells and missiles. We should be about ending the support of such actions on both sides and then we might have some credibility in the Arab world.
Note the target was a viable military target. The civilians that died while terrible weren't the target thats the difference between the correct way of fighting and the wrong way of fighting. The terrorist ignore military targets and only hit civilians. That is what makes them terrorists.

SlyHunter

Apr 15, 2004, 06:08 PM

I've got plenty of sympathy for the situation in which Israel finds itself. But the problem in this part of the world is 50 years of placing blame and pointing fingers. I actually thought Bush was on the right track with the so-called roadmap. No one plan will ever succeed but having an overarching plan provides for some hope of an equitable resolution some day. The US will never be seen as a totally unbiased party in this conflict, but I think what Bush has done now is throw his hand in completely with the most militant parties in Israel, insuring that the US will never been seen by the Palestinians as an honest broker.
If the Palestinians had stopped the suicide bombings then the US would have taken their side in the conflict. Israel would not of had an excuss to strike back and if they continued to do so then the US would not look the other way. Maybe before they would've but not now, not with the cameras watching.

poopyhead

Apr 15, 2004, 06:17 PM

A freedom fighter targets military targets not movie theaters and bus stops.

if you are from the third world, poor, and live in what is essentially an armed encampment over-which you and your people have little to no control, then you strap on a bomb and go for the soft targets. It is much more effective because you are fighting not only against the physical presence of you oppressors but also against their mindset of domination, control, and superiority. Few things make a people reflect upon the totality of a situation like the blood of their sons, brothers, sisters, fathers, daughters, and mothers flung like petals into the wind in a public and often used place. It serves not only to fight but also to create a lasting image of carnage and fear etched into the minds of your oppressors.

When fighting for liberty and the god given right of self determination you use what weapons and tactics you must in order to effect the necessary outcome.

rainman::|:|

Apr 15, 2004, 06:19 PM

If the Palestinians had stopped the suicide bombings then the US would have taken their side in the conflict. Israel would not of had an excuss to strike back and if they continued to do so then the US would not look the other way. Maybe before they would've but not now, not with the cameras watching.

The palestinians did not stop suicide bombings because Israel did not stop their strikes (for more than like 18 hours, at any rate). To stop fighting back against a country that already has the US's support... that's admitting defeat.

I'm not surprised bush did this, he's been a puppet of israel just as much as a puppet for big corporations. Israel can do no wrong in our eyes, because the Jews have suffered so much throughout history, surely they're still suffering. Unfortunately, an awful lot of Jews reject Israel's actions, of course the Torah forbids the creation of a Jewish state while they are in exile-- the whole country is a blasphemy. I have immense respect for the (predominately orthodox) Jews that are willing to say, "not in my name".

paul

poopyhead

Apr 15, 2004, 06:19 PM

Note the target was a viable military target. The civilians that died while terrible weren't the target thats the difference between the correct way of fighting and the wrong way of fighting. The terrorist ignore military targets and only hit civilians. That is what makes them terrorists.

in Israel civilian targets are military targets
when everyone is or has been a member of the military then everyone is possibly fair game
let us not forget that the bus stops and busses typically hit are the ones used most often by off duty and on duty soldiers

SlyHunter

Apr 15, 2004, 06:42 PM

if you are from the third world, poor, and live in what is essentially an armed encampment over-which you and your people have little to no control, then you strap on a bomb and go for the soft targets. It is much more effective because you are fighting not only against the physical presence of you oppressors but also against their mindset of domination, control, and superiority. Few things make a people reflect upon the totality of a situation like the blood of their sons, brothers, sisters, fathers, daughters, and mothers flung like petals into the wind in a public and often used place. It serves not only to fight but also to create a lasting image of carnage and fear etched into the minds of your oppressors.

When fighting for liberty and the god given right of self determination you use what weapons and tactics you must in order to effect the necessary outcome.
I find your answer totally and completly unacceptable.
Ther are Kurds in Turkey who live lives like the Palestinians say they live you are giving them permission to commit terrorism against Turkey. Your are giving Cheznyan rebels permission to commit terrorism against Cheznya. so on and so forth. I don't care if thats the only way they have to fight back it is the wrong way.

Sometimes the only honorable thing to do is to lose.

SlyHunter

Apr 15, 2004, 06:47 PM

I have immense respect for the (predominately orthodox) Jews that are willing to say, "not in my name".

paul
Sorry you said another key phrase that sticks in my head.
When you said "not in my name" did you mean these people?

By now, most Americans have heard, somewhere along the way, at least a passing reference to the Not In Our Name (NION) project – a self-described "peace" movement that has produced, most notably, two documents publicly denouncing our country’s post-9/11 policies, both foreign and domestic.

These documents have received a groundswell of support from many prominent artists, academicians, and activists. Among the tens of thousands to publicly endorse NION’s objectives are Ed Asner, Oliver Stone, Ossie Davis, Danny Glover, Susan Sarandon, Alice Walker, Ramsey Clark, Tom Hayden, Al Sharpton, Martin Luther King III, Gloria Steinem, Medea Benjamin, Leslie Cagan, and Noam Chomsky.

The NION project was initiated by a man named C. Clark Kissinger, a longtime Maoist activist. Currently a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party and a contributing writer for the socialist publication Revolutionary Worker, Kissinger began his public activism in the early 1960s when he was the national secretary of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), founded by Tom Hayden. The leading radical organization of its day, SDS later split into several groups, among which was the militant, revolutionary Weathermen.

Kissinger also worked closely with Fred Hampton and the Black Panther Party, and openly supported Mao Tse-tung’s notoriously oppressive Cultural Revolution in China. Kissinger continues to enjoy strong support from the Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM), which, by its own words, "upholds the revolutionary communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism," and views the Chinese Cultural Revolution as "the farthest advance of communism in human history."

MIM frankly declares that it can only achieve its ends "by building public opinion to seize power through armed struggle." Chief among its objectives is to foment "revolution [in] North America, as the [US}military becomes over-extended in the government’s attempts to maintain world hegemony." Such are the ideals of Mr. Kissinger and his benefactors. Such are the "peace-loving" roots of the lofty-sounding Communist front group, Not In Our Name.

there is allot more if you wish to see for yourself.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6392
There are allot more sources for this information as well even their own web site provide evidence of these facts something you can find yourself by using google. Their proud to be linked with these Communists.
I use frontpagemag because it is the most convenient for me to find things on with the minimal amount of time.

poopyhead

Apr 15, 2004, 06:48 PM

I find your answer totally and completly unacceptable.
Ther are Kurds in Turkey who live lives like the Palestinians say they live you are giving them permission to commit terrorism against Turkey. Your are giving Cheznyan rebels permission to commit terrorism against Cheznya. so on and so forth. I don't care if thats the only way they have to fight back it is the wrong way.

Sometimes the only honorable thing to do is to lose.

they have an inherent right to rise up and throw off their bonds
just as we rebelled against, used terrorist tactics against, and eventually rebuffed great Britain
why should we deny to others the rights that we so proudly and heroically used against the british
british who in no way subjugated us to the degree that Palestinians and other minority political groups have been subjugated

SlyHunter

Apr 15, 2004, 06:53 PM

in Israel civilian targets are military targets
when everyone is or has been a member of the military then everyone is possibly fair game
let us not forget that the bus stops and busses typically hit are the ones used most often by off duty and on duty soldiers
Thats my one doubt in my own argument.
I read somewhere that everyone who lives on a particular bluff (forgot name) kept weapons in their homes and were considered emergency civilian militia. My memmory isn't perfect so don't quote me on the titles and names. it was mixed in with a report about Palestinians fire rockets into the village and they were instantly organized and returned fire.

But then again they are surrounded by their own enemies.

FYI another problem I have is I'm against governments who enforce religion doctorine as laws. Problem I can't get past is the suicide bombers. Nothing justifies suicide bombers. I don't understand people who think so little of their own lives they would purposely go on suicide missions. I also don't understand mothers who are proud of their 15 year old son going off to die as a suicide bomber (another story I read).

Oh and I really hate this.
This is a direct copy of a post I posted on Imesh.com I am Sly69 the author of the post.
Now which is more biassed Woldnetdaily or that Hamas's kids magazine?

Hamas kids' magazine: 'Destroy rapist Jews'
Periodical claims Iraqi children being 'torn to shreds' by U.S.

for those who can read arabic here is the magazine itself I think. http://www.al-fateh.net/
http://www.al-fateh.net/images8/fa8q4.gif

A monthly children's magazine published by the Hamas terrorist organization urges Palestinian and Iraqi children to pray for Allah to "destroy the cruel, rapist Jews" and bring victory to the Palestinian and Iraqi causes.

"The eighth edition of Al-Fateh [The Conqueror], was published [last month] and it seems that over the last eight months it has caught the eyes of its young readers," says an analysis by The Media Line, an Israel-based group offering news and commentary on the Middle East.
Pleas for violence against Jews, contained in the magazine's editorial, is preceded by descriptions of alleged suffering by Iraqi children as a result of the U.S.-led war to oust Saddam Hussein. It says the children are suffering due to cruelty being committed against them by coalition forces
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/hamashorse.gif
"The Conqueror" icon of the Al-Fateh magazine.

The editorial says the enemy's hatred and insensitivity "are caused by the Jewish filth, and they are inspired by the Jews' cruelty, heresy and barbarity."

Felice Friedson, president and CEO of The Media Line, told WorldNetDaily she believes the magazine's creators are ratcheting up the hate-filled rhetoric against Israel and the Jewish faith to attract more readers – a ploy that seems to be working.

She said the magazine's website has attracted 1.6 million visitors since its launch. It uses simple language, light stories and endearing illustrated characters, TML analysts have said.

+ more http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31943

also here http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29535

TROUBLE IN THE HOLY LAND
Hamas launches webzine for kids
Journal praises martyrs, encourages children to follow example
Islamic terror group Hamas has launched a new Web magazine for kids that praises martyrs while encouraging children to follow the example of committing suicide for the "cause."

Complete with cartoon characters and other pictures demonstrating the "heroism of Palestinian children," the online magazine, titled Al-Fateh, promises "pages discussing Jihad (holy war), scientific pages, the best stories, not be found elsewhere, and unequalled tales of heroism." The webzine's editor hopes it will be read by "our beloved youth, the leaders of the future."

Oh yeah I'm going to take their side now.

SlyHunter

Apr 15, 2004, 06:54 PM

they have an inherent right to rise up and throw off their bonds
just as we rebelled against, used terrorist tactics against, and eventually rebuffed great Britain
why should we deny to others the rights that we so proudly and heroically used against the british
british who in no way subjugated us to the degree that Palestinians and other minority political groups have been subjugated
We fought British soldiers not their wives and kids.

I just noticed somethign that previous post of mine was Hamas who live in palestine but talking about kids in Iraq. A possible link to Saddam before the war in Iraq took place?

poopyhead

Apr 15, 2004, 07:06 PM

We fought British soldiers not their wives and kids.

their wives and children weren't here to be fought against so this is a moot point and bears no relevance

we did steal the property of the british and their sympathizers and failed to return it going against our first peace treaty, the treaty of paris

we even confiscated the property of Ben Franklins son (author of your signature) for his british sympathies and then continued to harass him. Franklin after the revolution disowned his son, a former royal governor, and then never spoke to him again.

Sayhey

Apr 15, 2004, 07:09 PM

SlyHunter

Apr 15, 2004, 08:14 PM

No one here is supporting Hamas or Islamic Jihad in the use of suicide bombers to inflict terror by killing Israeli civilians. No one here supports the Anti-Jewish rhetoric of Islamic Fundamentalists. That does not mean people cannot be critical of Anti-Arab racism among the Israeli leadership or its people. That does not mean that use of deadly force against children or the use of military ordinance in populated areas of Palestinians by the Israeli armed forces is not equally designed to inflict terror and kill innocents. Too often when the discussion is on the need to recognize the basic rights of Palestinians to live lives without occupation and with the same rights we all expect, the topic is changed to a one-sided discussion of terrorism. One doesn't have to support terrorism to not support the policies of the Israeli government.
I can't argue with this paragraph other than to say there are those here who do not blame Palestinians for using suicide bombers. I don't have photographic memory so I don't remember all the names now but one name on this same page is Poopyhead. There are others.

I cannot say that Israel has not done anything wrong. I can say that for me tho nothing Israel has done comes up to the level of suicide bombers. Nothing they have done comes up to Hamas stating that there shall be no peace as long as a living Jew is on that continent. Israel can't make peace until those who refuse to accept peace change their minds or are dead. There was one time they were sitting in negotiationg with Arafat. Doesn't matter how good the negotiating was going for this particular point. Nobody outside knew how good or bad the negotiating was. They didn't wait they blew up a bus and Sharon cancelled the peace negotiations. From my perspective Israel has tried time and again to estalblish peace. There are those on the Palestinian side who are willing to die to insure there is no peace. Yet there is no one on the Palestinian side to police there own as such Israel has no choice but to do it for them. If they would only police their own then Israel would have no excuss to cross the border. But their not and because their not it makes it easier to overlook any transgressions Israel has made.

poopyhead

Apr 15, 2004, 08:16 PM

MongoTheGeek

Apr 15, 2004, 11:51 PM

What it means, from the Palestinian perspective, is the "two state solution" is no longer a possiblity. The leadership will quickly go back to the demand for one "democratic, secular state" in all the lands of what used to be Palestine. It means no negotiated settlement in our lifetimes. That is not a good thing.

I doubt a negotiated settlement would have been possible in our lifetimes anyway. There is too much hate and mistrust. A long term ceasefile of the RC/PRC or RK/DPRK sort is the best goal. Draw a fortified line, make it defensible and call it a solution until no one remembers war.

Without the areas that Bush is saying Israel can take they will have islands of Palestinians in Israel and an indefensible border.

MongoTheGeek

Apr 16, 2004, 12:02 AM

Perhaps his use of the word "crusade" right after 9/11 wasn't just an insensitive slip of the tongue after all?

Bush is a born again christian and used the word crusade like true Muslims use the word jihad. Its is a personal moral struggle. It is like the Billy Graham Crusade.

He used def 2.

2. Any enterprise undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm; as, a crusade against intemperance.

Sayhey

Apr 16, 2004, 12:23 AM

I can't argue with this paragraph other than to say there are those here who do not blame Palestinians for using suicide bombers. I don't have photographic memory so I don't remember all the names now but one name on this same page is Poopyhead. There are others.

I cannot say that Israel has not done anything wrong. I can say that for me tho nothing Israel has done comes up to the level of suicide bombers. Nothing they have done comes up to Hamas stating that there shall be no peace as long as a living Jew is on that continent. Israel can't make peace until those who refuse to accept peace change their minds or are dead. There was one time they were sitting in negotiationg with Arafat. Doesn't matter how good the negotiating was going for this particular point. Nobody outside knew how good or bad the negotiating was. They didn't wait they blew up a bus and Sharon cancelled the peace negotiations. From my perspective Israel has tried time and again to estalblish peace. There are those on the Palestinian side who are willing to die to insure there is no peace. Yet there is no one on the Palestinian side to police there own as such Israel has no choice but to do it for them. If they would only police their own then Israel would have no excuss to cross the border. But their not and because their not it makes it easier to overlook any transgressions Israel has made.

As usual, all I can say is you need to find out more before you make such judgments. Have you heard of the massacres in Deir Yassin (http://www.deiryassin.org/index1.html), Sabra and Shatila (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2255902.stm), or Jenin (http://www.jenin.info/)? Do you know of the hundreds of Palestinian youth (http://www.palestinercs.org/intifadasummary.htm) who lay dead - killed by Israeli guns for daring to tell them they must leave the West Bank? Do you know of the numerous racist statements by Israeli leaders towards Palestinians? I could go on and on, but the point is that if you think the Palestinians do not have many reasons to rebel against the occupation then you don't know the situation.

SlyHunter

Apr 16, 2004, 09:14 AM

As usual, all I can say is you need to find out more before you make such judgments. Have you heard of the massacres in Deir Yassin (http://www.deiryassin.org/index1.html), Sabra and Shatila (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2255902.stm), or Jenin (http://www.jenin.info/)? Do you know of the hundreds of Palestinian youth (http://www.palestinercs.org/intifadasummary.htm) who lay dead - killed by Israeli guns for daring to tell them they must leave the West Bank? Do you know of the numerous racist statements by Israeli leaders towards Palestinians? I could go on and on, but the point is that if you think the Palestinians do not have many reasons to rebel against the occupation then you don't know the situation.
I did not say they did not have reasons to want to rebel.
I said nothing Israel has done measure up to Hamas declaring "there is no peace as long as a single Jew is alive on this continent". And the suicide bombers. You get rid of those two things then it would be a different story.

Sayhey

Apr 16, 2004, 09:24 AM

I doubt a negotiated settlement would have been possible in our lifetimes anyway. There is too much hate and mistrust. A long term ceasefile of the RC/PRC or RK/DPRK sort is the best goal. Draw a fortified line, make it defensible and call it a solution until no one remembers war.

Without the areas that Bush is saying Israel can take they will have islands of Palestinians in Israel and an indefensible border.

The problem with your analogy is that in both cases you cite there are viable nations on each side. In the Palestinian case we have the Israeli unilateral determination to limit Palestinians to bantustans.

skunk

Apr 16, 2004, 09:54 AM

I did not say they did not have reasons to want to rebel.
I said nothing Israel has done measure up to Hamas declaring "there is no peace as long as a single Jew is alive on this continent". And the suicide bombers. You get rid of those two things then it would be a different story.
You get rid of those two things (how is another question) and the Israelis would be able to carry on with their land-grab and occupation without it ever hitting the headlines. Good solution.

SlyHunter

Apr 16, 2004, 10:16 AM

You get rid of those two things (how is another question) and the Israelis would be able to carry on with their land-grab and occupation without it ever hitting the headlines. Good solution.
So you don't mind the terrorism since its the only way they can win?
You don't mind the suicide bombers since its the only way they can win?

Sometimes the only honorable way is to lose.

Besides now the world is watching which kinda says terrorism works :(

skunk

Apr 16, 2004, 10:19 AM

Sometimes the only honorable way is to lose.

Can I quote you on that? Perhaps you should tell that to your friends in Washington.

poopyhead

Apr 16, 2004, 10:25 AM

I did not say they did not have reasons to want to rebel.

I think this is what you actually said

Sometimes the only honorable thing to do is to lose.

liberty is not predicated on honor
it is predicated on the inherent rights of mankind granted to us by The Creator
or at least that's what our founding fathers believed
(not that bush or the ignorant republican right wing masses would admit to such, for them "liberty" for others is a commodity with overtones of economic subservience to be brokered and bought through power and domination)

Desertrat

Apr 19, 2004, 08:06 AM

Going back to the opening post, here's George Will's take, as reported in the April 18th WashPost. Page B09.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Apr17.html

I have no way to argue with his alleged facts. From them, though, his conclusions appear correct. My own memories of the last 56 years support them, anyway...

'Rat

SlyHunter

Apr 19, 2004, 08:43 AM

I think this is what you actually said

liberty is not predicated on honor
it is predicated on the inherent rights of mankind granted to us by The Creator
or at least that's what our founding fathers believed
(not that bush or the ignorant republican right wing masses would admit to such, for them "liberty" for others is a commodity with overtones of economic subservience to be brokered and bought through power and domination)
You also don't gain liberty thru by blowing up movie theaters and bus stops you just gain hatred by doing those things. They should've concetrated on actual military targets.

Sayhey

Apr 19, 2004, 09:00 AM

You also don't gain liberty thru by blowing up movie theaters and bus stops you just gain hatred by doing those things. They should've concetrated on actual military targets.

You've yet to respond to the links I provided of massacres of Palestinians under Israeli control. You are ready to dismiss an entire people's rights based on the actions of a minority of their leaders and yet have nothing to say about the terrorism inflicted on them by the Government of Israel. This is the usual double standard of the right.

SlyHunter

Apr 19, 2004, 10:09 AM

You've yet to respond to the links I provided of massacres of Palestinians under Israeli control. You are ready to dismiss an entire people's rights based on the actions of a minority of their leaders and yet have nothing to say about the terrorism inflicted on them by the Government of Israel. This is the usual double standard of the right.
I know that Israel probably have done things not right. That individuals may have even commited crimes which they should, if they are not, be prosecuted for. As long as terrorists are blowing up movie theaters, bus stops, sending suicide bombers then it justifies almost anything Israel does to try to stop them.

I'm sure you think Israel using missiles to blow up a Hamas leader and ending up with civilian casaulties on the side is terrorism. It is not, it is collateral damage. The intent was to remove an enemy target not to kill civilians. When Hamas attacks their intent is to kill civilians. That is the difference between a terrorist and a non terrorist action.

SlyHunter

Apr 19, 2004, 10:13 AM

"In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of the final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion."

It is fine to talk about "new realities," such as patterns of settlement, but this new U.S. policy also, and primarily, comes to terms, at long last, with an old reality. It is that 242 also recognized the right of every state in the region to "secure and recognized boundaries," which Israel's 1967 borders were not.

But wait. Palestinian spokesmen, denouncing the new U.S. position, speak not of the 1949 armistice lines but "the 1967 borders." It is not in the interest of the Palestinian Authority to have the world reminded - being willfully forgetful, it needs much reminding - that the borders of Israel in 1967 were accidents of the military facts on the ground 18 years before that.

Bush, by emphasizing 1949 rather than 1967, reminds those who are forever saying "Israel is being provocative" that for 56 years - since Israel's founding in May 1948 - the problem has been that, to Israel's enemies, Israel's being is provocative. Hostility to Israel predated 1967 and would not be cured by a return to 1967 realities.

The territories occupied by Israel since 1967 have been lawfully held because a nation that occupies territories in the process of repelling aggression launched from them can hold them until the disposition of the lands is settled by negotiations between the relevant parties.

Palestinians and their supporters have tried to erase this fact by semantic infiltration of the world's political vocabulary, getting the territories routinely referred to as "Palestinian lands." Actually, in law the territories are unallocated portions of the 1922 Palestine Mandate, the final disposition of which is still to be settled by negotiations.

And there, for 56 years, has been the rub - the absence of a suitable interlocutor for Israel. Meaning a negotiating partner not committed to the destruction of the "Zionist entity," or completion of the project interrupted but not abandoned when the last Nazi death camps were liberated 59 Aprils ago.

Which is why Wednesday's policy flowed ineluctably from Bush's June 24, 2002, pronouncement that the first prerequisite for progress is for the Palestinian people to produce "regime change": "I call upon the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror." That prerequisite being unattainable, Sharon has chosen unilateral disengagement - the fence - and a long wait for the time when, in Bush's words, "the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements."

In 1998 the then-governor of Texas, preparing to run for president, visited Israel and was given a helicopter tour of the nation's vulnerabilities. Bush saw the place where Israel, from 1949 until 1967, had been nine miles wide. Back home, Bush said: Why, in Texas we have driveways longer than that. Bush's host in the helicopter was Sharon.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/22800.htm

Sayhey

Apr 19, 2004, 10:38 AM

I know that Israel probably have done things not right. That individuals may have even commited crimes which they should, if they are not, be prosecuted for. As long as terrorists are blowing up movie theaters, bus stops, sending suicide bombers then it justifies almost anything Israel does to try to stop them.

I'm sure you think Israel using missiles to blow up a Hamas leader and ending up with civilian casaulties on the side is terrorism. It is not, it is collateral damage. The intent was to remove an enemy target not to kill civilians. When Hamas attacks their intent is to kill civilians. That is the difference between a terrorist and a non terrorist action.

If I was to say the massacres of innocents that I posted "justifies almost anything" the Palestinians do in response it would be looked at by most as an outrageous statement, or at least I would hope it would. Yet you do the same in support of Israeli policies and you feel entirely comfortable in such a statement because the Palestinian lives lost somehow are not as important as the Israeli. If you look at the links you will find that one of the people who should be tried for crimes is the current Prime Minister of Israel. His own government has censured him for his culpability in the Sabra and Shatila massacres. One of the other atrocities was carried out by the organization that was headed by former Prime Minister Begin. These are hardly rogue elements of army units carrying out their crimes. Lastly, because Israel has access to technology that we associate with our own military does not mean that ordinance can be used in civilian areas and such actions are just "collateral damage." Would it be fine by you if a suicide bomber walks into a movie theater and blows up the place if there is a Israeli military target among the theater goers? I wouldn’t think such tactics are fine and I don’t think you would either. Both the two heads of Hamas that have been assassinated by Israel have been arrested by Israel in the past and could have been again. Gaza, after all, is still under Israeli military occupation. The use of missiles to eliminate political rivals is meant to send a message and part of that message is one of terror.

Slyhunter, as I've said in the past, I've no sympathy for the Islamic fundamentalist organizations among the Palestinians, either in their political goals or their tactics, but you are blinded to any serious criticism of the political goals and tactics of Israelis. Educate yourself to a more informed understanding of the subject, before you support anything the Israeli's decides to do.

zimv20

Apr 19, 2004, 10:51 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Apr17.html

link problem

SlyHunter

Apr 19, 2004, 12:22 PM

Israel has sustained years of terrorist attacks of one form or another. It is understandable when they go to far at times. I believe that if soldiers really did shoot innocent civilians just to ease their own tempers, while understandable, they still end up in prison for doing so. Innocents dieing in the attempt to defend against terrorist or remove terrorist elements are to be expected.

In Iraq a bunch of armed individuals fired from within a crowd at our troops. We fired back killing allot of innocents. We had no other choice but to let them win, and that is an unacceptable choice.

A better example in Israel. A rifleman fired at Israeli soldiers (a legal target for a freedom fighter, a revolutionary, or a resistence member, whatever you want to call them in this case). They returned fire killing him. The people in the area instead of running away from the gun fire ran towards it and stood around watching. When the gun man died another from the crowd ran over to the gun and started firing at the Israelites again. I understood this went thru something like 15 gunmen. I would not have been surprised if those on the Israelis side turned their weapons on the crowd so nobody else would take their turn at the gun. That person would belong in jail for doing so, but I would understand him doing it.

When I see crowds jumping on corpses, pulling heads off or other body parts and showing them to the crowd they lose all my sympathies. Normal people don't do that. Normal people run away from gun fire. Normal people shy away from dead bodies. I'm not sure anyone is innocent over there, I'm just hoping they are or there is no hope for an end of this terroristic activities short of genocide.

Sayhey

Apr 19, 2004, 02:00 PM

Israel has sustained years of terrorist attacks of one form or another. It is understandable when they go to far at times.

How many years have the Palestinian people been without the most basic of human rights. They have lived under military occupation since the late 40's and under the British mandate before that. There is no comparison in the desperation of the lives of the Israelis with that of the Palestinians. None of that means terrorism from a few sectors of the Palestinians is justified. I would only ask that you rethink your position on terrorism from the other side, which should be seen as equally indefensible.

Taft

Apr 19, 2004, 02:30 PM

To SlyHunter and those who believe that Israel can do no wrong...

Did you know that the tactics currently employed by Palestinians who want their own sovereign homeland were once used by Jews of the Zionist movement? In the early 1900's, Jews did not have a country of their own, though many wanted one. The Zionist movement sprung from this desire but was initially frowned upon by most Jews. It wasn't until the Nazis committed their horrible atrocities that the movement gained widespread backing both within the Jewish community and outside of it and a Jewish state was realized in 1947. You can read about Zionism throughout history from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

Anyway, before the Jews had their own state, many Zionist Jews had begun to immigrate to Palestine (then occupied and controlled by Britain) in an attempt to realize their goals. This, understandably, riled the Palestinians who lived in those areas (though debates still rage over the level of "national identity" those Palestinians had and how they were treated by the settling Jews). Nonetheless, as a result of the increasing Jewish immigration, rioting broke out. This caused Britain to curtail Jewish immigration to Palestine.

As a result of this action by the British, two militant Zionist groups were formed in Palestine by the already settled Jews. Haganah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah) was the more mainstream of the two groups and generally refrained from violence. Irgun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun_Zvai-Leumi), on the other hand, used extreme violence in an attempt to force the creation of an Jewish state. Irgun used a variety of terrorist tactics against the British occupiers and Palestinians in the region. A list of their actions can be found at Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun_Zvai-Leumi

I think the Palestinian terrorist actions are sickening and unjustifiable. But the tactics they use have been used many times before by people who have no other options. These tactics have even been used by Jews before they had widespread backing and their own state.

Further, not ALL palestinians are terrorists. Many are simply oppressed people who long for their independence, their own homeland and to see an end to the violence. Giving Palestinians, as a whole, a nation need not be seen as caving to the terrorists. It can also be seen as a humane act to redeem an opressed people, much like the situation of the Jewish people before 1947.

Taft

skunk

Apr 19, 2004, 03:41 PM

I'm not sure anyone is innocent over there, I'm just hoping they are or there is no hope for an end of this terroristic activities short of genocide.
Nice. Slip in a proposal of genocide right at the end. NOW the agenda is slipping out. Were you talking about killing all muslims, all arabs, or just all palestinians? This final solution gives you hope? I've got news for you: there are OTHER terrorists too. Are you going to suggest wiping out ALL of them? Or would it just possibly be more constructive to help them create a viable state so they have a better alternative than blowing themselves up?

SlyHunter

Apr 19, 2004, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
I'm not sure anyone is innocent over there, I'm just hoping they are or there is no hope for an end of this terroristic activities short of genocide.

Nice. Slip in a proposal of genocide right at the end. NOW the agenda is slipping out. Were you talking about killing all muslims, all arabs, or just all palestinians? This final solution gives you hope? I've got news for you: there are OTHER terrorists too. Are you going to suggest wiping out ALL of them? Or would it just possibly be more constructive to help them create a viable state so they have a better alternative than blowing themselves up?
That one state where they can blow themselves up sounds good too me and seems to be in the works with the wall Israel is building. If they would just finish it I would not have a problem with the UN standing guard on the wall itself insuring anyone who tries to cross that barrier from either side is shot. But only if they are actually willing to pull the trigger when the time comes. Heartless? No. If you know you will die if you try to cross that wall than it is your own fault for making the attempt for your death not the person who pulled the trigger.

This final solution of killing for example all Pallestinians, all wabi Iraqi's, all from that one sec of muslim that makes up al-qaeda is hopefully not a solution that will be necessary. But yes under no circumstance do you let those who promote suicide bombings or blowing up of civilian targets to win even if you have to kill them all.

mactastic

Apr 19, 2004, 06:00 PM

If you know you will die if you try to cross that wall than it is your own fault for making the attempt for your death not the person who pulled the trigger.

So you just absolved all the guards that shot East Berliners trying to cross over to freedom? Nice.

poopyhead

Apr 19, 2004, 06:13 PM

This final solution of killing for example all Pallestinians, all wabi Iraqi's, all from that one sec of muslim that makes up al-qaeda is hopefully not a solution that will be necessary.

you mean wahhabi
that would be the state of Saudi Arabia
wich is based on wahhabism
they are our allies

I am starting to think that maybe you have some racist tendencies.

SlyHunter

Apr 19, 2004, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
If you know you will die if you try to cross that wall than it is your own fault for making the attempt for your death not the person who pulled the trigger.

So you just absolved all the guards that shot East Berliners trying to cross over to freedom? Nice.

Nice twist I'll have to think on that one for a long while. Although technically it was legal for them to do so.

Sayhey

Apr 19, 2004, 07:23 PM

This final solution of killing for example all Pallestinians, all wabi Iraqi's, all from that one sec of muslim that makes up al-qaeda is hopefully not a solution that will be necessary. But yes under no circumstance do you let those who promote suicide bombings or blowing up of civilian targets to win even if you have to kill them all.

You just crossed the line SlyHunter. I've tried to have a conversation with you, even if it got contentious at times, but I don't talk to people who think genocide is acceptable under any circumstances. Your outrageous politics have been in evidence since you dropped in here, but this is well beyond the pale. You are not worth the time.

poopyhead

Apr 19, 2004, 07:28 PM

http://www.photo.net/photo/pcd0075/dachau-arbeit-48

I think this sums everything up

skunk

Apr 19, 2004, 07:30 PM

This final solution of killing for example all Pallestinians, all wabi Iraqi's, all from that one sec of muslim that makes up al-qaeda is hopefully not a solution that will be necessary. But yes under no circumstance do you let those who promote suicide bombings or blowing up of civilian targets to win even if you have to kill them all.
Your advocacy of genocide is truly monstrous. You seem to have settled in somewhere to the right of Adolf Hitler. You should get on a forum at the NRA/KKK where they might appreciate your style of enlightenment. Tell it to Chuck.

Sayhey

Apr 19, 2004, 07:32 PM

http://www.photo.net/photo/pcd0075/dachau-arbeit-48

I think this sums everything up

He exhibits the same mentality. Just got through updating my ignore list.

SlyHunter

Apr 19, 2004, 07:36 PM

I said I was hoping it wouldn't come to that. But what can you do if an entire sect of people either Pallestinians vs Israel or that religious Iraqi sect in Iraq refuses to accept peace as a solution and won't stop their terroristic activites. I should have used a different word than genocide because I do not agree with the killing of women and children. But how about everyone who is a member of Hamas who has stated time and time again that there shall not be any peace as long as a single Israeli is alive in the Middle East. Then I find it acceptable to kill all Hamas members until they stop fighting, until they are willing to accept peace.

skunk

Apr 19, 2004, 07:39 PM

I said I was hoping it wouldn't come to that. But what can you do if an entire sect of people either Pallestinians vs Israel or that religious Iraqi sect in Iraq refuses to accept peace as a solution and won't stop their terroristic activites. I should have used a different word than genocide because I do not agree with the killing of women and children.
Please stop posting your stinking, borrowed opinions. You really have to do some serious rethinking. Preferably on your own.

SlyHunter

Apr 19, 2004, 07:41 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyHunter
If you know you will die if you try to cross that wall than it is your own fault for making the attempt for your death not the person who pulled the trigger.

Originally Posted by mactastic
So you just absolved all the guards that shot East Berliners trying to cross over to freedom? Nice.
Nice twist I'll have to think on that one for a long while. Although technically it was legal for them to do so.
I've thought about it longer.
in the early 80's I was one of many responsible for radios at radio site GC which provided the primary means of communication for the 3 point border guards. These radios were the same level of technology as our old fashion early 1900's telephones except from terminal to repeater to terminal was radio instead of wire. One of my duties was to scan the channels (different phone lines) for problems and every now and then I would hear gun fire in the background from someone running from Czechovakia into Germany. Our people weren't the ones firing all they could do was sit there and watch wondering if those running would make it this time.

I heard a tale about 3 soldiers going to a bar getting drunk with girls and the girls took them to another bar where they were arrested by Czechovakian police. They were so drunk they didn't realize they crossed a border control point that was maned by someone who was asleep in their homes.

I never understood why those who ran the border for freedom didn't go thru one of those border control points that usually were unguarded at night.

Maybe if a Pallestinian wanted to escape to freedom they would be well advised to find a better path than jumping the wall for there are other more open routes out of their country. They just don't lead to Israel.

zimv20

Apr 19, 2004, 07:44 PM

Just got through updating my ignore list.
congrats, hunter. it takes a herculian effort to exceed sayhey's limits, one of the most calm and patient posters here.

oh -- and, no, i won't see your reply.

skunk

Apr 19, 2004, 07:44 PM

I've thought about it longer.
Not long enough. Don't call me....

Desertrat

Apr 19, 2004, 08:19 PM

skunk--and some others: I think it's obvious that SlyHunter does not express himself all that well. I think you are reading more harshness into his ideas than is actually warranted. The guy has already said he's no wordsmith.

I agree with some of his ideas and disagree with others. Regardless, I think you are coming down too strong on him. The "genocide" bit is an example. I did not take it to mean he was suggesting that as any sort of desired solution, as something he favored. I took it as rather a rhetorical question about how to deal with total intransigence. Further, skunk you ignored his effort to clarify via the "Hamas" example.

And, hey, folks, if some pretty bright "official" people on both sides of the argument or issues haven't found much beyond frustration, what are we supposed to expect from ourselves here on this board?

I danged sure don't have any easy or perfect solution, and I've been watching this whole deal since the UN vote of 1948.

'Rat

Sayhey

Apr 19, 2004, 08:48 PM

Desertrat

Apr 19, 2004, 09:35 PM

Hokay, Sayhey.

My take on history is that after a war, the winner has the say about what goes on in the territory he's taken. In Israel's case, in 1967 they were attacked but won. So, IMO, that gave them the right to occupy the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza. It ain't like they up and said, "Hey, why don't we go take those areas?"

As time has gone on, and sliding on past the second losing effort by the Arabs in 1973, I've not really seen much point to Israel's hanging on to Gaza. We've bought off Egypt. However, keeping the Golan Heights and the West Bank makes both strategic and tactical sense; all you have to do is look at a map to see that.

Way, way back I agreed with Netanyahu when he pointed out the hazard and the foolishness of Israel's trading land for peace, when the various hostile Arab groups openly spoke of genocide of all Israelis and the Palestinian Charter included genocide. (It was not until mid-Clinton that this paragraph was grudgingly removed; it's still a matter of lip-service only that Israel has a right to exist.) I agree with such as Dayan and Netanyahu that Israel could never afford to lose even one battle without it being the end of their existence. And a country only ten miles wide--without the West Bank--is extremely vulnerable.

In 1947 and 1948 many mullahs (remember those sweeties?) preached that Jews would eat Arab babies, among other "factual" matters. The relatively few Arabs in the new Israel did not have to leave. Those who left were not allowed to assimilate into the other Arab countries, which is the reason for those refugee camps in the first place. Within them, the mullahs continued their diatribes, speaking of stolen lands and jihad. Those Arabs who stayed in Israel made out reasonably well.

And so we have the progression of the formation of the PLO and then the offshoots such as Black September, Islamic Jihad, Hamas et al...

Westerners seem to generally believe that if you just discuss things often enough and long enough that some peaceful resolution will come to pass. The problem children of the Arab world, for some fifty years now, have obviously been of a different view of the world. The 1972 Olympics in Sarajevo come readily to mind...

IMO, as long as Arafat is alive, there is no hope for any sort of peace for Israel, no matter what sort of land deals they do of which the Palestinians and their apologists approve.

'Rat

Sayhey

Apr 19, 2004, 11:31 PM

I see we are not talking about the wisdom of Bush's move, but the entire history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. OK, but this could get very long and involved.

Your first point harkens back to different times when occupying powers thought they could do whatever the wished with subject populations. I would submit that we should have moved on from that view. Our own history with conquered peoples is an object lesson of what should not be done. At any rate, when we were the first to ratify the UN Charter we helped move the world away from the days of the "right" of colonial occupiers to do as they will. We recognized rights, such as the right to self-determination, that all peoples are entitled to regardless of the power of the forces arrayed against them. The Palestinian people were not selected out from these basic human rights. In short, it does not matter if the states surrounding Israel, none of which were controlled by Palestinians, decided to attack in 1967; the Palestinians did not loose their right to the same things you and I take for granted.

Next you raise the also outdated concept of the appropriateness of a "security barrier" of other people's land in defense of Israel holding on to the West Bank and Gaza. I'd remind you, 'Rat, this was the same reason given for the Red Army's control of Eastern Europe for decades. Real security comes from peace and normal relations with your neighbors. While I'd be the last person to say that the bad blood between Israel and her neighbors was entirely her fault, I would also not hold Israel blameless. I would point out, and this deals with your next point, that the land for peace formula has worked very well in the case of Egypt. Netanyahu, Sharon, and the Likud party in general represent the politics of a Greater Israel and have always looked at the West Bank and Gaza (and the Golan for that matter) as lands that must be incorporated into Israel. This is not just a ideology of the need for security, but it is more akin to our own "manifest destiny."

Your discussion of the "mullahs" raise important points about the leadership of the Palestinians, but again you don't seem to raise the many similar points that could be raised about many in the Israeli leadership. I would caution that it has become fashionable to lump all "mullahs" together and this is no more correct than lumping together all rabbis, or priests, or monks, etc. Certainly in the present climate I would agree that the main problem we face in the Arab world is Islamic fundamentalism, but that is no more the sum total of all Islam or "mullahs" than the late Rabbi Kahane and his ilk are of Judaism. What is needed in this situation is support for those in both communities that do not fall into the traps of nationalism and racism.

Lastly, at least for now, let me say we don't get to choose who represents the Palestinians any more than we do the Israelis, but we can work with folks who are willing to look for a solution that respects the basic human and national rights of both sides. In this case that means working with Arafat and the folks in the Palestinian authority and helping them build a workable country. Such a policy is an anathema to the Likud but it is the only one that has a chance for bringing lasting peace. In the final analysis that must be what governs our policy - a search for peace based on justice.

P.S.- Hamas and Islamic Jihad are not part of the PLO (Black September was rumored to have connections with Fateh, but I don't know of the proof of the charge.) The '72 Olympics were held in Munich not Sarajevo. And more importantly the Palestinians, as a people, are not children.

Good talking to you, 'Rat

Desertrat

Apr 20, 2004, 07:58 PM

Yeah, Munich. That was the Summer Olympics, wasn't it? No matter.

The main reason I support holding to the West Bank is that Israel was attacked, and the attack was unprovoked. That's nowhere near the same as what Europeans did in the U.S. or Canada or Mexico or Central and South America. Or in Europe, for that matter.

Insofar as the Egypt comparison, well, look at a map of Israel of the 1948 delineation, and recall there was no remorse shown by any of the Arab states after the 1967 war. Survival is paramount, even for mice! :) But like I said, I saw no real point in keeping Gaza once there was any reasonable peace between Egypt and Israel.

The Red Army's control of the Iron Curtain countries was based upon an unwarranted fear of invasion from the West, not to mention what Empire Home could steal from its colonies. An unwarranted fear is called paranoia. Israel was and is in an entirely different situation: Their fear of invasion is warranted, since the losers didn't learn anything in 1967 and tried again in 1973.

I have a bit of trouble keeping the terrorist groups names in context and memory. To me, they're all the same insofar as hatred of Israel is concerned, plus their glee and joy when killing Jews.

You're correct about lumping all mullahs together. I'd guess that to some extent, I separate Imams in general from what I've read of mullahs. Those of this latter appellation seem to commonly be the most active in preaching Jihad. Only a few of those called Imams, apparently, do so. I admit to not having it totally together about the structure of the Islamic religion. And not all mullahs are of the Kahane equivalence.

I don't know how large a "Greater Israel" would be, in the minds of the Netanyahus, but I'd venture that realpolitik as to conditions for U.S. aid would preclude anything greater than what's now the area.

I dunno. Syrians and PLO types shot rockets into villages from the Golan Heights, until the 1967 war. Various Arabs went to schools and shot teachers and kids, until the teachers and older kids took to carrying guns. That changed the tactics to the bombing of buses. Then came the incitement of the first Intifada in Gaza. To my view, there has been unending incitement, regardless of any efforts on Israel's part to work out some accommodation with those now labelled "Palestinians". Hell's bells, what's now called Jordan was once part of the map of Palestine as a British Mandate...Today's Palestinians have as much right to be in Jordan as they do to be in Israel. Parenthetically, I wonder just how many of today's hell-raisers are actually descended from those people who left Israel in 1948?

I guess not of what I think really matters; genocide is still the Arabic goal. Maybe follow Tom Clancy's idea of letting the Vatican have control of the sacred areas. Add in the idea of moving the Israelis to the U.S. Israel's land area is about one-half the size of my home county, so they wouldn't need a lot. :D

'Rat

mactastic

Apr 20, 2004, 09:21 PM

The Red Army's control of the Iron Curtain countries was based upon an unwarranted fear of invasion from the West...

Says you! I bet they thought it was pretty warranted. And I'm sure they would have told you our paranoia was unwarranted as well. It all comes down to Do You Feel Safe in your borders. If you don't, you want a buffer. We condemned it then, mostly because we had oceans as buffers over here, but if we'd been mostly landlocked do you think we wouldn't have had NATO countries ringed all around us?

Sayhey

Apr 20, 2004, 10:04 PM

'Rat,

it is helpful to at least look at this from the other guys view. The partition was not something that any of the Arab states supported. It was imposed on them from the outside by mainly European states (including the USSR) and the US. In '48 in response some of the neighboring Arab states (Egypt and Syria) sent troops into areas the UN gave to the new state of Israel; others sent troop into areas that were designated by the UN to be Palestine. The Palestinians themselves had no say in any of this. Unprovoked? I think a case, at least can be made to say not entirely.

If you see the creation of a new state on the land of your brother as illegitimate, resulting in the dispersal of millions of refugees, then unprovoked is probably not the best way to describe the situation. You and I can set back and say that regardless of how the huge surge of Jewish immigrants came to Palestine, they had rights to determine their own future; it is however understandable that those who lost homes, land and what they saw as their birthright would not so easily come to the same conclusion.

In that context, and without any resolution of the Palestinian "problem" the wars in '67 and '73 are seen in the Arab world as the logical continuation of an on going struggle for justice for Palestinians. I don't ask you to necessarily agree with this view, but it is important to understand it.

I think it is very important to remember the history of terrorism in the region and its ties to the horrible racism (both anti-Jewish and anti-Arab) that has been used to "justify" these acts. Are there acts by the PLO that should be condemned. Absolutely. However, if we are ever to get anywhere it is important to also remember the atrocities committed on the other side. Just as Begin was able to build a political career based on despicable acts (the bombing of the King David hotel, Deir Yassin, and his leadership of the Irgun) so too did Arafat build a career based on the use of terror. If we are to refuse to deal with people with blood on their hands then there will be very few folks from both sides at the negotiating table. The crucial factor is are they willing to move beyond that history now.

We have, up to last week, always supported a Peace deal that would be based on various UN resolutions. It seems to me that those resolutions are the only real basis for peace. I would hope we could get back to them.

Lastly, and off topic, let me just say the Soviets thought, given the history of invasion by foreign troops (including our own) during the Civil War and more importantly the Nazi invasion of their country (resulting in the loss of 20 million people,) they were more than justified in creating a security cordon in Eastern Europe. Of course they weren't - not because they didn't have legitimate fears from future invasions, but because that fear did not justify the loss of sovereignty of millions of Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Romanians, etc. I'm afraid it is the same with Israel. Even if the fear is justified, the solution isn't.

See, I told you this could get long!

edit: The goal of a greater Israel is to recapture the Kingdom of David. That is from the Nile to the Euphrates (I understand there is a reference to this on the doors of the Knesset.) There are those in Israel who view all of this land as the land of Israel.

Desertrat

Apr 21, 2004, 08:42 AM

Mac, certainly the view of Stalin, et al, was sincere, given the history of invasions of Russia. Sincerity does not obviate paranoia. Oceans or no, NATO resulted from actions of the USSR, not some vague fears from the past; it was based on what was then current behavior of the USSR.

Sayhey, I follow the reasoning. No problem, there. But, if the Arabs couldn't (emotionally, and later, physically) accept a UN deal then, is it not a precedent for Israel--or the US--to reject certain UN deals, now? (Omitting morals from this, for now.)

I've no feel for how many Israelis would go for a Greater Israel. I'd bet the farm that a miniscule percentage of world movers and shakers would do other than take steps to stop such an effort. I see the U.S. as unalterably opposed to such an idea.

Again, I really don't believe that even some peaceful accord between Israelis and Palestinians would stop other Arab countries from trying to eradicate Israel and all Israelis. The peaceful Palestinians have long been unable to stop the various groups which send bombers into Israel. I doubt they would gain this ability with some sort of Palestinian state.

So long as countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria (and its vassal, Lebanon) and Saudi Arabia provide money and sanctuary and other support for anti-Israeli terrorism, Israel's "intransigence" will continue.

To them, it's the simple matter of survival. The staying-alive thing. (As long as we're looking at how others think about a situation.)

Reminds me of the game of Go.

'Rat

Sayhey

Apr 21, 2004, 11:22 AM

'Rat,

certainly Israelis could, and some do, say that they don't have to follow the mandate of the UN and can in fact use force to create their own reality on the ground (this is the current policy of the Sharon government.) Yes, some Arabs states have tried since the creation of Israel to take this approach as well. Where does that get us, 'Rat? Those with the biggest stick win? I think the lessons of the world, in Israel and Palestine and also in places like Vietnam, are that there are no lasting roads to peace from these kinds of tactics. Sharon can create his bantustans on the West Bank with his wall and he can further wall off the Gaza into an isolated ghetto without contact or resources from the rest of the world, but the Palestinians are not going away. Military solutions are not real solutions. Only a political settlement of the issues that deal with the legitimate concerns on both sides can ever hope to bring peace.

As to other states in the Arab world, I think you dismiss the changes and the proposed talks from Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia much to easily. There are real possibilities for changing the nature of Israel's relations with the rest of the Arab world if a solution can be found for the Palestinians.

On the question of those who within Israel support the concept of a Greater Israel, let me say this: every time you hear a Israeli official call the West Bank "Judea and Sumaria" you are hearing the call of a greater Israel. The idea that Israel has a right to all, or in this case a part of, the ancient Kingdom of David is a fundamental problem to the recognition of the rights of all those who live in these lands - Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian etc. It is a kind of nationalism that has helped to create this horrible situation just as the virulent Arab nationalism that calls for the "sweeping the Jews into the seas" has. The only way forward is to fight them both.

Lastly, the whole point of the example of the Red Army and Eastern Europe was not to debate whether Stalin was paranoid or if the creation of NATO came from real Soviet threats, but to show that others have used, and with some justification, the idea of a "security cordon" to claim control of other people's land. In the end, such excuses for occupation cannot hold up whether it is in Warsaw or Jerusalem.

SlyHunter

Apr 21, 2004, 11:54 AM

There can be no "real" solution with the "Palestines" as long as those like Hamas who believe "there shall be no peace as long as a Israelite is in the Middle East" don't stop their suicide bombings. And they won't stop unless someone stops them. The perfered method would be that the Palestinians stopped them and policed their own. Since their not Israel has to.

skunk

Apr 21, 2004, 01:55 PM

There can be no "real" solution with the "Palestines" as long as those like Hamas who believe "there shall be no peace as long as a Israelite is in the Middle East" don't stop their suicide bombings. And they won't stop unless someone stops them.
Or until they stop getting popular support. If the ordinary people of Gaza had any reason to hope, Hamas would be deprived of oxygen.

Desertrat

Apr 22, 2004, 08:04 AM

Sayhey, I follow your points. I don't necessarily disagree with them all, but here it might be a case that you're right, but being right is irrelevant to the situation.

I hadn't noticed the significance of the "Judea/Samaria" thing. Thanks.

Ever read Harry Harrison's "Death World"? Settlers on a planet, fighting an ever-escalating, ever-more-hostile environment. Action and reaction. I sorta see some parallels with the Israeli/Palestinian deal.

I've sometimes thought the UN (maybe?) oughta say something like, "Hey! The whole world is fed up! Your area is now named EastMed, and you are all equal citizens." Total disarmament of everybody in the area.

'Rat

numediaman

Apr 25, 2004, 02:42 PM

From the Sunday Washington Post:

Why Did Bush Take My Job?

By Saeb Erekat
Sunday, April 25, 2004; Page B07

JERUSALEM -- President Bush apparently has taken my job.

Until the Bush-Sharon press conference on April 14, I was the chief negotiator for the Palestine Liberation Organization, the only internationally recognized entity that has a mandate to negotiate a permanent peace with Israel. But then Bush appeared on television, standing at the White House next to a beaming Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel, and announced that he had accepted Israel's claim to illegally occupied Palestinian land. He further determined that Palestinian refugees would never be allowed to return to their homes in Israel and would instead have to be resettled in a Palestinian state, vast tracts of which he had just given away.

In so doing, Bush reneged on the 1991 U.S. Letter of Assurances provided to the Palestinians by his father's administration; the letter said that "no party should take unilateral actions that seek to predetermine issues" and that "the United States has opposed and will continue to oppose settlement activity in the territories occupied in 1967." Bush, as the self-appointed Palestinian negotiator, finally exposed the "Middle East peace process" for the charade that it has become -- a mechanism by which Israel and the United States impose a solution on the Palestinians.

In this era of unmatched and unchallenged U.S. power, Bush abandoned America's historical role as facilitator and mediator of Middle East peace and instead simply adopted the positions of an expansionist, right-wing government in Israel. It is mind-boggling that an American president, often citing the rule of law, would use the power of his position not to enforce international law against illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory but instead to legitimize them as "currently existing Israeli population centers," thereby giving Israelis an incentive to build even more. It is mind-boggling that a president who supports equality and non-discrimination would dismiss the rights of Christian and Muslim refugees to return to their homes in the "Jewish state" -- a term often repeated but never defined or even left to the parties to negotiate. And it is mind-boggling that the leader of the free world, the president of a nation whose very existence is based on liberty and justice, would act so callously to deny liberty and justice to the Palestinian people.

The positions taken by Bush are completely contrary to, and thus seriously undermine, the expressed objectives of American policy of democratic reform in the Middle East. Freedom? Of course -- unless you are a Palestinian, in which case your rights must be approved by Israel. The rule of law? Absolutely -- unless you are Israel, in which case you need not concern yourself with U.N. resolutions, the Fourth Geneva Convention, international refugee law or human rights treaties.

Accountability? Without a doubt -- unless you are Ariel Sharon, in which case you may freely conduct assassinations, build walls and settlements, oppress an entire population and then be rewarded with unquestioning support.

Bush wants to reform the Arab world while serving as the Washington franchise for an Israeli government bent on the expropriation of Palestinian land and the domination and humiliation of the Palestinian people. As long as the United States refuses to play an evenhanded role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as long as it continues to cede its Middle East policy to the Israeli government, U.S. efforts to win the war on terrorism are seriously undermined.

Israel's non-negotiated disengagement from Gaza will cause many Palestinians to conclude that violence, and not negotiations, is the only option for securing their rights. The majority of Palestinians who support a peaceful, negotiated two-state solution now see that Palestinians are no longer even welcome at the negotiating table. Israel is now negotiating peace with the United States -- not with the Palestinians. It is impossible to describe how deeply this has undermined Palestinian moderates, such as myself, who have continued to argue for a solution that is based on reconciliation and negotiation and not on revenge and retaliation.

The primary beneficiaries of these developments are extremist groups throughout the Middle East. The leaders of such groups could not have invented a better method of recruitment than the Bush-Sharon press conference. The reality is that as a result of the positions taken by the Bush administration, we are farther away from a permanent peace than we have ever been, and many innocent people on both sides will die in the coming months and years as a result.

My role as chief Palestinian negotiator may have been taken from me, but I retain my role as a Palestinian father. I am determined to teach my children that violence is not the answer. President Bush has not made my job any easier.

The writer is chief negotiator for the Palestine Liberation Organization

zimv20

Apr 25, 2004, 02:48 PM

By Saeb Erekat
JERUSALEM -- President Bush apparently has taken my job.
[chomp]

wow

skunk

Apr 25, 2004, 04:21 PM

wow
Says it all.

mactastic

Apr 25, 2004, 06:29 PM

The primary beneficiaries of these developments are extremist groups throughout the Middle East. The leaders of such groups could not have invented a better method of recruitment than the Bush-Sharon press conference.

And we're safer from terrorism these days how?

Macco

Apr 25, 2004, 06:48 PM

skunk

Apr 25, 2004, 06:56 PM

SlyHunter

Apr 25, 2004, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by Macco
I don't see what choice Bush had but to negotiate with Israel only. The Palestinian authority has repeatedly refused any offer from Israel. Just four years ago, Yassir Arafat refused 98% of the occupied territories. Do you really think anything has changed? He and his organization are dedicated to the entire destruction of Israel. They do not believe in any sort of two-state solution.

Maybe they should just put the natives on reservations. Worked fine before. Oh, wait a sec, that's what they're doing, isn't it?
Then what is your solution shove the jews into the ocean so they are no longer a blight anywhere on the Middle East? I don't call that much of a compromise. In a compromise both sides give some. Arafat and them refuse to budge an inch.

skunk

Apr 25, 2004, 07:23 PM

Then what is your solution shove the jews into the ocean so they are no longer a blight anywhere on the Middle East? I don't call that much of a compromise. In a compromise both sides give some. Arafat and them refuse to budge an inch.
A refugee is someone who has been forced to leave their home. What are they supposed to compromise with?

Sayhey

Apr 25, 2004, 07:45 PM

I don't see what choice Bush had but to negotiate with Israel only. The Palestinian authority has repeatedly refused any offer from Israel. Just four years ago, Yassir Arafat refused 98% of the occupied territories. Do you really think anything has changed? He and his organization are dedicated to the entire destruction of Israel. They do not believe in any sort of two-state solution.

The PLO long, long ago endorsed the two state solution. That was after many years of supporting the idea of one democratic state on all the lands that were Palestine. What they won't compromise on is giving up on the principles of UN resolutions 242 and others that demand Israel give back the territories it took in 1967. There is now way for a two state solution to work other than through those principles outlined in these UN resolutions. There are organizations that do not accept the idea of a state of Israel - the PLO is not one of them.

Arafat did not refuse 98% of the land of the West Bank, he did refuse to give up on what every other state in the world, including the US up to a few weeks ago, said was the basis for a just solution.

Has anything changed in the Palestinian leadership since the founding of the PLO in the mid-sixties? Any fair minded evaluation would say much has changed. Unfortunately, given the policies of the Bush and Sharon administrations I think the new changes will be for the worse. We have strengthened the support for the worst, most reactionary elements of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. But that was the point of Sharon's policy ever since his walk on the Temple mount before he became Prime Minister. He has never wanted a negotiated settlement.

numediaman

May 18, 2004, 05:37 PM

Let's hope this story is a bunch of BS:

Bush White House checked with rapture Christians before latest Israel move
The Jesus Landing Pad

by Rick Perlstein
May 18th, 2004 10:00 AM

It was an e-mail we weren't meant to see. Not for our eyes were the notes that showed White House staffers taking two-hour meetings with Christian fundamentalists, where they passed off bogus social science on gay marriage as if it were holy writ and issued fiery warnings that "the Presidents [sic] Administration and current Government is engaged in cultural, economical, and social struggle on every level"—this to a group whose representative in Israel believed herself to have been attacked by witchcraft unleashed by proximity to a volume of Harry Potter. Most of all, apparently, we're not supposed to know the National Security Council's top Middle East aide consults with apocalyptic Christians eager to ensure American policy on Israel conforms with their sectarian doomsday scenarios.

But now we know.

"Everything that you're discussing is information you're not supposed to have," barked Pentecostal minister Robert G. Upton when asked about the off-the-record briefing his delegation received on March 25. Details of that meeting appear in a confidential memo signed by Upton and obtained by the Voice.

The e-mailed meeting summary reveals NSC Near East and North African Affairs director Elliott Abrams sitting down with the Apostolic Congress and massaging their theological concerns. Claiming to be "the Christian Voice in the Nation's Capital," the members vociferously oppose the idea of a Palestinian state. They fear an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza might enable just that, and they object on the grounds that all of Old Testament Israel belongs to the Jews. Until Israel is intact and David's temple rebuilt, they believe, Christ won't come back to earth.

Abrams attempted to assuage their concerns by stating that "the Gaza Strip had no significant Biblical influence such as Joseph's tomb or Rachel's tomb and therefore is a piece of land that can be sacrificed for the cause of peace."

Three weeks after the confab, President George W. Bush reversed long-standing U.S. policy, endorsing Israeli sovereignty over parts of the West Bank in exchange for Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip . . .

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0420/perlstein.php