Why is the U.S. covering up for PA and Iran???

[Negev]

As everyone probably knows by now, a boat full of 50 tons of weapons from Iran was intercepted by Israel on its way for the Palestinians.

The boat was originally purchased by Arafat's PA and was loaded with the weapons in Iran and the captain of the ship is an officer in the PA's military apparatus.

The weapons included Katyusha rockets, rifles, mortar shells, mines and a variety of anti-tank missiles.

When busted by the Israelis, both the PA and Iran denied any knowledge or involvement. This doesn't surprise me because the Arabs and Iranians have often considered the West to be a bunch of idiots in general eager to swallow any Arab lies.

The interesting issue here was the the U.S. which knows better also started to publicize that the weapons were not intended for the PA but for Hizbullah.

Today the captain of the ship admitted to the press that the whole thing was done by the direction of the PA and exposing the PA's lies in a most embarrassing way to the PA.

The big question is why would the US have participated in covering up for the PA and shifting blame to Hizbullah?
[list=1]
Maybe the US would be too ashamed to admit that it is a party to pressuring Israel to make concessions to the PA when it is known that the PA was plannig a massive war against Israel?

Maybe the US is afraid that if the truth got out that theBush administration could no longer protect the PA from being declared an official terror organization as has been urged by Sharon for years?

Maybe the US is secretly cutting a deal with Iran that will protect Iran from the US war on terror while allowing the US to strike more conveniently at Iraq?
[/list=1]
I don't know the answers for sure but something stinks big time not only in Arafat's sewer but also in the US state department this time

[raven]

Im afraid it is time for Jews in America to face up to some hard facts. This country of ours has been double dealing with American Jews and Israel for years. ( thats really what the Liberty incident was really all about) We have been forced to allow our tax money to support the killing of our fellow Jews in Israel and when we dare to object we are told in no uncertain terms that we had better shut up or be portrayed as UnAmerican. It is Terrorism when Americans are blown up in NY and DC and somehow it is NOT Terrorism when Jews in Israel are blown up. SICK OF THIS? I am.

This is NOT this first time this has happened. It happened in WW2 when we tried to tell America what was happening in Germany very very early on. Then,as now, we were warned that making any issue of the matter could hurt the war effort ( sound familiar?) and that we would be seen as Un American.

More things change, the more they say the same.

And of course our good friends the Saudis have NOTHING..but NOTHING to do with all of this MURDER...all these years. Of course they havent financed the slaughter of Jews by Arafat and the rest all these years. They are our America's Good Friends. They are part of the coilition against Terrorism. Riiiggght.

What will be in store for Jews in America as this country tries to mollify the overseas Arab World and the American-Arab Community? Doesnt bode well and we might as well face it and DO something about this for our own future safety. Lets not make the same mistake we made in the early 30's in Germany. We must see our situation for what it is and take appropiate measures. Maybe it is time to leave. Maybe it is time NOT to contribute all that we have and all that we know to any country that intends to deamonize us, minimize us, and push us aside.

[takeo]

interesting to note is that some intelligent American Jews attack the US-government for always aiding a country that illegally occupies other regions and surpresses an entire population. (Noam Chomsky for example)
Not only aiding but as well blocking un-resolutions condamning israel because it's policy is a serious offense of the international laws (it won't interest you that this same un also condamned arab terrorists attacking innocent civilians). without the US-support, Israel would have complied to the un-resolutions long time ago.
about the boat with weapons: the US wil not protect the PA when it doesn't have to, propbably the CIA discovered that this weapons were really aimed for Hesbollah (Iran never recognised the PA) but the Mossad and Sharon tried to distort truth in the aim of not having to talk with Arafat, womething demanded by the White House. the US is prepared to support Israel even if it's harming its own interests, but it is not prepared to take Israeli lies for granted.

[L@mplighterM]

I believe that the CIA fed the information regarding the weapons to the Jews. The Israelis knew exactly where to find the ship. Pictures were most likely sent by satelite to the Americans and forwarded to Israel.

The USA just gave Israel 28 million dollars for a robot not only that Billions are given to Isael every year. USA is pissed off with Arafat and his lies and it certainly appears that he's being ignored lately.

When you're dealing with Nations in the Middle-east you have to be like the Roman god Janus. If you dont have two faces in that neck of the woods you can't make deals. Most of us are just privy to what we read in the news and we make our assumptions based on that. There's a lot more going on that we wouldn't even know about.

[takeo]

So lomplighter, if the Us doesn't like Arafat and provided the information to Israel about the ship, why for God's sake would they say the arms were for hesbollah if it was really for the PA?
Makes it even more clear that the uS-information was correct and Israeli information a lie (for not having to talk to Arafat).

"When you're dealing with Nations in the Middle-east you have to be like the Roman god Janus. If you dont have two faces in that neck of the woods you can't make deals. Most of us are just privy to what we read in the news and we make our assumptions based on that. There's a lot more going on that we wouldn't even know about."

This applies as well in dealing with Israel.

[L@mplighterM]

I think the US knows exactly where the weapons were headed and they have backtracked in their previous statement.

Arafat is trying to **** the world again with his investigation and punisment BS. I don't know about the rest of the world but it made me laugh when I saw the headline on CNN that read:

Arafat: Any officials tied to arms ship will be punished


Like are they going to be made to go through the revolving door or wont he kiss them any more?

[takeo]

You still didn't explain to me why the US said it were arms for the hesbollah if, according to you, it were arms for the PA?

[L@mplighterM]

The arms were in the possession of PA officials. Arafat is the head of the PA.
The US is not making the statement that the arms belong to the hesbollah.

Further the US knows exactly who was in possession of the arms. READ!!!!

The freighter was owned by the PA authority and it's captain belonged to the same organization. The arms were paid for by the PA authority.

So your arguement is that the US believes that the arms were for/ or belonged to the hesbollah? There might be some in the US that believes that but not the US administration.

The US has said that Israel had the right to seize the ship in international waters and that is excatly what Israel did. The rest speaks for itself.

[NewsGuy]

Looks like the US has now back-tracked and reversed its position saying that the weapons were in fact headed straight for the PA, just like Israel has been saying for some time.

Maybe ther's some measure of sanity returning to the US state department.

[takeo]

"The freighter was owned by the PA authority and it's captain belonged to the same organization. The arms were paid for by the PA authority. "
guess what, this is the statement of the israeli government... and guess what, i don't believe a word of what these guys are saying, certainly not if the US is contradicting them.
Of course the US knows exactly for who the arms were. that's why stated they were going to hesbollah, that's exactly what they sayed, and i didn't hear anyone in the state department or any other us-offical declare that the ship was indeed headed for the PA.
Besides, israel doesn't have the right to stop any vessel in international waters that don't belong to Israel. Just read the international legislation and you'll be surprised (not only for this reason by the way). If any other country would do that to an israeli vessel it would mean war.
and even in the case the PA would have ordered the weapons (they wouldn't certainly have done it now, as in this time they need international sympathy to force Israel in talking with Arafat)., they have the right to arm themselves just as Israel has the right to arm itself. Next time israeli tanks intrude the territory of the PA I hope they will have anti-tank weapons. It is better than children throwing stones

:D

[Not Beilin]

Originally posted by takeo

and even in the case the PA would have ordered the weapons (they wouldn't certainly have done it now, as in this time they need international sympathy to force Israel in talking with Arafat)., they have the right to arm themselves just as Israel has the right to arm itself. Next time israeli tanks intrude the territory of the PA I hope they will have anti-tank weapons. It is better than children throwing stones :D

And maybe Al queda should also have the right to arm itself?

Maybe they need stronger and better planes to crash into more American cities?

According to you terrorists should be armed to the teeth. Arafat and bin Laden will be very happy to know that they now have the opportunity to get more weapons and if any country stops that, then they are going against international laws?

[L@mplighterM]

takeo
I think when you wrote thank god you really meant thank ALLAH.

If you think that the Isralis seized the ship illegally why dont you donate your salary to the PA legal defense fund so that they can sue in the world court.

[takeo]

Al quaida is a terrorist organisation aiming at killing innocent civilians, the PA is the leader of a region that is illegally occupied and terrorised by Israel, and is conducting self-defense of its own people against the invading army. (ps: before you twist my words: killing innocent civilians in Israel is not self-defense of palestine, it is terrorism, destroying a tank invading autonomous territory is not terrorism but self-defense of the legitimate autority of that territory). And the US did not occupy afghanistan so the taliban/al Quaida had no rights to attack the US, and certainly not innocent civilians.

[L@mplighterM]

You'll never understand takeo because you just don't see the light.

The way I understand your arguement is that Israel just meandered into territory and took control. Therefore the Arabs has the right to fight what they consider the invaders using any means to drive them of the land as long as the acts of aggression is committed within the occupied land.

International Law doesn't work that way and it never will. I suppose that you think that an organization can commit terrorist acts and then run back to what it consideres its territory and find sanctuary. Or for that matter shoot across some border, kill civilians and expect no retaliation.

I'm not twisting your words they are twisted to begin with.

[takeo]

"The way I understand your arguement is that Israel just meandered into territory and took control. Therefore the Arabs has the right to fight what they consider the invaders using any means to drive them of the land as long as the acts of aggression is committed within the occupied land. "

yes, there was not enough reason to start the war in 1967 and stay in the occupied territories forever. Except the word "any means", killing civilians is not legitimate, killing members of an occupiing army however is legitimate. (i searched it in my book of international law)

"International Law doesn't work that way and it never will."
it does

" I suppose that you think that an organization can commit terrorist acts and then run back to what it consideres its territory and find sanctuary. Or for that matter shoot across some border, kill civilians and expect no retaliation. "

No, that's not possible, a souvereign state doesn't have the right to be a base of terrorism against a neighbouring state, that would be reason for Israel to start a war, but no reason to STAY there forever (that would be a legitimate reason for this state or people from this region to attack Israel). The us isn't occupiing Afghanistan forever.
By the way, most terrorism against israel started AFTER the occupation. (so don't say you are holding this territories for your safety, it certainly doesn't improove Israeli safety. )

[L@mplighterM]

takeo

Now you want to convince me and historians that Israel started the war in 1967.

Further your book on International Law if you indeed have such a book is wrong or you don't know how to read. Not only that no law is eighter black or white or there wouldn't be litigation. Actually there's several books on the subject here and I'll tell you right out that you're wrong.

If one gets into "Statues of Limitations" it becomes a very complex issue not to mention other factors.

At least you admitted that in accordance with Internation Law the Palestinians dosen't have the right to shoot settlers.

[takeo]

well, according to international law settlers can't exist legally on occupied grounds. And yes, one can never shoot citizens, unless they are armed. But they can however shoot at the military posts surrounding them. Yes, i have a book of law, as i studied international law at the university. We discussed about the Israeli problem as well. Every country has its own territory (has to be recognised by an international body), it can not invade any other country unless it is attacked first, the attacker is always wrong. Also one can not take ships from international waters without approval of the un-security council. One can not conquer territories and implant populations in it (Geneva-conventions), conquered territories have to be given back to the original countries, or the international community, un-security council has to decide what will happen if the original countries don't want them back. The uN-security-council decided that, eve if Egypt and Jordan decided to give up this territory, it didn't belong to Israel. in case of any confusion the UN can decide to let the population of the territories decide in a referendum, what will soon happen in Southern morocco or west Sahara. I guess it would be a democratic solution for palestine too;-) . There are two countries in clear violation of that: Israel and Morocco.
And about Geneva-conventions: just search on the net and look for yourself. Look if it is allowed to refuse the return of a displaced population, look if it is allowed to implant new population to occupied territories, ...
about the 1967 war, because you clearly don't believe me, take any history book (not Israeli one, but American one is good too) and search.

[takeo]

let me help you: this is from the site Jews for Justice in the Middle East:(sounds very anti-semitic, does it), on their website you can find lots of other interesting stuff too.
http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html


"Did the Egyptians actually start the 1967 war, as Israel originally claimed?

"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

Was the 1967 war defenisve? - continued

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68

Moshe Dayan posthumously speaks out on the Golan Heights

"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] 'They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.

And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'" The New York Times, May 11, 1997

The history of Israeli expansionism

"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." David Ben-Gurion, in 1936, quoted in Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

Expansionism - continued

"The main danger which Israel, as a 'Jewish state', poses to its own people, to other Jews and to its neighbors, is its ideologically motivated pursuit of territorial expansion and the inevitable series of wars resulting from this aim...No zionist politician has ever repudiated Ben-Gurion's idea that Israeli policies must be based (within the limits of practical considerations) on the restoration of Biblical borders as the borders of the Jewish state." Israeli professor, Israel Shahak, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years."

[takeo]

Expansionism - continued

In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt's personal diaries, there is an excerpt from May of 1955 in which he quotes Moshe Dayan as follows: "[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no - it must - invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge...And above all - let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space." Quoted in Livia Rokach, "Israel's Sacred Terrorism."

But wasn't the occupation of Arab lands necessary to protect Israel's security?

"Senator [J.William Fulbright] proposed in 1970 that America should guarantee Israel's security in a formal treaty, protecting her with armed forces if necessary. In return, Israel would retire to the borders of 1967. The UN Security Council would guarantee this arrangement, and thereby bring the Soviet Union - then a supplier of arms and political aid to the Arabs - into compliance. As Israeli troops were withdrawn from the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank they would be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force. Israel would agree to accept a certain number of Palestinians and the rest would be settled in a Palestinian state outside Israel.

"The plan drew favorable editorial support in the United States. The proposal, however, was flatly rejected by Israel. 'The whole affair disgusted Fulbright,' writes [his biographer Randall] Woods. 'The Israelis were not even willing to act in their own self-interest.'" Allan Brownfield in "Issues of the American Council for Judaism." Fall 1997.[Ed.-This was one of many such proposals]

What happened after the 1967 war ended?

"In violation of international law, Israel has confiscated over 52 percent of the land in the West Bank and 30 percent of the Gaza Strip for military use or for settlement by Jewish civilians...From 1967 to 1982, Israel's military government demolished 1,338 Palestinian homes on the West Bank. Over this period, more than 300,000 Palestinians were detained without trial for various periods by Israeli security forces." Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising Against Israeli Occupation," ed. Lockman and Beinin.

World opinion on the legality of Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza.

"Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains from war, even by a state acting in self-defense. The response of other states to Israel's occupation shows a virtually unanimous opinion that even if Israel's action was defensive, its retention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was not...The [UN] General Assembly characterized Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as a denial of self determination and hence a 'serious and increasing threat to international peace and security.' " John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

Examples of the effects of Israeli occupation

"A study of students at Bethlehem University reported by the Coordinating Committee of International NGOs in Jerusalem showed that many families frequently go five days a week without running water...The study goes further to report that, 'water quotas restrict usage by Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, while Israeli settlers have almost unlimited amounts.'

"A summer trip to a Jewish settlement on the edge of the Judean desert less than five miles from Bethlehem confirmed this water inequity for us. While Bethlehemites were buying water from tank trucks at highly inflated rates, the lawns were green in the settlement. Sprinklers were going at mid day in the hot August sunshine. Sounds of children swimming in the outdoor pool added to the unreality." Betty Jane Bailey, in "The Link", December 1996.

Israeli occupation - continued

"You have to remember that 90 percent of children two years old or more have experienced - some many, many times - the [Israeli] army breaking into the home, beating relatives, destroying things. Many were beaten themselves, had bones broken, were shot, tear gassed, or had these things happen to siblings and neighbors...The emotional aspect of the child is affected by the [lack of] security. He needs to feel safe. We see the consequences later if he does not. In our research, we have found that children who are exposed to trauma tend to be more extreme in their behaviors and, later, in their political beliefs." Dr Samir Quota, director of research for the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme, quoted in "The Journal of Palestine Studies," Summer 1996, p.84

Israeli occupation - continued

"There is nothing quite like the misery one feels listening to a 35-year-old [Palestinian] man who worked fifteen years as an illegal day laborer in Israel in order to save up money to build a house for his family only to be shocked one day upon returning from work to find that the house and all that was in it had been flattened by an Israeli bulldozer. When I asked why this was done - the land, after all, was his - I was told that a paper given to him the next day by an Israeli soldier stated that he had built the structure without a license. Where else in the world are people required to have a license (always denied them) to build on their own property? Jews can build, but never Palestinians. This is apartheid." Edward Said, in "The Nation", May 4, 1998.

All Jewish settlements in territories occupied in the 1967 war are a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed.

"The Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to change the existing order as little as possible during its tenure. One aspect of this obligation is that it must leave the territory to the people it finds there. It may not bring its own people to populate the territory. This prohibition is found in the convention's Article 49, which states, 'The occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.'" John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

Excerpts from the U.S. State Department's reports during the Intifada

"Following are some excerpts from the U.S. State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices from 1988 to 1991:

1988: 'Many avoidable deaths and injuries' were caused because Israeli soldiers frequently used gunfire in situations that did not present mortal danger to troops...IDF troops used clubs to break limbs and beat Palestinians who were not directly involved in disturbances or resisting arrest..At least thirteen Palestinians have been reported to have died from beatings...'

1989: Human rights groups charged that the plainclothes security personnel acted as death squads who killed Palestinian activists without warning, after they had surrendered, or after they had been subdued...

1991: [The report] added that the human rights groups had published 'detailed credible reports of torture, abuse and mistreatment of Palestinian detainees in prisons and detention centers." Former Congressman Paul Findley, "Deliberate Deceptions."

Jerusalem - Eternal, Indivisible Capital of Israel?

"Writing in The Jerusalem Report (Feb. 28, 2000), Leslie Susser points out that the current boundaries were drawn after the Six-Day War. Responsibility for drawing those lines fell to Central Command Chief Rehavan Ze'evi. The line he drew 'took in not only the five square kilometers of Arab East Jerusalem - but also 65 square kilometers of surrounding open country and villages, most of which never had any municipal link to Jerusalem. Overnight they became part of Israel's eternal and indivisible capital.'" Allan Brownfield in The Washington Report On Middle East Affairs, May 2000."

[takeo]

Harvard-university:
"War erupted in the Middle East as Israel, convinced an Arab attack was imminent, raided Egyptian military targets. "
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/010605onthisday.html
is that starting a war or isn't that starting a war?

This link of Le monde diplomatique about the refugees is interesting too.(but of course, i forgot, le monde diplomatique is anti-semitic propaganda)
http://www.en.monde-diplomatique.fr/1999/02/06pals2

[Negev]

Ummm... I didn't get the chance to read through takeo's entire term paper on Israeli expansionism, but one thing is way off...

Israel has not expanded, it has actually shrunk when giving the sinai back to Egypt.

gotta go back and revise your term paper, takeo.:D

[L@mplighterM]

Well I'll tell you that Nasser had one goal in mind and that was to kill every jew in Israel, I remember his words quite well. So if you talk of invading a country and start amassing troops at it's borders I guess you get what you deserve.

Another thing is that I'm not going to fill this forum with garbage. Further, I'm not paid to post anti-semetic materials on this forum.

I could respond to your articles and disprove them but I don't have the time.

[takeo]

I think you should read what i posted, you will really learn something. The best part about it is that is written by jews who live in Israel, and that they quoted different Israeli senior officers and politicians about the real goals of Israel, beyond the propaganda about aggressive arabs and Israel's need to defend itself against anti-semits who have as only goal to destroy all Jews on earth.
Also they specifically quote the exact parts of international legislation that Israel offended, much better than i can do.
I think Nasser wasn't an anti-semite, he was an anti-zionist, for sure, but he was not an Islamic extremist. i never heard he said something like "kill all Jews". At least he didn't kill the Jews in Egypt and he didn't attack Israel once!
And about the sinai and not giving back... read my posts, and you will find yourself in good company.