Not even 1 minute required

[NewsGuy]

Now it seems that, under intense pressure from the US and the EU, Israel has been "convinced" that it would be unreasonable or impossible to demand that the Palestinians stop terrorism against Israeli citizens for even 7 days. In fact, the Palestinians will no longer be required to stop mass terrorism for even 1 minute, before peace negotiations can resume.

The media has referred to this change in Sharon's policy as a positive sign of "moderation."

Will dropping the demand for 7 days without terrorism turn out to be wise move and an advance towards peace?

What do you think?

[NewsGuy]

Sad to say that it looks like today's Palestinian mass murder attacks on Jews in Netanya which killed 3 Israeli citizens including a baby and wounded 34 other Israelis, as well as the suicide bombing mass murder in a Jerusalem nightclub which resulted in at least 11 dead Israeli youths and 64 injured, will actually be rewarded by the US by sending general Zinni to force Sharon to reduce demands on the Palestinians.

With such rewards being handed out to the Palestinian terrorists by the US and the EU, I am sorry to say that the strategy of mass murder is an effective one for the Arabs. Simple: if you want land from the Jews, just murder the Jews and you wil be given all the political backing you need, and also you will be rewarded handsomely by the US and the EU with pressure on the Jews. Arafat has gotten this sickening message loud and clear.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, why should Arafat stop terrorism for even one minute?

[cerulean]

I would like to know how a successful negotiation would be measured and evaluated. Would it mean that terrorist attacks happened only once per week rather than twice a day?

[NewsGuy]

More from the US Mideast policy theater of the absurd:

Arafat's Fatah organization took responsibility for the terrorist mass murders today that claimed 13 Israeli civilian lives and left about 100 Israelis wounded, many in critical or serious condition.

At the same time, our "anti-terrorist, as long as it is not terrorists against Israel" US government demanded that Israel free Arafat from his house arrest in Ramallah.

[ibrodsky]

My initial reaction to the announcement that Sharon would "negotiate under fire" was different. Since the IDF is now taking more aggressive military action, I took this to mean, in effect, that the Palestinians would be the ones negotiating under fire.

Was I wrong?

Is the US insincere about its fight against terrorism?

One difference between the current administration and the previous one is that the Bush team does not feel it is necessary to reveal everything in public -- particularly during a war.

I'd like to see what happens over the next few days before coming to a final conclusion. If the IDF hits back even harder, I wouldn't worry about the State Dept. And the Palestinians are once again clearly determined to use Zinni's visits as an excuse to step up terrorist attacks.

The Palestinians are trying desperately to ignite a regional war. They know that now is their best chance to reach their goal of totally destroying Israel. If they wait until the U.S. ousts Saddam it will be too late.

Ultimately, Israel has to crush the PA and its terrorist groups. There is no choice. But it would be much safer to do this after Saddam has been finished off. Then going after Arafat will be a realistic goal.

[NewsGuy]

"My initial reaction to the announcement that Sharon would "negotiate under fire" was different. Since the IDF is now taking more aggressive military action, I took this to mean, in effect, that the Palestinians would be the ones negotiating under fire."

True in a way, although it is not unfortunately stopping the slaughter of Israeli civilians. Nor has the Israeli response been to collapse the PA terror machine nor even to systematically destroy the Palestinian civilian infrastructure. So, in essence Israel is negotiating while on the defensive, thereby rewarding Paletinian terrorism with promises of land.

If there was a peace agreement reached today, the Arab terrorist groups would view it as a victory for terrorism (like in Lebanon), which would then guarantee prepetual terrorism moving forward.

It would be different, though, if Israel was able to win a decisive victory against the PA. At least then there would be a massage that Palestinian terrorism against Israel will result in the collapse of the ruling regime.



"Is the US insincere about its fight against terrorism?

One difference between the current administration and the previous one is that the Bush team does not feel it is necessary to reveal everything in public -- particularly during a war."

I agree with you that the Bush administration has been more secretive in its policies, as is appropriate during a war. But now that there is starting to emerge a joint EU-US framework for a forced settlement in the Mideast, I am starting to doubt that Bush is 100% behind Israel.

In any event, I am disappointed that Bush does not have the moral backbone to simply announce that the US will support Israel taking the exact same course of action with the PA that the US has and is taking with the Taliban. Even after seeing one incident after the next of Israelis being mass murdered, I see that the State Dept. is placing the blame on Israel.

I am also disappointed that the Bush administration is refusing to take punitive action against Arafat and the PA, after supposedly laying the blame for terrorism squarely on Arafat. I distinctly remember Bush saying "you're either with us or against us." but obviously this has never been applied to the Palestinians so far.




"Ultimately, Israel has to crush the PA and its terrorist groups. There is no choice. But it would be much safer to do this after Saddam has been finished off. Then going after Arafat will be a realistic goal."

I also agree that the upcoming war on Iraq is very important in shaping US policy these days, but I am fairly certain that the US will again sell out Israel (like in the Gulf War) to get the blessing of the Arabs for the US to topple Hussein. Why we need phony Arab support, I don't know, but apparently it is so important to the State Dept. so as to allow the ongoing slaughter of scores of innocent Israelis.

Even though I solidly support the US war on terrorism, I don't know why we need to bother with Iraq at this point, considering that Iran is much more of a problem to the US and to the whole world in terms of sponsoring terrorism and developing nuclear weapons. Nor do I think that there will be much benefit to Israel from toppling Hussein. In fact, all I see is that Iraq will probably launch missiles at Israel and when all is said and done, Israel will then be pressured by the State Dept. to reward the Palestinians with more land.

I am curious, how do you visualize the upcoming war on Iraq as having an effect on the Palestinians or on Israel?

[McSceptic]

All politics are local as Volker Ruhe said, and America's primary concern is with American interests. If it comes to a conflict between US interests and Israel's its no contest (the firing of SCUDS at Israel, while the Israelis were forced to sit on their hands comes to mind).

The US needs a base in the region (other than Turkey) to launch a land offensive so Israel seems to be being made to keep things on a low flame to avoid prejudicing that effort.

Assuming a successful outcome in Iraq, you may find the Arab world gets a reward at Israel's expense.

I'd be rather concerned at what will constitute a successful outcome. Iraq could naturally fragment into three parts, with the Iranians taking control of the south, and the oilfields.

For Israel it could mean a few rusting SCUDS fired at them, but more bark than bite. Presumably this time the Palestinians will remember which side it is politic to cheer on.

[NewsGuy]

"All politics are local as Volker Ruhe said, and America's primary concern is with American interests. If it comes to a conflict between US interests and Israel's its no contest (the firing of SCUDS at Israel, while the Israelis were forced to sit on their hands comes to mind)."

How true. In many ways the US and Israel's interests are the same, but also diverge in many other cases, like all countries. A few months ago, Sharon said somehting like "We will rely only on ourselves," and he is right about that.





"The US needs a base in the region (other than Turkey) to launch a land offensive so Israel seems to be being made to keep things on a low flame to avoid prejudicing that effort."

Yes, I read in the Israeli press that Sharon was basically hinting that events which will take place in a few months (which he did not elaborate) are the reason Israel must keep its reaction moderate. he also added that Israel cannot collapse the PA or kill Arafat becuase of those upcoming events.

Maybe you're right in that Israel might be the US' main base for attacks on Iraq, but the air distance seems too far to fly without refueling mid-air. So it might be that Israel will serve as an arms depot and a staging ground. I have read eye-witness reports from Israel that the US war air-lifting massive amounts of weapons into Ben Gurion's military section.





"Assuming a successful outcome in Iraq, you may find the Arab world gets a reward at Israel's expense."

Right, a la Bush Senior and Jim Baker's pressure on Israel even after Israel took the SCUD hits quietly.

[McSceptic]

I hadn't thought of Israel as a base to launch the offensive from. More that the rulers of the Gulf states will need to smooth over local feeling if the US sets up in their countries, so the Israel/Palestine things needs to be cooled.

The US is out of cruise missiles and it'll take a few months to replenish stocks, so no action at least until then.

If Iraq is a success, then perhaps the US will have the appetite for some regional reorganisation. A Palestinian state, but Syrians out of Lebanon, Hizbullah disbanded etc.

[ibrodsky]

I am curious, how do you visualize the upcoming war on Iraq as having an effect on the Palestinians or on Israel?

When Iraq raped Kuwait, the Palestinians rushed to support Iraq because what they saw in Saddam Hussein was a powerful leader who would stand up to the West.

Of course, they didn't waste a second ignoring Iraq's illegal occupation of Kuwait, because militant Islam is pure hypocrisy. (Nor would they ever complain about Syria's illegal occupation of Lebanon).

I think a war against Iraq will result in Iraqi attacks against Israel. But I suspect Iraq is already doing as much as it can, secretly, to support Palestinian terrorism.

If the Palestinians openly support Saddam again, and he loses, it will have a demoralizing effect on them. The defeat of Saddm can't help but mean a less hostile Iraqi regime.

However, I agree with you that Iran is the bigger threat. I think President Bush is fixated on Iraq because it was his father's war.
Replacing Saddam could elevate Iran's influence in the region, but I think that the more hard line Arab and Islamic states that are toppled the better.

The real question is what does the US do after toppling Saddam (if successful)? If Iran is part of the Axis of Evil (I think it is the headquarters), then something has to be done about Iran. It would be a huge mistake to think that with Saddam gone Iran would be restrained. Iran will do everything it can to support the creation of a totalitarian Islamic state in Iraq.

BTW, I agree that the Bush administration's support for Israel is not 100% sincere. No surprise really, as Bush Sr. certainly was no friend of Israel. Colin Powell's comment about "trying to see how many Palestinians you can kill" was truly offensive.

I am even disappointed in Condi Rice for saying that the only solution -- when Israel is clearly engaged in a mortal battle with terrorists -- is a return to the failed "peace process."

[hookem78741]

I can assure you that U.S. citizens back Israel's acts more than the press expresses in their statements. They are regulated but our emotions are not. Every time that I see a suicide bomber take innocent lives, it angers me. The Bush administration just has to keep itself alive politically, that it must give up a little to the arabs to keep the coalliton apart. Trust me though, at this time, Most Americans see Israel as our second biggest ally behind Britain outside of the U.S.

[AmyBright]

I would like to see how long the Palestinians would be around if they were bombing cafes and Discos in Paris, London or Rome on a daily basis. We know what the U.S. Government would do if we had 10 or 20 civilians dead every couple days. It would be called something like "Operation Civilian Defence" and the whole place would be flying the U.S. flag in less then a week. CNN would be interviewing Palestinians at the nearest McDonald, thanking the U.S. for liberating them from the Israeli Occupiers and the Palestinian Extremists.

The 10-year old boy that's currently featured on CNN as a symbol of Israeli aggression would be renamed collateral damage in the U.S. War on terror.

I think Israel should be given the green light to comb through the territories and arrest or kill the terrorist network responsible for the daily attacks on it's citizens. Only then can these two people talk about peace with security.

You can't have a World War on Terror and then make exceptions when it comes to Israel.

[McSceptic]

The US had nearly 200 people killed in a day in Oklahoma. The government didn't arrest or liqudate the anti-Federal groups that were the backers for that attack.

US politicians have also given their personal backing to terrorist attacks in other countries, such as the contras in Nicuragua (sp?) or the IRA in Northern Ireland.

The US has been rather selective in the past in challenging terror, hopefully that has now changed.

[AmyBright]

Timothy Mcvay was the perpetrator of the Oklahoma City bombing. He was captured and brought to justice.

If you have an opinion that he was a "Righteous Freedom Fighter" in his struggle against the Federal government and innocent civilians. That's your opinion, I will disagree with you but as long as you don't take arms against the USA or harbor those that do, I will defend your right to express your opinion. That's called "Freedom of Speech". (Something that is not known in the Arab world). The minute that you help perpetrate, plan, or harbor this type of terrorist acts or present a threat to the citizens of this country, the U.S. government will come down on you with full force and I will support them 100%. (i.e. WACO)

The Palestinians would like to have it both ways. They want to be seen as the poor helpless civilians being occupied and humiliated by Israel. At the same time they perpetrate, plan, and/or harbor terrorist organizations that attack innocent civilians at restaurants and on buses.

I agree, innocent civilians die on the Palestinian side as well but there is one key difference... Israel does not go out with the primary intention of killing innocent civilians. If these so called "Palestinian Freedom Fighters" are such heros to the Palestinian people, why are they hiding behind their women and children?

Some here are comparing Israel to the Nazis. The fact of the matter is, Israel has the power to eliminate the entire Palestinian population if not half the Arab world but their aim is only to achieve peace and keep secure borders. If Hasbula or Hammas had that power how long do you think Israel would be around?

Arafat gambled with his people's future and lost. He had a good deal supported by the majority on both sides but he thought he could get more by starting up the Inefata and releasing hundreds of known terrorists from his own prisons to perpetrate crimes against the Israeli public. Now, even he can't control the monster he unleashed and both the Israeli and Palestinian civilian populations are suffering for his blunder.

Israel is now cleaning up the mess and only after the monster is back in it's cage can real peace be achieved.

I'm all for a Palestinian State. Maybe even the first Arab Democracy in the world. However, not at the expense of the security of Israel (The only Democracy in the mideast). Israel is key to the nanional security of the USA and the rest of the western world.

[NewsGuy]

"The US had nearly 200 people killed in a day in Oklahoma. The government didn't arrest or liqudate the anti-Federal groups that were the backers for that attack."

That isn't entirely accurate.

The US certainly did, as AmyBright points out, take care of Timothy McVey by executing him, and his accomplices are in maximum security Federal prison for life.

Then, the FBI and ATF hunted down several groups that weren't even directly involved in the Oaklahoma City bombing, but were radically anti-government. The Feds eliminated those groups by kicking in their doors and dragging them into custody where they were interrogated and thrown in jail.

In addition, there are entire units of federal law enforcement whose sole job it is to infiltrate those types of groups and eliminate them physically if they don't surrender immediately to arrest.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by hookem78741
I can assure you that U.S. citizens back Israel's acts more than the press expresses in their statements.

Very well said, hookem.

Welcome!

[ibrodsky]

As disappointed as I was by Powell's comments the other day, the Bush administration is probably the strongest US administration in support of Israel.

I think what we are seeing right now is just an attempt to win the "permission" of so-called "moderate" Arab states to oust Saddam. I think the Arabs are going to tell Cheney that they will support the US ousting Saddam if the US changes its policy supporting Israel.

However, I will be truly astounded if George W. Bush rewards Arafat, Hamas, and Hezbollah. I don't think he will do that. He has plenty of proof that Arafat is a liar.

I heard an interesting speech tonight by Malcomb Hoelein (sp?). He welcomes US calls for a Palestinian state, because as he convincingly argues what Arafat is after is not a Palestinian state but the destruction of Israel. This is why Arafat turned down Barak's offer. "Arafat doesn't want to be in charge of garbage pickup" and other matters of life in an independent state, nor does he want "the corruption of the PA exposed." Arafat is really out to destroy Israel, which is why he is allied with Iran and why he complains about the "judaicizing" of Jerusalem. Of course, the Islamists claim there are no Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
As disappointed as I was by Powell's comments the other day, the Bush administration is probably the strongest US administration in support of Israel.

I think what we are seeing right now is just an attempt to win the "permission" of so-called "moderate" Arab states to oust Saddam.

I sure hope that Bush will emerge as a strong supporter of Israel. I am one of the few Californians who voted for him.

But I am concerned that in his zeal to finish his father's war, he will sell out Israel.

The typical Bush team pro-Palestinian rhetoric is not a big deal, but it is the Powell statements and the latest demands for Israel to pull out its forces from ALL the Palestinian-controlled areas, that show a willingness to appease the Arabs at Israel's expense (as Sharon stated a while ago).

I also have to wonder why just yesterday the Senate (spearheaded by Trent Lott) shot down a bill that would have required auto manufacturers to increase fuel efficiency in SUVs. This indicates to me that the US is getting ready to continue to be subservient to Saudi Arabia and other Arabs for several decades to come.

In other words, the US will keep on refusing to fully back Israel's war against terrorism and will gladly sacrifice more Jewish lives in exchange for cheap oil and the chance to exact revenge against Saddam Hussein for outlasting Bush Senior.

[Flame]

Edited by Forum management to remove obscenities.




Yes! I am really pissed!

[cerulean]

Is it too much to hope for that there could be a grassroots movement to cut oil consumption in the US (and Europe for that matter)? During World War II, so I've read, people did sacrifice in various ways. Although the situation now is obviously much different, there are many ways in which things could worsen yet more horribly for the US, Israel, the entire world.

I understand why such a regulation was not passed under the current presidential regime and Congress. I wish it had been, but that's beside the point. It's too much to hope for that cutting oil consumption will lead to world peace, but it's a start.

Personally I am doing the following to save fuel consumption:
Cutting meat consumption
Working from home
Rarely driving

However, I live in a large city with amenities close by. That makes it easy.

[Flame]

Ya might want to try what I do?????? It's not always the most practical for REAL busy city people, but I drive a Yamaha scooter as my main transportation.... $1 of gas every 2 weeks!!!!!!! Bike too... when I'm not lazy.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by NewsGuy

I also have to wonder why just yesterday the Senate (spearheaded by Trent Lott) shot down a bill that would have required auto manufacturers to increase fuel efficiency in SUVs. This indicates to me that the US is getting ready to continue to be subservient to Saudi Arabia and other Arabs for several decades to come.

This discussion has degenerated into pure silliness.

I oppose regulating SUV fuel efficiency -- not because I want the U.S. to be dependent on Saudi oil but because this type of gov't regulation only discourages production (of cars and oil) and raises prices.

Some facts to consider: the U.S. now gets less than 25% of its oil from the Persian Gulf, and the percentage has been declining. Oil production in Venezuela, Russia, and Canada is increasing, and the Bush administration has been pushing hard to increase production in Alaska precisely to lessen our dependence on MidEast oil.

I did some consulting for Syncrude in northern Alberta several years ago. There is a huge amount of oil up there... the only problem is it is mixed with sand which makes it harder to recover (they literally "mine" oil rather than drill for it). Techniques have steadily improved and the cost has declined, and when I was there production was getting serious.

In any event, there are legitimate reasons for disagreeing about SUVs and scooters, and I hope we don't get bogged down arguing over this. I do fear Bush is pressuring Israel in pursuit of an Arab alliance.

However, my bet is that the Arabs won't cooperate, even if the U.S. agrees to pressure Israel. Because Arab dictators are worried about the impact on their own regimes. Right now, the Arab masses think they are winning (and perhaps they are), and any Arab leader who agrees to support or even passively cooperate with a US attack will be seen as a traitor. And we know what these cutthroats do to traitors...

[ibrodsky]

BTW, excellent article on oil in today's Wall Street Journal. Turns out that I was wrong on one point: our MidEast imported oil dropped to under 17% in 1996, but has crept back up as Iraq has been allowed to export more.

And Mexico, not Saudi Arabia, is today our No. 1 source of oil.

Still, this shows we can turn to other sources if we need to.

[cerulean]

ibrodsky, I think you have a legitimate concern about regulation making prices for cars and other items more expensive. However, there could still be calls (like from the president) for Americans to voluntarily conserve energy. Under the circumstances, not buying Arab oil would have the effect of cutting support for terrorism, since much terrorism is funded by petro dollars. I suppose, however, that the president urging people to reduce consumption of fuel might also be seen as an attack by Arab states.

Flame, I amused myself thinking about myself driving around on a scooter! I'm just not that brave, though. Also, I doubt the kids would like it. However, everything I need is within walking distance and I can take the bus or rapid transit if I want. The car is for occasional longer trips.

As for drilling in Alaska, I find it hard to be opposed in principle. I appreciate beautiful places, but there will still be many left.

[NewsGuy]

ibrodsky,

I'll disagree with you about not imposing legislation to increase fuel efficiency as a first step to break free of dependence on Arab oil.



"However, my bet is that the Arabs won't cooperate, even if the U.S. agrees to pressure Israel. Because Arab dictators are worried about the impact on their own regimes."

Right. Historically, no alliance with the Arabs has ever worked out no matter how much the US has pressured Israel to give up.

The basics of Arab society, with its brutal and corrupt regimes and its extremist Islamic control, will never be compatible with US interests. This is true even if the US will try to impose on Israel barriers to defending itself against Arab terrorism.

But I can't see how anyone can take the Bush administration's war on terrorism seriously with its handing out rewards for Palestinian terrorism.

[Flame]

The sad truth is... this is not about another arab state, its all about un-doing Israel. I totally got it this morning after hearing a short radio interview with Lou Dobbs... he was pushing the UN take over in the region and the radios guy asked about Israel's creation in the first place

Dobbs said, well... it was politically convinent at the time... and then what he said next, which I don't remember alluded to that Israel has out-lived her purpose and usefullness. GEE THANKS!

I have to assume that all those nations figured the arabs would crush Israel, must have been highly orchestrated for so many arab nations to show up for a battle less than 24 hours of Israel's existance. I have read somewhere that the germans planned a big invasion with the arabs in the early days, but something went wrong and the arabs parachuted into the wrong place. Forget what the plan was... there are way too many to keep track of.

[muslim4israel2]

I know, America trying to broker a peace deal. Stupid isnt it?

:mad:

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by muslim4israel2
I know, America trying to broker a peace deal. Stupid isnt it?

:mad:

Yeah, trying to broker a peace deal with Arafat is like trying to broker a peace deal with bin Laden and Mullah Omar.

"Stupid" is exactly the right word.

Thanks, Muslim4Israel. If only more Muslims were smart enough to see that there is nothing to negotiate with terrorists like Arafat we could wipe this scum off the face of the earth and find Palestinian leaders who are actually interested in the welfare of their people.

[muslim4israel2]

Draw from my comment the understanding you wish. :rolleyes:

[ibrodsky]

It's time for Arabs and Muslims to stop trying to finish what Hitler started.

- Jew4Palestine

[muslim4israel2]

Its an admirable quality the way you never talk out of your a*s.

:rolleyes:

[fair]

Barbaric nazi Israeli army demolished all types of life and cevilisation , looted palestinian homes


http://www.zighari.com/GALARY/default.asp#

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by fair
Barbaric nazi Israeli army demolished all types of life and cevilisation , looted palestinian homes


http://www.zighari.com/GALARY/default.asp#

WOW! Fair's got another pic site! Ooooh! How fascinating.

Looks like a war's going on. Yep. I've said it once and I'll say it again: You get what you've asked for.

I've seen no pics of Israelis looting homes, though. Nor have I seen any of Israelis lining up captured terrorists for the executions they deserve anyway.

The Barbarians are the Palestinians and there being treated appropriately.

[ibrodsky]

In today's local newspaper, there is an article with quotes from the relatives of the most recent female homicide bomber in Jerusalem.

Her mother takes solace in the fact that she killed a bunch of Jews.

This "fair" and "muslim4israel2" is what your side is like.

Deceitful handles is yet another trait...

The Israeli-Arab conflict boils down to one thing: Arab/Islamicist hatred of Jews and lust to overrun Israel. All of the talk about "illegal occupation" and "colonialism" is just intended to distract the West from their real intentions. The PA encourages, supports, and glorifies terrorism against Israeli civilians. It has nothing do with the Israeli government's policies, it has to do with intense Arab/Islamicist anti-semitism which can be seen on numerous Arab/Islamicist Web sites.

[thrud]

I think a war against Iraq will result in Iraqi attacks against Israel. But I suspect Iraq is already doing as much as it can, secretly, to support Palestinian terrorism.

I think Iraqi tanks might be worth fearing, but at least they will be seen coming, just as the French could see the Nazis advance. The distance is short through Jordan, but they will be in the open versus a very capable Israeli Air Force (counting on the British and the US might be stretch unless they instigated such Iraqi bravery ).

The Iraqis have much to fear in attacking Israel a second time, especially if noone but the US attacks them. With no EU or middle eastern allies, why would the US stop the one alli they have in the region fromdefending itself.

An attack through Jordan will also scare the **** out of every one in the region and I doubt anyone would doubt an appropriate and heavy Israeli counter move.