Finally! US Congress approves resolutions in support of Israel

[NewsGuy]

Congress approves resolutions expressing support of Israel and its military campaign
By DAVID ESPO
The Associated Press
5/2/02 5:25 PM


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress clasped Israel in a warm embrace on Thursday, passing resolutions of support for the Jewish state and blessing its recent military campaign as an attempt at "dismantling the terrorist infrastructure" in Palestinian territory.

"Let every terrorist know, the American people will never abandon freedom, democracy or Israel," said Texas Rep Tom DeLay, shortly before the House voted overwhelmingly in favor of nonbinding legislation. Recent attacks directed against Israelis, the House GOP whip added, "are attacks against liberty, and all free people must recognize that Israel's fight is our fight."

"Israel has been under siege ... from a systematic and deliberate campaign of suicide and homicide attacks by terrorists," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., the leading sponsor of the measure that cleared the Senate. "Their essence is identical to the attacks on our country of Sept. 11," he said.

Both measures said the United States and Israel are "now engaged in a common struggle against terrorism."

But the bill that DeLay, a conservative who has been outspoken in his support of Israel in recent months, and Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., sent to the House floor was the more sharply worded of the two. It mentioned Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat by name and accused him of an "ongoing support of terror" in the wave of bombings against Israelis this spring.

The House acted on a stand-alone resolution, passing it by 352-21. Twenty-nine lawmakers voted present, several of them saying they had wanted more balanced legislation. Lieberman and Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., offered their proposal as an amendment to trade legislation. The vote was 96-2.

Lawmakers, eager to show solidarity with Israel, have long chafed at the silence the Bush administration asked of Congress at a time when American diplomats worked to stave off a wider outbreak of violence in the Middle East.

With Israeli troops ending their military operation on Wednesday, lifting a siege of Arafat's headquarters, the White House gave its grudging assent to the inevitable.

"The president understands Congress will speak its mind in a nonbinding fashion and the president will respect that," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters.

Referring to the 535 members of Congress, he added: "The president also understands no foreign policy can have 535 secretary of states" -- words that seemed to say the administration was not endorsing the measures in all their particulars.

Earlier, officials had urged Lieberman, DeLay and other key lawmakers to soften some of the language, and to insert phrases to express support for Palestinians.

Many of those requests were rejected -- including a call to strip out references to "dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas." Both measures contained the phrase.

The House bill stated that Israel's recent military operations were "an effort to defend itself against the unspeakable horrors of ongoing terrorism and were aimed only at dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas, an obligation Arafat himself undertook but failed to carry out."

The House acceded to two or three requests from the White House, adding a provision that calls on the international community to "take action to alleviate the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people."

A few lawmakers expressed concern with the legislation. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said he would have preferred to see Arafat identified by name in the Senate measure.

Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., dismissed what he said was a "simplistic, one-sided" proposal that was political in nature and not in Israel's best interests. He and Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., were the two senators to oppose the measure.

In the House, some lawmakers said a more balanced approach would have been preferable.

"Resolutions like this can very well backfire and actually hurt Israel more so than it will help," said Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.

A steady stream of lawmakers spoke in favor of the bills in debates that unfolded simultaneously in the chambers at opposite end of the Capitol.

The resolution calls upon all parties to work toward peace, said Smith. "But it does say it without equivocation, we stand with Israel on the front line in the war against terrorism," he said.

"Israel has not asked for this war any more than we asked for ours against al-Qaida and the Taliban," Lantos told the House. "But when democracies come under terrorist attack, it is morally incumbent upon us, as the world's leading democracy, to express our solidarity. That is what this resolution does."

[NewsGuy]

BIG day for Israel and for the US!

:)

[Vic]

On the same subject:

In the House, in a sign of growing tensions between President Bush and his conservative base, House Republican leaders and conservatives showed little patience for any calls for middle ground in the Middle East. The House majority leader even advocated a position supported by only the far right in Israel.

"I'm content to have Israel grab the entire West Bank," said Representative Dick Armey, the majority leader from Texas in an appearance on MSNBC's "Hardball" on the eve of the vote. He added flatly under questioning, "I happen to believe that the Palestinians should leave."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/02/politics/03CND-CONG.html

Who is the guy? Did he actually ask the Israelis?

[gregg]

Its about time. This is the best day for Israel in a while.

[L@mplighterM]

A long overdue resolution and it shows a united front by Republicans and Democrats alike.

[gregg]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
A long overdue resolution and it shows a united front by Republicans and Democrats alike.

94-2 That vote count says everything.

[takeo]

it for sure says a lot about the american two-party-regime, not so much about what the average Americans think...
but even if it clearly are very biased resolutions, that will further undermine the credibility of the US in the world when it is bombing yet another population to ground-zero for some obscure reasons, nowhere i did see that Arafat was called a terrorist, as someone said to me in another tread?

about Tom DeLay: http://majoritywhip.gov/news.asp?FormMode=SingleSpeech
nice guy...

[Belgium@EU]

Recent polls made by CNN showed that the average American Joe wants their gov't to stay neutral in this conflict. I think 52 % wanted to stay neutral, 27 % support Israel and 2 % the PA's.

But who cares about the people's voice anyway, huh? The Congress? House of representatives? Maybe the white house, after all, Bush was elected by a wide margin, wasn't he?

But I do think Bush did some good proposels, (or Powel), and staying neutral in this conflict should have been the first step towards a good adminitstration. The Muslims will feel left alone another time by the US, and a new wave of terrorism will spread around American cities. US should stay neutral.

[Mediocrates]

typical bullshit european response. you laugh that we don't know anything of the world and then make the dumbest childlike uninformed blathering retarded statements about us.

do you think we ALL wear cowboy hats too?

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Belgium@EU
Recent polls made by CNN showed that the average American Joe wants their gov't to stay neutral in this conflict. I think 52 % wanted to stay neutral, 27 % support Israel and 2 % the PA's.

But who cares about the people's voice anyway, huh? The Congress? House of representatives? Maybe the white house, after all, Bush was elected by a wide margin, wasn't he?

But I do think Bush did some good proposels, (or Powel), and staying neutral in this conflict should have been the first step towards a good adminitstration. The Muslims will feel left alone another time by the US, and a new wave of terrorism will spread around American cities. US should stay neutral.


Well I’m afraid that the US has chosen not to stay neutral. Actually I wouldn’t pay too much attention to a CNN poll because many Islamic Fundamentalist in the world most likely took part in the poll.

Even though the administration in the US has wavered the recent votes by the elected officials show the true feelings of Americans.

[L@mplighterM]

Do you really think the US is going to support the following?


"The Palestinians have redefined the conflict from one over borders, in which compromise may be a solution, into a religious war for Allah in which compromise is heretical," Marcus explains. Religious leaders in the Palestinian Authority who lead Friday services in mosques continuously emphasize the following eight points:

* Jews are the enemy of Allah

* The killing of a Jew is a religious obligation

* All agreements with Israel are temporary in nature

* Islam is fighting a religious war against the Jews

* Palestinians are the vanguard in this war against the Jews, but all of Islam is obligated to assist them

* All the of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is Islamic trust and any Muslim who relinquishes his land is damned to hell

* Allah will replace Muslims who shirk their duty to fight Israel

* The ultimate destruction of Israel is a certainty


It appears that there's posters from the EU that supports it. It might as well read the killing of anyone that isn't a Muslim is an obligation.

[thrud]

Tom Delay Thursday, May 2, 2002 in the US House of Representatives

It is time for every country in the Middle East to pass a fundamental test of the civilized world by unequivocally rejecting terrorism and acknowledging that bombings and other acts of terror render any underlying cause or grievance inherently illegitimate. It`s the test President Bush laid down in this chamber when he said: "You are with us or with the terrorists."

The men and women of Israel must to know that we recognize the broader significance of their struggle. The attacks directed against them are attacks against liberty and all free people must recognize that Israel`s fight is our fight.

Let every terrorist know, the American people will never abandon freedom, democracy, or Israel. America will never permit the Jewish State to fall to aggression.
I think every country in the world should renounce terrorism (attacks against non-combatants) and recognize the right to life held by one another.
Originally posted by takeo
it for sure says a lot about the american two-party-regime, not so much about what the average Americans think...
but even if it clearly are very biased resolutions, that will further undermine the credibility of the US in the world when it is bombing yet another population to ground-zero for some obscure reasons, nowhere i did see that Arafat was called a terrorist, as someone said to me in another tread?

about Tom DeLay: http://majoritywhip.gov/news.asp?FormMode=SingleSpeech
nice guy...
Rather it says alot about the support the US has for Israel. Mr. Delay is speaking in the House of Representatives. A place that has elections every two years (we are in an election year) and if he or any other memer says anything their constituents don't like then they loose their jobs.

If the Average American dislikes what he says or the Resolution that he helped get passed, then they need to get out a vote in the next election.

I don't think the US is woried about its credibility any more than Israel is because we know that the rest of the world dislikes us anyway.

I don't know if Mr. Delay is a nice guy, but does it matter. He dislikes terrorists just like the rest of the US and he would like to see it end everywhere.

[raven]

CNN is using what is called "Cooked Polls". The People of the US have never voted for representatives that approved of ANY PALISTINIAN STATE WHAT SO EVER!!! The vote in Congress just reflected this reality.

Notice tho..that the Bush ADMINISTRATION tried to stop this and then tried to "soften" the Resolution.

ITS ABOUT TIME. They waited too long and let the "Good Cop-Bad Cop" routine go on forever.

Its still going on. What is this I hear about yet ANOTHER conference? Meaningless cr-p.

[takeo]

I like people who want to stop terrorism in all the world, yet i think Tommy Delay only want to stop anti-american or anti-israeli terrorism, NOT terrorism against Cuba for example... (or wasn't he one of the defenders of a nicaraguan terrorist group called "contra's")?
By the way he never condamned anti-abortus terrorists too.
i provided the wrong link (altough of course his uncontional support for Israel is meaningfull too), the link i wanted to show you was to a speech he made for the christian coalition in which he condamned the liberal society and said that "judeo-christian principles" should lead the society, not liberalism. As the Judeo-christian values are contrary to modern democratic values he is an anti-democrat. He also comes from a family which engaged in the 60's against equal rights for black people.

Lomplighters sees fundamentalists everywhere, even in CNN polls... fundamentalistomani? does it exist?

Yes, it could be true the congess never affirmed the right of the palestinians to have an own state (yet the government signed the un-resolutions...) influenced (in what way...) by the zionist lobby, yet does it matter? Is the US a world governing body? is the US-congress the representation of the people's of the world? (i wonder if it is even the representation of the american people, instead of the representation of industry- and lobbygroups...)
I have been to the US and most people (not wearing cowboyheats, except in oklahoma) i spoke with would rather agree with the last possibility...

"I think every country in the world should renounce terrorism (attacks against non-combatants) and recognize the right to life held by one another. "

agree 100% but of course including israel and the US... (i don't think undiscriminate attacks on Vietnamese villages recognise the right to life held by one another... nor do the calls for etnic cleansing of the palestinians or the war-crimes in Jenin...)

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
As the Judeo-christian values are contrary to modern democratic values he is an anti-democrat.
LOL!

Is that part of the Communist manifesto these days?

:D

[NewsGuy]

I think that some of the Europeans and Arabs have a tough time understanding that the entire US Congress and Senate, which represent all of the people of the United States, firmly back Israel and think that Arafat is a two-bit terrorist and his Palestinian terror machine is the obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

[L@mplighterM]

Bold posted by takeo:

Lomplighters sees fundamentalists everywhere, even in CNN polls... fundamentalistomani? does it exist?


Do you really have to ask if Islamic Fundamentalism exists? Do you really thing I’m the only one that sees Islamic Fundamentalism?

I’ll give you some facts! Once one side agrees to negotiate a peaceful solution to any conflicts and it’s accepted by the two parties everything prior to that point becomes moot.

Sharon had his hand outstretched in peace when a horrible attack occurred over the Passover Holidays. That makes the Palestinians the violators and should be held responsible for any actions that Israel takes to end the attacks.

Read Sharon’s speech to the Knesset April 08, 2002 and come back and tell me that this individual is a warmonger.

[takeo]

as you said before... words and deeds are two very different things...

And when Arafat stretched out his hand in december 2001 Sharon answered by more destructions and war against the palestinians...

Of course fundamentalists exist, no doubt, but I'm sure they are NOT the most people who participated to the CNN-poll and i'm also sure CNN and chirac are NO Islamic fundamentalists, as well as every Muslim in the world isn't necessarily a fundamentalist... and it's not because you resist the illegal occupation of territories that you are necessarily a fundamentalist...

yes judeo-Christian values are in contradiction to democratic values... just read the Bible and the Torah (and the Qoran for that matter...).
Democracy is about a free choice and a personal freedom to decide for yourself what's good for you, in Christian and Jewish religious tradition that's out of the question...
also "give to the King what belongs to the king"... the religious books are full of such connotations... not exactly democracy...

[L@mplighterM]

Bold posted by takeo:

And when Arafat stretched out his hand in december 2001 Sharon answered by more destructions and war against the palestinians...


Here we go again back into history. Oldest trick in the book answer a question with a question thus changing the subject. It might work with some but not with me.
Actually by changing the subject you admitted that I was right. Arafat was/is a terrorist.

[takeo]

of course...

don't charge me for something you are doing constantly...

Sharon's deeds never showed any outstretched hand but instead outstretched guns...

[takeo]

in any case he was never ready to stretch his hand out to the elected leader of the palestinian people.

arafat is a terrorist because lomplighter says so!!!

[gregg]

What do you call Arafats response to Barak, another outstreched hand?

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by takeo
of course...

don't charge me for something you are doing constantly...

Sharon's deeds never showed any outstretched hand but instead outstretched guns...

Well you know you're mistaken Sharon has tried to make peace with Arafat from day one. The man has shown remarkable restraint even today. The Palestinian people should be happy that he’s been so tolerant. No other leader in the world would have put up with a terrorist like that.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by takeo
in any case he was never ready to stretch his hand out to the elected leader of the palestinian people.

arafat is a terrorist because lomplighter says so!!!


I’m just stating facts takeo if they hurt your feelings it’s to bad.

[takeo]

Why are they facts?
because lomplighter and Sharon say so (and of course the mossad too, that well known lie-factory annex terror-highschool)

"The Palestinian people should be happy that he’s been so tolerant."

They are so happy with Sharon, really a kind person who cares for the Palestinians... :rolleyes:

"The man has shown remarkable restraint even today"

of course, especially in Jenin, instead of bulldozering the whole place he only bulldozered the centre! Yes, this is a man of peace and negociations...
Really, he always tried to make peace with Arafat, from day one he did send some peace-letters to Arafat in rockets he fired on palestinian buildings, but the palestinians never found them...

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by takeo
Why are they facts?
because lomplighter and Sharon say so (and of course the mossad too, that well known lie-factory annex terror-highschool)

"The Palestinian people should be happy that he?s been so tolerant."

They are so happy with Sharon, really a kind person who cares for the Palestinians... :rolleyes:

"The man has shown remarkable restraint even today"

of course, especially in Jenin, instead of bulldozering the whole place he only bulldozered the centre! Yes, this is a man of peace and negociations...
Really, he always tried to make peace with Arafat, from day one he did send some peace-letters to Arafat in rockets he fired on palestinian buildings, but the palestinians never found them...

Read Sharon?s speech to the Knesset dated April 08, 2002 and you?ll see that he?s truly a man of peace. He care?s very much for the Palestinians and that is very evident in his speeches. His tolerance towards Arafat and his thugs has been tremendous. I?m certain that his great restraint is equal to none in the world and it comes partly from his great compassion for human life. He has held back because he desperately did not want to destroy property and injure innocent individuals.

[takeo]

"Read Sharon?s speech to the Knesset dated April 08, 2002 and you?ll see that he?s truly a man of peace. He care?s very much for the Palestinians and that is very evident in his speeches. His tolerance towards Arafat and his thugs has been tremendous. I?m certain that his great restraint is equal to none in the world and it comes partly from his great compassion for human life. He has held back because he desperately did not want to destroy property and injure innocent individuals.Read Sharon?s speech to the Knesset dated April 08, 2002 and you?ll see that he?s truly a man of peace. He care?s very much for the Palestinians and that is very evident in his speeches. His tolerance towards Arafat and his thugs has been tremendous. I?m certain that his great restraint is equal to none in the world and it comes partly from his great compassion for human life. He has held back because he desperately did not want to destroy property and injure innocent individuals."

Where can i find that speech?
I'm in for a good laugh...
what pleases me the most is the serious undercooled humor of all this... as if you really mean it...

"I?m certain that his great restraint is equal to none in the world and it comes partly from his great compassion for human life. "

tell that to amnesty international and human rights watch... they seem to be biased against Sharon for some obscure reasons...

"His tolerance towards Arafat and his thugs has been tremendous. "

his rockets, bulldozers and tanks too


. "I?m certain that his great restraint is equal to none in the world and it comes partly from his great compassion for human life. "

wow, why didn't he got the nobel-price for peace yet? maybe because all those swedish are anti-semites...

"He has held back because he desperately did not want to destroy property and injure innocent individuals"

they seem to think diferent in Ramallah, Jenin, Bethlehem, Sabra, Shatila, the rest of Libanon, the rest of the occupied territories, the rest of the world, also the manipulated television images seem to think different. But of course all these people are biased and didn't met the real Sharon yet...

[L@mplighterM]

Look let’s not beat around the bush you’re a hardcore something or other and I’m not. I’m telling you straight here and now that Sharon is a man of peace and Arafat is not. Do you think I’m joking? I’m dead serious!!!!!!

In the coming days, weeks or months you’ll see Arafat disappear from the political arena. He will not be able to weather the 91 page book named “The involvement of Arafat, Palestinian Authority Senior Officials and Apparatuses in Terrorism against Israel, Corruption and Crime" it will become his death sentence. So I guess you’ll have to look elsewhere for a paycheck.

Anyways against my better judgment here’s the speech.





http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0lhp0

[thrud]

Originally posted by takeo
I like people who want to stop terrorism in all the world, yet i think Tommy Delay only want to stop anti-american or anti-israeli terrorism, NOT terrorism against Cuba for example... (or wasn't he one of the defenders of a nicaraguan terrorist group called "contra's")?
I do not know if Mr. Delay has anything to do with any terrorist organization. I do not know if he was involved with the Contras or if the Contras were anything other than revolutionaries who targeted the Marxist regimes in Nicaragua and El Salvador.

I am not aware of any terrorist (acts against non-cambatants) or even accidental civilian deaths (I am sure there were some though; there are always some in war) by the Contras. Regarding the anti-abortion freaks; they are terrorists who deserve the electric chair. I personnally hate abortion, but I know that laws in the US can not be changed by violence and I oppose anyone that wants to kill to scare another into change.

Originally posted by takeo
Yes, it could be true the congess never affirmed the right of the palestinians to have an own state (yet the government signed the un-resolutions...) influenced (in what way...) by the zionist lobby, yet does it matter? Is the US a world governing body? is the US-congress the representation of the people's of the world? (i wonder if it is even the representation of the american people, instead of the representation of industry- and lobbygroups...)
The US is not a world governing body and does not want to be. Americans do not want to tell people how to act any more than they want to be told what to do.

The US government is a representation of the people who vote. If the people who bitched about special interests actually voted, then there might be some real change, unfortunately most Americans are rather apathetic when it comes to politics except in time of war, or when the nations starts leaning too far to the left.

Originally posted by takeo
"I think every country in the world should renounce terrorism (attacks against non-combatants) and recognize the right to life held by one another. [takeo is quoting one of my earlier posts here]"

agree 100% but of course including israel and the US... (i don't think undiscriminate attacks on Vietnamese villages recognise the right to life held by one another... nor do the calls for etnic cleansing of the palestinians or the war-crimes in Jenin...)
My dad served three tours in Vietnam, my uncle two. My dad was a enlisted marine volunteer and the next two times were as a US Army officer. He was a Ranger the last two times. He says a lot of what the US did at that time was shameful, but it was very hard to tell who non-combatants were a lot of the time. He said also a lot of evil was done there by the US.

I think he was right, would I have been any better? I hope so, but right now I can fight the evil that is in my world and on the only battlefield available to me -- the internet. I can not strap on a gun and fight for Israel, I do not have that kind of freedom. I have a family to support.

You are French. Was France so innocent in Algeria? I dislike your selfrighteous condemnation when your own people have dirty hands. America is not perfect, but right now we are supporting the innocent women and children of a country that has never wanted war, but who it has always had it foisted on.

I want peace in the ME. I do not believe it will happen for a long time, but I think the Palestinians can stop acting like animals and attack real soldiers and not non-combatants having their Seder dinner or who are out shopping.

I dislike all murderers, their media and diplomatic apologists and their internet supporters.

[gregg]

Originally posted by takeo
As the Judeo-christian values are contrary to modern democratic values he is an anti-democrat. He also comes from a family which engaged in the 60's against equal rights for black people.


LoL remind me how many Muslim countries are democtratic, and how many Jewish countries are democratic.

[takeo]

"I do not know if he was involved with the Contras or if the Contras were anything other than revolutionaries who targeted the Marxist regimes in Nicaragua and El Salvador. "

So when you fight against a regime the US doesn't like than you are a revolutionnary and not a terrorist? Well i guess that Al-aqsa etc. are revolutionnaries for many palestinians.
I'm sure the contra's, as all US-trained ultra-right militia's in Latin America (Guatemala the worst) killed many 1000's of peasants who's only crime was they they helped the sandinists with food and shelter.


"The US is not a world governing body and does not want to be. Americans do not want to tell people how to act any more than they want to be told what to do. "

I don't believe this, if the us isn't a world governing body and doesn't want to tell people how to act why is it involved in military coups against the elected leader of venezuela, why are you there in Korea, why do they bomb iraq regularly, what were they doing in Vietnam (treatening American security???), in yougoslavia, why are they blocking Cuba's economy, etc. etc. etc. Let me also ad something hot of the press: the big defender of human rights does wellcome the international tribunal but will not participate themselves or allow its citizens to be judged... anyone can be judged for human rights abuses except the US...

"The US government is a representation of the people who vote. If the people who bitched about special interests actually voted, then there might be some real change, unfortunately most Americans are rather apathetic when it comes to politics except in time of war, or when the nations starts leaning too far to the left. "

Ok, you might be right, (except i don't know any leftist American administration in the recent history) but people are apatic because they feel their vote doesn't count.




"My dad served three tours in Vietnam, my uncle two. My dad was a enlisted marine volunteer and the next two times were as a US Army officer. He was a Ranger the last two times. He says a lot of what the US did at that time was shameful, but it was very hard to tell who non-combatants were a lot of the time. He said also a lot of evil was done there by the US.
I think he was right, would I have been any better? I hope so, but right now I can fight the evil that is in my world and on the only battlefield available to me -- the internet. I can not strap on a gun and fight for Israel, I do not have that kind of freedom. I have a family to support. "

He was right, but you are not, maybe in some years, you will actually visit israel or the occupied territories and change your opinion, as i did.

"You are French. Was France so innocent in Algeria? I dislike your selfrighteous condemnation when your own people have dirty hands. America is not perfect, but right now we are supporting the innocent women and children of a country that has never wanted war, but who it has always had it foisted on. "

i repeated it over and over on this forum that i hated the French actions in Algeria and it sure were war-crimes, for wich france already has apologised to algeria. if i lived in that time i would, as many french people, and the party to which i belong, have done everything to stop this war.
A country that occupies and colonise territories is asking for war war, make no mistake about it.

"I want peace in the ME. I do not believe it will happen for a long time, but I think the Palestinians can stop acting like animals and attack real soldiers and not non-combatants having their Seder dinner or who are out shopping. "

I hope too the extremists will stop killing innocent people, but i hope the war against the israeli military will go on as long as israel agrees to stop the colonisation.

"I dislike all murderers, their media and diplomatic apologists and their internet supporters."

i am not an apologist for terrorists who murder innocent civilians, but you are an apologist for the crimes committed by the israeli army AND for the continuation of the israeli occupation.

[takeo]

"Look let’s not beat around the bush you’re a hardcore something or other and I’m not."

I think someone finding the most of the le pen-programm ok, calls for the expulsion of all people with views you don't like and for etnic cleansing in the occupied territories is a hard-core too, so do most other people...
I don't consider myself as hardcore, i do recognise the right of israel to exist and condamn murder on civilians, hardcore people on both sides usually don't.

" I’m telling you straight here and now that Sharon is a man of peace and Arafat is not. Do you think I’m joking? I’m dead serious!!!!!! "

:D it's still funny

"In the coming days, weeks or months you’ll see Arafat disappear from the political arena. He will not be able to weather the 91 page book named “The involvement of Arafat, Palestinian Authority Senior Officials and Apparatuses in Terrorism against Israel, Corruption and Crime" it will become his death sentence. So I guess you’ll have to look elsewhere for a paycheck. "

that book is nothing but israeli propaganda and is seen as such by the entire world, what credibility about facts do you think a country has that just prevented the un-fact finding commission from entering Jenin to research alleged human rights abuses???
the UN, the EU the Arab world and i suppose even the us-president sees arafat still as the representative of the palestinians and necessary in any peace-negociations... and thanks to Israeli demonisation of this man he has never been more popular, and will win any election, and if he dies he will most likely be succeeded by barghouti (by the way all palestinians have already declared that they are not going to sign anything or stop the violence unless the political prisoners are liberated)

the speech is the usual bullshit:

"And there is one dispatcher: Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat. He is the man who, in a series of agreements, promised to abandon the path of terrorism, refrain from committing murder, use his forces to prevent it - and betrayed all his promises. Because of his promises Israel agreed to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority. That is why Israel agreed to transfer security responsibility in the areas given to its control. Thus, Israel agreed to the establishment of Palestinian security forces. We hoped that the Palestinians would understand, as they promised, that ruling does not mean a license to kill, but rather the assumption of responsibility for the prevention of killing"

who said arafat ordered the intifadeh? it was coming from downstairs, from the people on the street, and as the israeli reactions became heavier the palestinian police joined, and later, as the israeli reactions were even more bloody and 100's of yoith died, the palestinians reacted by using more heavy tactics. Yet nobody has any proofs that arafat is responsible for murderous attacks on civilians, but it was in sharon's intentions from the beginning to dismantle the pa, he never believed in oslo even if now he is projecting himself as the great defender of oslo. What about the israeli duties by the way, didn't israel promised not to build new settlements, and wasn't there a time-tabel???

"There is overwhelming evidence, accepted by all serious people in the world. For example, in a chilling document, which was found in Arafat's offices, terror tariffs are displayed. For those who haven't seen, here are the documents."

So i guess the shin bet and israeli defense ministry are the only serious people in the world...

"There is also a letter signed by Marwan Bargouti addressed to "the President, brother Abu-Ammar, God protect him," asking him to instruct that $1,000 be earmarked to each of the "fighting brothers", with the same list mentioned earlier."

have to see the document first... but anyway barghouti was the leader of al-fatah, who never did any terrorist action against innocent people.

"For eighteen months Israel has been under bitter and bloody attack, initiated by our Palestinian neighbors. We have paid a high price in blood, solely because of our honest wish to live in peace with them, and because of our belief that they want the same."

LOL, i guess the occupation, sealings, settlements, have nothing to do with it...

"On my first day in office, I sent a personal letter to Arafat. I offered a practical proposal to the end the violence, and reiterated our wish for peace. "

LOL, Arafat wished to negociate with sharon from day-one, yet Sharon did never want to meet him.

"we accepted the Mitchell Plan which includes painful compromises for Israel; we accepted the Tenet Plan; we even waived the most elementary demand for seven days of quiet - we did not even get seven hours free of an attempt to perpetrate a murderous suicide attack; we cooperated with General Zinni - and I take this opportunity to thank him for his continuing efforts - but Arafat rejected all his proposals and carried on with his reign of terror."

LOL, israel never implemented one of these plans, which also call for a retreat from palestinianheld territories and a cessation of the settlements building.

"We remained patient and moderate as one atrocity followed another. Despite the fact that we knew of our power to act, we hoped that we would not be forced to use our forces, and rejected extreme suggestions of all sorts. We gave many opportunities to world leaders, those who promised over and over again that they were capable of stopping terror by means of persuasion or pressure on Arafat."

Again, how can he know, he never accepted to negotiate with arafat and used violence against the pa from day-one! what a lier this man is.

"In talks with various world leaders, I presented our ideas for the political settlement possible after the cessation of terror. We presented Israel's honest wish for a peace that will bring honor, prosperity and security for both peoples."

Perhaps that's why he didn't continue the talks with the PA with Barak in january 2001???

"By way of blood and horror he wants to force Israel into a unilateral withdrawal to its 1967 borders, including Jerusalem, thereby achieving his aims through violence, and he is not averse to using any means."

he prefers a negociated solution too, but seemingly Sharon is not prepared to leave the occupied territories and eastern jerusalem.
anyway sharon will not succeed either in breaking the spirit of the palestinian people by using force.

"The orders are clear: target and paralyze anyone who takes up weapons and tries to oppose our troops, resists them or endanger them - and to avoid harming the civilian population."

What do you think, that they will wellcome the invading israeli troops with flowers???
about the civilian population, we all could see how good they were protected...

"All the aforementioned should have been carried out by the Palestinian Authority, according to its agreements with Israel, and as they were requested to do by all the responsible leaders in the world. "

the responsible leaders in the world also said that arafat can do nothing as long as israel is not withdrawing and destroying all the pa-infrastructure...

"During these days we are seeing the People of Israel at its best - a proud people whose spirit will not be broken, a people determined to protect its home, while extending its hand in peace. Every day we see new expressions of courage, volunteers and mutual assistance."

indeed the whole world has seen the real spirit of israel these days... i don't know to whom he extended his hands, certainly not to the palestinians.

"Until that time the IDF will remain there to prevent them from escaping justice."

I tought they were going to Italy and Gaza?

"We never intended and do not intend to permanently reoccupy Palestinian cities. After the IDF completes all its missions, it will withdraw, in accordance with the instructions of the Government, to defined security zones. In my talks with President Bush, and recognizing his sincere wish for peace in our region, I have promised to make every effort to accelerate our military activities, and to withdraw our forces from those places in which our actions have been completed."

Bush said, pull out immidiately, not this kind of bullshit...
defined security zones, was that intended in the oslo peace agreements, huh???

"Correspondingly, our forces will be prepared to precisely target anyone who tries to contrive this war of terrorism against us, regardless of his identity, status or position. The IDF will carry out its missions from within the security zones, making a genuine effort to distinguish between the perpetrators of terrorism and the civilian, non-belligerent population. We have no quarrel with the Palestinian people and we want to see the Palestinians, like us, live in peace, security and dignity."

LOL
If this were the truth he would have continued the negociations were they left and offered the palestinians what is demanded by the international community.
he also stated that israel will continue with its terror attacks against palestinian leaders, these of course are not called terror attacks, on the contrary to the attack on the extremist minister zeevi...

[takeo]

"But peace can only be attained if, once we evacuate the territories, we find a responsible Palestinian leadership, willing to accept the primary responsibility of every regime - to prevent the use of its territory for the purpose of killing and murdering its neighbors. Peace negotiations can commence and move forward only after terrorism has ceased"

Israel doesn't have to find a palestinian leadership. And as long as there aren't negociations about the compliance to the un-resolutions there won't be any cessation of violence either, Sharon knows that very well, he always resisted any peace-talks with the palestinians in the past.

"Accordingly, Israel accepts and warmly welcomes the important initiative of U.S. President George W. Bush. Since the horrific attack on September 11th, exactly one year after the outbreak of the Palestinian terrorist campaign against Israel, the United States has been leading the world in a heroic struggle to uproot terrorism as well as the regimes which support and sponsor it."

He tries to present the two thing as one and the same thing, but the world isn't taking it, as israel has occupyed the territories for more than 35 years and is not fighting a terror organisation but an entire people fighting occupation and repression,with the support of the world-bodies who since many years condamn israeli occupation, which is not-legitimised violence and thus also a kind of terrorism.

"Since that deadly attack in September, the partnership between Israelis and Americans has, unfortunately, become a "partnership of blood" between victims of terror."

LOL, a partnership of blood, yes, but mostly the blood of the 10000's of palestinians who died with the us preventing the world to take any sanctions against the perpetrators.

"If such a Palestinian leadership should arise, it will find in Israel a hand extended toward peace and negotiations. I, who have seen all the horrors of war, refuse to extinguish the hopes for peace and the faith that the Palestinian people will recover from the myth of bloodshed forced upon them by their current leaders, and will find the way to peace and good neighborly relations."

So he explicitly blackmails the palestinians that he will not stop killing them unless they change their leader... but it won't work, the pals have got years of experiences and know all the trics to weaken their resistance, besides they have strong international support. (by the way he even contradicts himself by stating that he wants to extend his hands to Arafat...)

"Peace is important to all the peoples of the Middle East, because the continuation of terror and violence encourages fundamentalist elements and regimes to try and achieve their goals through violence."

that's right, but he forgot to mention in the first place the continuation of israeli terror, violence and occupation will encourage fundamentalism.

"Israel will do everything in its power to repel these threats, avoid escalation and maintain regional stability. In this spirit, we are noticing the first buds of a transformation in the long-time Arab trend to deny the very right of the State of Israel to exist. Despite the extreme demands included in the resolutions of the conference of Arab leaders in Beirut, I welcome the fact that an important Arab leader such as Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has, for the first time, acknowledged Israel's right to exist within secure and recognized borders."

Yes, but he did so under some conditions, wich sharon forgot to mention...
By the way this was before "defenseive shield" which certainly alienated most Arab countries and brought regional stability further than ever.

"Peace negotiations cannot be dictated. They must be based on mutual respect and a genuine attempt to reach a compromise. In the absence of open dialogue between the parties, this initiative will remain devoid of any real content"

That's right, but what is the new plan or even camp david any other than a plan dictating the palestinians what to accept or to leave... not really a genuine attempt to reach a compromise...
strange to see how the israeli measure themselves different from the palestinians...

"No party can enforce unilateral conditions. UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 affirm Israel's right to exist in peace, and in secure and recognized borders, free from any military threat, like any other nation in the region. "

OK, but what about the OTHER resolutions, huh,??????????? my God, what a hypocrisy...

"Israel cannot discuss the return of Arab refugees - a consequence of a war forced upon Israel by the Arabs - to its territory, as it would effectively terminate the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish state."

here we go, the usual bullshit argument for not having to comply to the un-resolutions...

"That is why I offered to go to Beirut to meet with the leaders of the Arab states. A mere willingness to make peace is meaningless without the willingness to meet and negotiate. I take this opportunity to reiterate my proposal to meet immediately with moderate and responsible leaders in the Middle East. I am willing to go anywhere, without any pre-conditions from any party, to discuss peace"

lies, he isn't even prepared to meet the leader of the ones most concerned, arafat. And i don't think libanese or syrian leaders are more moderate than Arafat, i would say on the contrary...
what about the pre-conditions he imposed for meeting Arafat, huh???

"After all, the Palestinians rejected the previous government's proposals which included far-reaching concessions, refused to negotiate over them, and chose to try and enforce their will upon Israel through terrorism. Only when they come to the realization that this attempt has failed will we be able to achieve a real cease-fire. It is from that point that I propose to move forward toward a long-term interim agreement, which will determine the character of the neighborly relations between Israel and the Palestinians."

PROPOSAL, there was never any discussion possible... to use his own words... "Peace negotiations cannot be dictated. They must be based on mutual respect and a genuine attempt to reach a compromise. In the absence of open dialogue between the parties, this initiative will remain devoid of any real content"
A longterm interim agreement won't be accepted by the palestinians, they don't want to be colonised and occupied for years more to come.

"It is in this situation that the Palestinians will be able to build an independent society, free of any traces of occupation, and rebuild their ruined economy."

really, free of any occupation? in that case of course there is no problem with an interim-agreement... but let's see what this lier means with free of any occupation...

"The further the relations and coexistence between Israel and the Palestinians evolve, and as damaging fanatic elements are increasingly relegated to a corner, the sooner we will reach a situation in which we can determine the final borders between us and reach an agreed compromise on all outstanding issues."

actually the current government considers aLL palestinians as fanatic elements, even the most moderate ones... of course the israeli government doesn't have fanatic elements...
The sooner israel want to retreat from the occupied teritories and discuss a general agreement, the sooner there will be peace, what are they waiting for? untill all palestinians wave with zionist flags???

"Peace with Egypt has been sustained because it was predicated on the solid foundations of peace alongside painful concessions. Although the situation with the Palestinians is more complicated, the outstanding issues are more difficult and the bitterness is greater, together, we can build a vision of a better future for both our peoples."

the problem is in that case sharon was always opposed to any painfull concessions for the palestinian territories, un-resolutions or no un-resolutions...

"From here, I address the Palestinian people. On behalf of the people of Israel, I tell you: we have no quarrel with you. We have no desire to control you or to dictate your fate. We want to live side by side with you in peace, as good neighbors, helping and respecting each other."

tell that to the citizens of jenin...

[takeo]

"But in order for this to happen, you can and must take your fate into your own hands. If you want to seize a place of honor among the family of nations, you must eschew terrorism, the murder of children and the elderly, the terrible violence, the murderous hatred and incitement. Do not surrender to those elements among you who have brought you one disaster after another over the past 55 years, because those same forces - they and not us - will guarantee your next disaster"

Such terrorism was very weak in the palestinian territories for many years, yet israel, sharon included didn't even think about giving the palestinian people the rights they deserve...

"From here, I address the leaders of the Middle East. Terrorism threatens not only Israel. It threatens you as well. It does not lead to peace - terrorism is the enemy of peace and stability. Just as I am willing to focus on the positive rather than the negative aspect of your recent resolution, I implore you to accept my initiative for a meeting between us."

also the israeli policy of the last 50 years was the ennemy of peace and stability in the region...

"There is absolutely no equivalence between those who send teenage suicide bombers to kill and maim, and those who take self-defense actions and try to uproot the infrastructure of terrorism. Only your stand against terrorism and actual sanctions against its perpetrators in the Palestinian Authority, and primarily Arafat, will enable you to make a real contribution to the advancement of peace in the Middle East."

the leaders of the free world know that there is no equivalence between an army that occupies an entire people and killed 10000's of palestinians, among which many civilians, some the direct responsaility of the speaker, and they also know that the PA did not engage in terror against inocent people. Not only the stand against terrorism (real terrorism against innocents, which sharon doesn't seem to make a distinction with violence against military occupation forces... ) but as well the stand against a country deliberately violating un-resolutions and other international laws and human rights, and against a leader who has been suspected of crimes against humanity will enable them to make a real contribution to the advancement of peace in the middle east.

"Secondly, because we are united and we stand together. We are one people. Indeed there are different opinions and different sentiments among us, but that which unites us is greater. It is my understanding of this crisis that has led me to struggle for the establishment of a National Unity Government, and in order to maintain unity I am sometimes willing to forgo my own pride. This is not weakness, but strength. I make every effort to maintain this unity and to bring in additional Zionist elements."

he seems to forget about the peace-movement, who doesn't believe this lier and war-criminal and doesn't want to fight the palestinian people but instead want real peace, not on the conditions of Sharon but on the conditions prosperous and acceptable for both peoples and the world community.

[L@mplighterM]

Couldn't your posts be a bit longer and more detailed?

[thrud]

Originally posted by takeo
"The US is not a world governing body and does not want to be. Americans do not want to tell people how to act any more than they want to be told what to do. [an earlier post of mine] "

I don't believe this, if the us isn't a world governing body and doesn't want to tell people how to act why is it involved in military coups against the elected leader of venezuela,
On Meet the Press Sec. of State Colin Powell said the US had nothing to do with it. I believe him, the US tolerates ME OPEC dictators, why not one in South America. I do know that the government of Venezuela killed 17 protestors and that is why the coup leaders tried to oust the Venezuelan president.

Originally posted by takeo
"why are you there in Korea,
The South Korean government pays every red cent of US expenditures in South Korea. The South Korean government had to agree to this or our government would have pulled out in the Carter years. I think the US would not mind pulling out of South Korea as they are more than capable of getting rid of the North Koreans if they needed or wanted to.

Personally, I am here to make money.

Originally posted by takeo
"why do they bomb iraq regularly,
Iraq needs to be bombed a lot more and I think we are behaving too ambiguously regarding Iraq. The sooner those psychos are gone the better off every one will be. Have no doubt, the second Saddam has the ability to deliver nukes he will. I think that is enough reason for a first strike and I do not think we need European support or opinion.

Originally posted by takeo "what were they doing in Vietnam (treatening American security???),
At the time, the Domino Theory was in place and the fight in Vietnam was seen as a definate threat to American security.

Communism was a real threat then. I joined the Army in the 80s because I was opposed to Communism. The fight against Communism was real and the world thought something had to be done, but unfortunately the UN Security counsel was tied up by the Omni-present Solviet veto.

I think the US should have turned the place into a parking lot, ousted the North Vietnamese Government, set up a democratic government, be done with it, and go home, however that did not happen and a lot of people died that should not have. We should have been in and out quickly, but we weren't and a lot of Evil took place.

Originally posted by takeo
"in yougoslavia,
We were there against the will of the American people. Our European allies thought that there would be no end of the conflict if we did not get involved. It was not our problem and honestly, I think we should have let the place burn to the ground and let Europe take care of itself. Thank President Clinton for that one. It was his decision to go there. You yourself said that you liked him more than Bush, so by supporting him you imply your support for the US presence in Yugoslavia.

Originally posted by takeo
"why are they blocking Cuba's economy, etc. etc. etc.
I'm against blocking anyone economy (I am beginning to think the US ought to do something about a bunch of EU pussies who think they can dictate to us how we need to behave). I am for globalization and for free trade. I think that if the US had been intelligent and had pushed trade on Cuba, then Castro would have been long gone. Capitalism will always beat Communism, not violence or international pressure.

Originally posted by takeo
"Let me also ad something hot of the press: the big defender of human rights does wellcome the international tribunal but will not participate themselves or allow its citizens to be judged... anyone can be judged for human rights abuses except the US...

I think the US should back out of a great deal more international entanglements.

Clinton was stupid to trust the world to judge fairly. I do not think we need to have anything to do an organization that can be used against us.

[Mediocrates]

One needs to ask takeo why this blind unflinching love of anything and everything arab and muslim and anti everything ever related in the slightest way to the US and or Israel. Seriously takeo one needs an accounting why this religion of yours for that is what it is, blind religion of anything militant arab muslim and western hating. There is a story or a truth here were not seeing. Chairman Arafat could walk into your house with the severed head of a Jew in his hand you would claim 'what what, I see nothing, you are misstating the facts.' I've heard robotic propaganda before this stuff is starting to sound way over the top even for you.

What's the REAL story?

[takeo]

Does Sharon actually have to slaughter innocent palestinians in person before you will believe what the world know a long time already???
Why are you so anti-muslim and anti-Europe?
I am against the policy of israel because they oppress an entire people and against the policy of the US because the US is an imperialist nation that thinks it has the right to use violence anywhere anytime to controll the world and enhance its economic interests.
thrud:

"On Meet the Press Sec. of State Colin Powell said the US had nothing to do with it. I believe him, the US tolerates ME OPEC dictators, why not one in South America. I do know that the government of Venezuela killed 17 protestors and that is why the coup leaders tried to oust the Venezuelan president. "

guess what, i don't believe him, US-marines have been signaled in exactly the same place Chavez was held captive and the coup-leader had a meeting in the US-embassy only a couple of days before the coup. And about those 17 deaths, it seems even that was part of the theatre, they were not shot by Chavez-supporters but by military who later were loyal to the coup-leaders. chavez is not a dictator, he was elected, even if the venezuelans elected someone unfavorable to the us doesn't mean he's a dictator.

The Southkoreans didn't seem to be very happy with the "axis of evil" speech of Bush and they certainly don't want to provoke a new war with the north. I heard that many Koreans also resent american presence. By the way Americans were there long before south korea had elected leaders... in fact they were there when it was a bloody dictatorship as well and didn't have too much trouble with it.

"Iraq needs to be bombed a lot more and I think we are behaving too ambiguously regarding Iraq. The sooner those psychos are gone the better off every one will be. Have no doubt, the second Saddam has the ability to deliver nukes he will. I think that is enough reason for a first strike and I do not think we need European support or opinion. "

First get it in your mind that iraq isn't part of the us and has never attacked the us and isn't occupying any other country anymore, so you have no reason whatsoever to attack iraq. There is no un-resolution permitting the strikes on iraq. He may be a dictator, there are many dictators in the world, and some countries in the region have unautorized nuclear weapons FOR SURE (without naming them Iran and Israel) countries more dangerous than iraq. By the way it's not because of weapons but because of oil, the us want a docile puppet in iraq for low and garanteed oil-prices, it has nothing to do with any human principle or even with security.
Don't be surprised to have the hate of the entire world if you decide you can bomb iraq all alone, it would be a terrorist action and the US will be punished for it. don't cry about anti-us terrorism after you did, it would be well deserved. A lot of iraqi citizens have already died because of the us-policy towards iraq, more will. Saddam is tremendously popular right now in the Arab world, and he has to thank you guys for making tis little dictator an all-arab hero resisting the evil imperialists!
China, russia and the EU and arab neighbours will do all they can to prevent such an action, and without support from Arab neighbours or opposition inside iraq it will be extremely difficult to conduct the operation. You were lucky in afghanistan that everyone cooperated and that afghans were tired as well of the taliban-tugs. Anyway iraq will allow weapon-inspectors back in so that takes the last arguments americans had for explaining to its allies the bombing of iraq. Russia, France and china have already signed contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq and will not allow the us to conduct such an operation, unless heavy consequences for the us-position in the world.

I agree about Yougoslavia and i have to add that i never supported Clinton, certainly not in his war on yougoslavia, i only said that he is slightly smarter than Bush (he knew that without allies the us can't to as much as with allies). I prefered however the clinton-policy towards the middle east.

[takeo]

"I'm against blocking anyone economy (I am beginning to think the US ought to do something about a bunch of EU pussies who think they can dictate to us how we need to behave). I am for globalization and for free trade. I think that if the US had been intelligent and had pushed trade on Cuba, then Castro would have been long gone. Capitalism will always beat Communism, not violence or international pressure. "


We don't want to dictate anything, the us is dictating to the world how to behave and has a full mouth of human rights, blabla without even complying with its own requirements for other nations... if the us don't want to be ruled, ok, but than certainly it can't dictate to nobody how to behave and conduct policy, or do you think the us has rights other countires don't have?
Actually the embargo has been effective to prevent Cuba from being an example for other latin american countries to become free of American rule. Still life in Cuba is better than in most of its neighbours, i can tell you. I think communism did beat capitalism in a big part of Asia, it was the start for dirt poor countries as china or Vietnam to begin devellopping and becoming free of foreign influence and exploitation. Even Russia only became a world power under communism, after 10 years of capitalism the living standard has fallen dramatically.

"At the time, the Domino Theory was in place and the fight in Vietnam was seen as a definate threat to American security.
Communism was a real threat then. I joined the Army in the 80s because I was opposed to Communism. The fight against Communism was real and the world thought something had to be done, but unfortunately the UN Security counsel was tied up by the Omni-present Solviet veto.
I think the US should have turned the place into a parking lot, ousted the North Vietnamese Government, set up a democratic government, be done with it, and go home, however that did not happen and a lot of people died that should not have. We should have been in and out quickly, but we weren't and a lot of Evil took place. "

The domino theory only existed in the head of you guys, that's why you financed osama bin laden and other terrorist tugs to fight against the Soviet union. In Vietnam no single Chinese or Russian troops were involved, only the vietnamese people fought for their idependance and ideas, for this reason they had to be bombed and the US got involved to save its puppet regime (much like the soviets did in czech or afghanistan).
Your policy to occupy northern vietnam would have spread the war to the whole of vietnam, and by the way it didn't made much difference the north was bombed to pieces anyway, but your policy wouldn't work because the vietnamese simply didn't want you or your puppets, the war would go on and an occupation could have meant nuclear war with China and the Soviet union.
Also in the fight against communism the us supported all kind of dictatorships around the world like pinochet or even the saoudi regime. was this the struggle of good against evil?
i can understand why you support israel...

[Mediocrates]

Can you either get an editor or tell the people that pay you to be here to change their rate scale from per word to per idea?

Note: Edited by management to remove profanity

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Can you either get an editor or tell the people that pay you to be here to change their rate scale from per word to per idea?

Idea??? Same Arafat rhetoric over and over again.

[takeo]

at least my posts are original, reading your post or reading the Jerusalem post or the prime minister's speeches is virtually the same... arafat is eviln israel is defending itself against evil terrorism, Palestinians are barbarians blabla

OK, if you can't respond with arguments, take it personal, i can too...

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
I am against the policy of israel because they oppress an entire people and against the policy of the US because the US is an imperialist nation that thinks it has the right to use violence anywhere anytime to controll the world and enhance its economic interests.
"Oppressing an entire people" by demanding an end to terrorism and an end to Islamic genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jews? I don't think that's really called oppression. It's called survival.

[takeo]

""Oppressing an entire people" by demanding an end to terrorism and an end to Islamic genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jews? I don't think that's really called oppression. It's called survival."

You know as well as i do that's not only about that. Long before the serious security problem in israel and intifadeh israel was oppressing too, and the occupation of Westbank and Gaza and settlements are not necessary for israeli survival, israel did survive pretty well the period 1948-1967, even with much less weapons than today and with the refugee-problem.
Also banning millions of people from returning to their homes can never be excused by security reasons, it wouldn't bring israel's survival in danger if it happened with concern for israeli demographic concerns, as arafat put it.
The real problem is that people like you prefere to see a Jewish state from the sea to the Jordan mostly free of Arabs....

Hitler considered the genocide against the Jewish people and the invasion of Russia also necessary for the survival of the German people...

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
You know as well as i do that's not only about that. Long before the serious security problem in israel and intifadeh israel was oppressing too...
And you know as well as I do that long before the intifada, the Palestinians were carrying out acts of terrorism and massacres of Jews in Israel. Of course it is a matter of survival and not "oppression." The real problem is that the freedom which the Palestinians want is not the freedom of self-government (They Israel already gave them that). Instead, it is the freedom to massacre Jews and carry out a Jihad-genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Jews. That's the real problem.

Also banning millions of people from returning to their homes can never be excused by security reasons, it wouldn't bring israel's survival in danger if it happened with concern for israeli demographic concerns, as arafat put it.
The real problem is that people like you prefere to see a Jewish state from the sea to the Jordan mostly free of Arabs....
First, yes, I would LOVE to see the greater Israel free of Arab enemies.

But you are fooling yourself to think that injecting millions more of Arab enemies, in addition to the millions already planted in Israel, is not a security threat. Of course it is a huge security threat.

Hitler considered the genocide against the Jewish people and the invasion of Russia also necessary for the survival of the German people...
Please don't even start with this. I know that for a neo-Stalinist you have a fixation on this topic, but the only comparison with Hitler is the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Jews which the Arabs are trying to perpetrate right now.

Just like Hitler was defeated by bombing Germany's main cities and reducing them to rubble, so too Israel needs to act against the Arabs to defeat the Nazi-like evil of their terrorism.

[L@mplighterM]

The Arab world won?t allow even 13 Palestinians into their country to end the church stand off. Would they take a dozen? Nope! Would they take 11? Nope!............................................. Would they take 1? I don?t think they would they have more sense and in any event they would have to kill them off in the end.

Judging by the videos I?ve watched from a great site I found the Palestinians are suffering from a lack of oppression.

So the Arabs don?t want them for obvious security reasons but you want Israel to open the borders to millions.

[takeo]

The Arab neighbours already have millions of them who had to leave their belogings in israel, and israel doesn't want to send them to libanon or Syria, where they could join hesbollah.

"And you know as well as I do that long before the intifada, the Palestinians were carrying out acts of terrorism and massacres of Jews in Israel. Of course it is a matter of survival and not "oppression." The real problem is that the freedom which the Palestinians want is not the freedom of self-government (They Israel already gave them that). Instead, it is the freedom to massacre Jews and carry out a Jihad-genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Jews. That's the real problem. "

Really? how many suicide attacks were there before the intifadeh, how many israeli citizens died before the intifadeh? go back to the 70's or 80's, was there ever even the slightest proposal from israeli establishment to return the occupied territories???
the palestinians never had any freedom but to see how their houses were destroyed and cities sealed off and the freedom to see more hostile colonists taking their grounds every day. Israel however wants the freedom to continue with this policy and they hope one day the palestinians will move from this territories because they finally want a real life...



"First, yes, I would LOVE to see the greater Israel free of Arab enemies. "

so, ok, you admit it you are in favor of etnic cleansing and think israel AND the territories occupied by israel should be only for the superior jewish race. So by this you also admit that you are not in favor of holding the occupied territories only for security reasons but as well for ideological reasons;..

"But you are fooling yourself to think that injecting millions more of Arab enemies, in addition to the millions already planted in Israel, is not a security threat. Of course it is a huge security threat.
"

it is not, the ones already in israel have never been a security-treat either. The only problem you have with them is that you want an etnically pure israel.


"Please don't even start with this. I know that for a neo-Stalinist you have a fixation on this topic, but the only comparison with Hitler is the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Jews which the Arabs are trying to perpetrate right now. "

it is not only my fixation but the eternal excuse for all the crimes of zionism "yes but we have to defend ourselves, we were already one time the victim of genocide..."
In fact the policy of israel, expansionist and acting towards etnic nationalism is in fact much more comparable to nazism than the palestinians defending themselves against armed occupiers. The only big difference is that jews this time are not the victims but perpetrators. (of course israeli citizens suffer too from the war launched by their leaders, as German civilians too)

"Just like Hitler was defeated by bombing Germany's main cities and reducing them to rubble, so too Israel needs to act against the Arabs to defeat the Nazi-like evil of their terrorism."

no, in fact israel needs to be punished for its etnic cleansing and occupation, as well as Germany in WWII. The Arab states are not occupying Israel, it is the other way my dear friend.

[L@mplighterM]

Your post is Arab garbage!!!!

100% pure Arafag nonsense!!!!!!

I wont even respond !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[L@mplighterM]

I hope that there will be a mobilization of Jews and Gentiles that'll supporting Congress.





NATIONAL EMERGENCY MOBILIZATION ON PALESTINEMay 13 and 14, 2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hosted by the Arab American Institute &
the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee

In the next few weeks it is imperative for U.S. citizens concerned about the current situation in Palestine to join together. We must speak out against congressional bills and letters that are aimed at undermining U.S. relations with the Palestinian leadership and Arab countries and support legislation that advocates a balanced approach to the crisis. We must also encourage the U.S. government to support humanitarian efforts in Palestine. Speakers include: Nabil Shaath, Palestinian Authority Minister of Planning and International Cooperation, Michael Tarazi and Diana Buttu, legal advisors, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s (PLO) Negotiations Affairs Department, Adam Shapiro, the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), John Zogby, Zogby International, among others.

http://www.focusonpalestine.org/may13.htm

[Vic]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
Judging by the videos I?ve watched from a great site I found the Palestinians are suffering from a lack of oppression.
URL?
Thx :-)

[Vic]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
http://www.focusonpalestine.org/may13.htm
Great site ;-)
Funny, the vote of Gary Condit. I've just stumbled across a hilarious comment on it:

And who voted against full-throated endorsement of the war criminal Sharon? Precisely two members of the Senate declined to endorse every action of a nation that most recently had rampaged its way through Jenin refugee camp: Robert Byrd of West Virginia (as meister of the pork barrel, he was maybe irked at the DeLay/Armey drive for Palestinian subsidies) and Ernest Hollings of South Carolina. In the House, there were only 21 No votes, including outgoing California Rep. Gary Condit, who probably now feels free to express his true feelings about the Levy family, and also my favorites, Ron Paul of Texas and Dana Rohrabacher of California.

Alexander Cockburn: PALESTINE TO MOVE TO DALLAS-FORT WORTH: DICK ARMEY'S BOLD PLAN
http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=aco

[sitruc37diesel]

takeo:
You can't blame all of the Palestinian violence against Israelis on their occupation. There do seem to be quite a few Palestinians that actually think Jews should be killed just for being Jewish. How many there are I do not know.

There are also Jews who think that they are God's chosen people and God promised them the land of Israel and so they feel that they should kick the Palestinians out. These people are religious fanatics, and sometimes they too resort to terrorism. I just saw on TV today that some Jewish (settlers I believe) Israelis were being investigated for planning to bomb an Arabic neighborhood. How many of these fanatics exist I also have no idea.

I sure hope that in both populations, these racist fanatics are not a majority or even a significant part. Quite frankly, these attitudes are no better than Hitler's.

Lamplighter:
You come across as a fanatic. Being passionate about a cause significantly impacts objectivity. If takeo is uninformed, properly inform him rather than insulting him. The mere fact that he doesn't respond with posts like "Arafag lover! I won't even respond to that arab ****!" makes him look far more rational than you. If you care about your cause, you should want to convince people to support it. By responding like that, you make your cause look less credible.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by sitruc37diesel
There are also Jews who think that they are God's chosen people and God promised them the land of Israel and so they feel that they should kick the Palestinians out. These people are religious fanatics, and sometimes they too resort to terrorism. I just saw on TV today that some Jewish (settlers I believe) Israelis were being investigated for planning to bomb an Arabic neighborhood. How many of these fanatics exist I also have no idea.

The are a tiny portion of the population and tend to concentrate where they can make the most noise such as the Jewish settlement in the middle of Hebron. Some of them are aligned with movements like Kach and Kahane. The man you refer to has been arrested many times before and his positions are a matter of public record. But if you broaden the definition to people who are not sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and don't feel that the Palestinians have much justification even though they will eventually be given their own state anyway you would probably envelope a very large swath of the Israeli population. See here's the catch. You have one person who says "Arabs out peace in - by force if that what it takes" And you have another person who says "Screw them and when they get their own I hope they choke on it", the outside world lumps both together under the general purpose rubric "Zionst racist....." which not only is unjust, unfair and borderline racist, it's not even accurate.

[takeo]

of course not all israeli are racists, the large attendance of the peace-movements demonstration some days ago proove different, however many of them at times have been sedused by ultra-rightwing parties as likud (who just recently decided that they will never accept a palestinian state, on ideological grounds).
it is a fact however the extremists as the ones in Hebron are in hebron because the israeli army did accept them to build their settlement there..
also the big majority of palestinians don't want to throw the jews into the sea, they most agree with armed resistance against the israeli occupation.
on both sides the war and cruelty have encouraged the radicals in recent years.

[takeo]

yes, thanks, some statements of lomplighter indeed don't need much reply...

[Mediocrates]

"...been seduced by ultra-rightwing parties like Likud....."


to be fair though sir, anything to the right of Trotsky qualifies for that definition according to you.

[takeo]

Likud is rightwing even compared to Tatcher, Le Pen or to A.G. Ashcroft...

by the way i'm not trostkist

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by takeo
Likud is rightwing even compared to Tatcher, Le Pen or to A.G. Ashcroft...


I guess that plays well when you're buying drinks for your mates at the pub but it's not actually grounded in fact or has much factual content at all.

Likud !!!! it's more rightwing, than......than.......than..... Tamerlane!

Yeah they're bigger fascists than Ghengis Freakin Khan !!!!!!

well ok if you say so - ;)

[takeo]

the party has just adopted a resolution that it wil NEVER accept a Palestinian state (so it means it is determined to continue the occupation and racist policy untill eternity... never mind international resolutions and human rights)
It is also a party clearly in favor of official racism and is the more rightwing die-hard uncompromising variation of the already very nationalistic (but rather leftist) original zionism. their idea of treating the palestinians is something le Pen can only dream about, but those guys can put their dreams in reality!
also they hate labour-union and want to deprive israel of the last bits of social laws.

If this isn't right-wing, than i don't know what is...

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by takeo
the party has just adopted a resolution that it wil NEVER accept a Palestinian state (so it means it is determined to continue the occupation and racist policy untill eternity... never mind international resolutions and human rights)
It is also a party clearly in favor of official racism and is the more rightwing die-hard uncompromising variation of the already very nationalistic (but rather leftist) original zionism. their idea of treating the palestinians is something le Pen can only dream about, but those guys can put their dreams in reality!
also they hate labour-union and want to deprive israel of the last bits of social laws.

If this isn't right-wing, than i don't know what is...

Well then I guess you really don't know - you said it yourself. This is a tactic to force whomever is running the PA to deal with Sharon and his policies and not try to disrupt the process and work around him or with whomever in waiting in the wings. This helps focus the issue to deal expressly with Sharon and not go off on some more adventurous bombing campaign in the faint hope they can topple the Unity Government Coalition.

Yadda Yadda you throw the word racist around like it's shorthand for something else.

[Pathfinder]

The recent resolutions of support for Israel by both houses of congress in the United States underline one of the major (if not the major cause) causes of the current mess. U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East and Israel for 30 years now, or more, has been driven by fear. Fear of conflict; we had just come out of a disastrous Viet Nam. Fear of the Arab oil club (double meaning); this, stemming from the two economically devastating oil embargoes of the 70s. Finally, fear of international and domestic politics.

This fear has caused us to pussey-foot (Takeo, that’s one of those American cowboy terms) around regimes that, by any objective view, should be considered our outright enemies. I would include in this list, not just the usual suspects, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya but our number one “peace partner” Saudi Arabia. Why do we pretend to be friends of a corrupt dictatorship that supports terrorism and openly supports and finances institutions and individuals who preach death and hatred to the US and one of our closest allies and friends? Fear, of course. You can spin it any way you want: a strategic partnership for security in the ME, economic partnership, partnership for understanding, so we have a foothold in the Arab world. All that is **** and intellectual clutter to obscure the ugly truth that it is a relationship built on mutual fear. I single out SA but these arguments apply to many if not most of the gulf/Arab states.

The US got burned twice and so does all it can to avoid the flame. So now fear, the noblest of human qualities, the one that drives men to greatness, is our motivating force in the ME. How many wise decisions are made by men (or nations) motivated by fear? For 30+ years, fear of the oil club and conflict and politics has caused the US to pressure Israel into premature peace treaties in its defensive wars. Had they been allowed to prosecute those wars to their natural conclusions, Israel’s borders would be secure and the nests of terrorists among her neighbors would not have been allowed to grow and fester. I believe that without the outside extremists constantly fueling the fires of hatred and resentment among the Arab refugees of those wars, they would have long ago reconciled with the Israelis and learned to live together. The allies didn’t stop halfway to Berlin and allow Hitler to dictate the terms of peace. I’m not comparing the Arabs to Nazis, only looking at the dynamics of war and conflict.

So now the US, having subverted moral courage in favor of fear in ME foreign policy has created a monster in the ME mess. It all goes back to the flawed policies of appeasement…you feed a monster and do you get a monster that stops eating? No, you just get a bigger monster.

I thought I saw a glimmer of hope in George Bush after 911. It seemed that the days of Willy Waggle policy were finally over. He laid out a clear moral road, without the usual political ambiguities and diplomatic soft-pedal. He started out well, but when he got to the ME oil states and the Arab refugee problem in Israel he started backpedaling. “We can’t provoke conflict with the oil states, oh no.” I think he has the right instincts but has listened to too many traditional state dept and economic advisors to do the right thing.

He/we need to follow through on his promises to smoke out terrorism and any state that supports it. If that means infuriating the Arab Oil states into another embargo then so be it. They will find out very quickly that as strong as our military is, our economic muscle is even greater. We are not nearly as dependant on ME oil now as we were in the 70s and we now have the SPR which would more than offset ME oil imports for 6 to 12 months. On the other hand, SA, which keeps the angry hordes of their people outside the gates of the palace almost entirely on oil money, how long could they stay in power without those revenues and with US might supporting a democratic opposition.

The oil club has become no more than a willow branch, an empty threat. So we, the US, need to pull our head out of the sand and do the right thing, even if it can no longer be called the courageous thing. Moral courage means doing the right thing even when you know the consequences will be unpleasant. The courageous thing would have been to do the right thing in the face of a potent threat, such as the oil threat in the 70s and 80s. Now its only the right thing.

We, the US, should stand up to the Syrians and Saudis and anyone else that is supporting terror and unambiguously support Israel in any effort she has to make to defeat terrorism. Oh, and by the way, for all you moral relativists Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians (ie. Noncombatants) for the purpose of instilling fear in the civilian population. It is NOT soldiers targeting other soldiers or combatants in the defense of their country