The Jordanian Option [Archive]

takeo

05-23-2002, 06:35 PM

thanks, i think some people on this forum have more or less the same opinion as me.

"How can you compare Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank? Israel told Jordan not to get involved in the 1967 War. Jordan did anyway and attacked Israel after they thought Egypt was winning its battle against Israel. After Jordan attacked, Israel fought back and took land and offered to give it back a week later for peace. How does this compare to Iraq who invaded Kuwait. Not an very good comparison. "

Actually jordan signed a pact with egypt, so if Egypt would be attacked, Jordan would defend egypt (as if iraq would occupy parts of SA because it defended kouweit). Israel knew that.
Israel attacked Egypt the first, and occupied parts of Egypt, so there is certainly analogy.

"Let’s ask the Kurds what they think of Saddam.

The other Arab nations don’t like Saddam. This was very apparent when Israel flew over their air space to bomb Iraq in 1981. The Arab nations complained a little but they didn’t put up much of a fuss. When the Arab nations formed an alliance with the US in the Gulf War, this showed they really don’t like Saddam.
?"

Yes, of course the Iraqi Kurds hate Saddam very much, i forgot to mention that, you are right about that, i meant the Iraqi Arabs.
and yes the other regimes didn't like Saddam very much, to say at least. However since the 90's he is very popular in Arab countries and less hated among the ruling regimes because his country was constantly targetted, starved and bombed by the US that wanted to extend its rule to iraq. He became the sympathic underdog against the much hated superpower and friend of israel for the Arab masses. Also arab regimes see iraq no longer as a treat and want the US-actions against iraq as well as the embargo to end. Any support for a new war against Saddam would end in a popular uprising, that's why even longtime allies as SA refused to cooperate.

"And nice job trying to concoct a conspiracy theory against the CIA. That is a bit of a stretch, no"

well, it's just a guess as i said, there is no evidence supporting this, but it would be a very logical and realistic (if you consider the precedents and conditions ...) possibility.

cerulean

05-23-2002, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by takeo

Well Israel will not get peace as long as there is no palestinian state, even sharon knows that.

The problem is that Sharon knows that Israel won't get peace after a Palestinian state either.

kauffner

05-23-2002, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by takeo
Wrong, those anthrax was prooved to come from American laboratoria. My guess is that the CIA or FBI produced those anthrax-letters as an excuse to bring iraq in the war on terrorism(iraq did not attack us-targets, so there had to be found a link to dispose Saddam).
Sounds to me like you are in deep conspiracy territory. Did a plane really crash into the Pentagon? Why didn't those Jews show up for work on September 11? You might want to check out that grassy knoll. There could have been a second gunman, you know.

One of the 9/11 hijackers had earlier sought treatment for cutaneous anthrax. Bin Laden implied that his group was responsible for the anthrax mailings in an interview with Al Jezeera. He doesn't exactly confess, but surely an innocent man would deny the accusation, especially if he was really being framed by the U.S. government. See http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/31/gen.binladen.interview/index.html

Atta, ringleader of the 9/11 attack, went to Prague in April to meet with the head of Iraqi intelligence. He could have obtained vials of Iraqi anthrax at that time.

The FBI's theory that it was a "lone American" just doesn't make sense. The anthrax sent to Senator Leahy is highly sophisticated and includes a chemical additive, something that is beyond the capability of a mad scientist working in his garage.

in 1987 iraq was the ally of the US against Iran.
In 1987, Iraq was a Soviet ally and the U.S. was sending arms to Iran. Don't you remember Iran-Contra?

that's not true, most Iraqi people, both in private and in public and in the foreign, support Saddam against the US.
There been a string of defectors recently who say morale in the Iraqi army is very low now. If his own army isn't behind him, it's unlikely the general population is. Also, I think it's safe to say that Iraq's ethnic minorities consider Saddam enemy number one -- and they are about 50 percent of Iraqi's population. The popularity Saddam does have is like Bin Laden's. It will disappear the moment he looks like a loser.

The US made saddam from a puppet dictator to an all-Arab hero, not only in Iraq but in the whole Arab world.
Wouldn't that make him -- gasp -- U.S. supported? Isn't that reason enough to whip him like a rented mule?

Well Israel will not get peace as long as there is no palestinian state, even sharon knows that.
What you don't seem to understand it that the Arab-Israeli conflict is not about a Palestinian state and such a state is therefore irrelevant in resolving it. The claim that the conflict is about land occupied in 1967 ignores the fact that the conflict pre-dates 1967. It will continue as long as regional powers like Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are stoking the fires. If the Palestinians get a state and these powers are still eager to finance anti-Israeli terrorism, that state will simply function as base from which to launch attacks on Israel. Saddam and the rest care nothing about Palestinian nationalism except as a weapon to use against Israel.

From 1939 to 1987, the Arabs living in Palestine/Israel were essentially passive in a drama that rivets the world and supposedly centers on them. The Intifada that broke out in 1987 was the result of Iran's financing and promotion of Hamas, not a product of the Palestinian nationalist movement.

takeo

05-24-2002, 01:02 AM

Even sharon knows a palestinian state is the only POSSIBLE chance for israel to live in peace, if not he would not support it (of course i don't support the man, he would like to send all palestinians to hell, but he knows that's not an option)

"What you don't seem to understand it that the Arab-Israeli conflict is not about a Palestinian state and such a state is therefore irrelevant in resolving it. The claim that the conflict is about land occupied in 1967 ignores the fact that the conflict pre-dates 1967. It will continue as long as regional powers like Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are stoking the fires. If the Palestinians get a state and these powers are still eager to finance anti-Israeli terrorism, that state will simply function as base from which to launch attacks on Israel. Saddam and the rest care nothing about Palestinian nationalism except as a weapon to use against Israel.
From 1939 to 1987, the Arabs living in Palestine/Israel were essentially passive in a drama that rivets the world and supposedly centers on them. The Intifada that broke out in 1987 was the result of Iran's financing and promotion of Hamas, not a product of the Palestinian nationalist movement."

I think you understand very little of the conflict. the most important reason why the Arab world always opposed Israel is exactly the palestinian question. Palestinians already fought
against zionism long before the rest of the arab world. In fact palestinian resistance againts israel dates back long before radical regimes came to power in Iraq or Iran, and neighbouring arab states have not attacked israel anymore untill 1973, which was a reaction to the 1967 occupation. In fact terorism against israel and the intifadeh were almost always palestinian actions, after 1967 more of course because since than millions suffered under direct israeli occupation,the intifadeh pre-dates Hamas and was a total palestinian initiative, even the plo in Tunis was not involved in this. Because palestinians are the ones that suffer from israel, not other arab states. The only exceptionis maybe libanese resistance when israel invaded that country. The support from for example iran was welcome financial extra but the most important was the 100's of 1000 palestinians ready to sacrifice their life.
the palestinians suffer from occupation and etnic cleansing, millions live in refugee-camps, this is really the best possible environment for terrorism and hate to cultivate. Also the occupation and refugee-question is the real reason why Arab countries hate israel, that's why syria and SA offered recognition of israel ifthose are solved, there is no other reasonable reason why those countries would keep fighting israel. Arabs are no anti-semites by nature, jews and Arabs lived together during many centuries and still in many cases.

takeo

05-24-2002, 01:39 AM

"Sounds to me like you are in deep conspiracy territory. Did a plane really crash into the Pentagon? Why didn't those Jews show up for work on September 11? You might want to check out that grassy knoll. There could have been a second gunman, you know. "

there is nothing that may lead one to this theory, the mossad doesn't use suicide-commanders.

"One of the 9/11 hijackers had earlier sought treatment for cutaneous anthrax. Bin Laden implied that his group was responsible for the anthrax mailings in an interview with Al Jezeera. He doesn't exactly confess, but surely an innocent man would deny the accusation, especially if he was really being framed by the U.S. government. See http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/31/ge...view/index.html "

well, maybe those terrorists would love to write this on their own count, however how would they get anthrax from american laboratories?

"Atta, ringleader of the 9/11 attack, went to Prague in April to meet with the head of Iraqi intelligence. He could have obtained vials of Iraqi anthrax at that time. "

this story has been prooved inconclusive and false by czech officials, that's why it was no longer used by the White House to isolate Iraq. By the way it was not iraqi anthrax but anthrax made in the us-laboratories that was used (that's why they say it was a lone american radical who did it).

"The FBI's theory that it was a "lone American" just doesn't make sense. The anthrax sent to Senator Leahy is highly sophisticated and includes a chemical additive, something that is beyond the capability of a mad scientist working in his garage. "

Yes, i agree, besides it was the same kind of anthrax used in american official laboratories by the army, so that's why i think it was an attempt to isolate and indict iraq of terrorism.
Iraq is doing at the time anything to make itself more moderate in the eyes of its Arab neighbours ( a quite succesfull policy) and russia, china and Europe, the only radical actions it will conduct will be against israel, because that can boost his image in the arab world without any consequences.

"In 1987, Iraq was a Soviet ally and the U.S. was sending arms to Iran. Don't you remember Iran-Contra? "

it was a us-ally too, and perceived as such by the American public against arch-ennemy iran, that's why the iran-contragate scandall provoked such heavy emotions in the US. it was not to support iran, but to support the contra's by illegal financement (just as they supported the illegal war in laos by cultivating drugs)

"There been a string of defectors recently who say morale in the Iraqi army is very low now. If his own army isn't behind him, it's unlikely the general population is. Also, I think it's safe to say that Iraq's ethnic minorities consider Saddam enemy number one -- and they are about 50 percent of Iraqi's population. The popularity Saddam does have is like Bin Laden's. It will disappear the moment he looks like a loser. "

Bin laden is by most Arabs perceived as a criminal.
Morale is low in the army because of the very poor economic conditions and payment, yet if his army wasn't behind him it would have been easy for the us to dispose him and organise a military coup, it is exactly the lack of opposition against Saddam (except kurdish in the north and pro-iranian ayatollahs in the south) that led the us to think about a military invasion.
everyone who went to iraq destifies about the feelings of most iraqi's which are very strong, which is only normal after years of embargo maintained by the us and GB and weekly military aggressions that killed more than 1 million people together (and also a cancerrate that is 10 times as high in territories where the us bombed the most).
the most part of iraq are Arabs, kurds are only about 15-20% the rest are arabs.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html#People

http://www.zmag.org/everestiraq.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1506000/1506151.stm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indxone4.htm

Vic

05-24-2002, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by cerulean
The problem is that Sharon knows that Israel won't get peace after a Palestinian state either.
One of the theories currently in circulation is that a Palestinian state would have the advantage that Israel wouldn't be responsible for it or the security of its population. Therefore any attack on Israelis would be legally considered an act of aggression by a foreign state, making it easier for Israel to retaliate and imposing less restraint on it.
Any opinions on it?

takeo

05-24-2002, 08:56 PM

That's right, Israel's retaliation would be legal and internationally accepted in that case (of course still within the borders of the Geneva-conventions)

Vic

05-24-2002, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by takeo
That's right, Israel's retaliation would be legal and internationally accepted in that case (of course still within the borders of the Geneva-conventions)
The conclusion being that the main reason to create a Palestinian state is that it would be easier to attack Palestinians without mercy...

takeo

05-24-2002, 10:00 PM

well, it would be one of the many reasons, and only IF the palestinians would attack israel.

L@mplighterM

05-24-2002, 10:20 PM

kauffner

05-25-2002, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by Vic

One of the theories currently in circulation is that a Palestinian state would have the advantage that Israel wouldn't be responsible for it or the security of its population. Therefore any attack on Israelis would be legally considered an act of aggression by a foreign state, making it easier for Israel to retaliate and imposing less restraint on it.
Any opinions on it?
This strikes me as an absolutely moronic idea. A Palestinian state would persumably be able to import arms in unlimited amounts. The anti-Semites in the U.N. will still condemn Israel no matter what what it does.

Didn't we go down this road once before in Oslo? It only inspired Hamas and the other rejectionists to redouble their efforts. Outrage against Oslo is said to have been a major factor in radicalizing Atta, the 9/11 ringleader. That's outrage at the agreement itself, not the fact that some terms weren't fufilled.

elke

05-25-2002, 02:35 AM

I don't think that fear of radicalizing the Attas of the world should really be an issue. The issue is whether or not the nascent Palestinian state would have the desire and the ability to control their freaks and flakes. The issue is also whether or not they are ready to grow up: stop being victims and start looking after their own interests, instead of looking to the "big daddy" for salvation.

Vic

05-25-2002, 03:30 AM

Originally posted by takeo
well, it would be one of the many reasons, and only IF the palestinians would attack israel.
Any reason to believe they won't?

elke

05-25-2002, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by Vic

Any reason to believe that they won't?

Maybe they will have an epiphany...

kauffner

05-25-2002, 03:43 AM

takeo: When you say that the anthrax in the letters came from a U.S. lab, I suppose you are referring to the fact that it is the Ames strain. This strain was isolated at the University of Iowa. Nowadays, it is the standard strain of laboratory anthrax and is used in many labs, both military and civilian. Anthrax is a disease of cattle, so it's not just biowarfare people who are interested in it. It is not a controlled substance. If you give the appearance of being a legitimate researcher, labs will send you samples. It would therefore not have been difficult for Iraqi intelligence to obtain a sample of the Ames strain. We know they obtained a sample of Vollum, another anthrax strain orginally isolated in the U.S., in this fashion. Iraq attempted to obtain the Ames strain from a British company in 1988. But obtaining a sample of anthrax is only the first step in creating an anthrax bioweapon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10804-2001Nov24?.html

the palestinians suffer from occupation and etnic cleansing, millions live in refugee-camps, this is really the best possible environment for terrorism and hate to cultivate.

The best possible environment for terrorism is when the government's education and propaganda machinery promote it, as is the case under the PA.

Also the occupation and refugee-question is the real reason why Arab countries hate israel, that's why syria and SA offered recognition of israel ifthose are solved, there is no other reasonable reason why those countries would keep fighting israel.

Ordinary Muslim Arabs had an intense hated of Jews even in pre-Zionist Palestine. Under the British mandate, the Arabs would riot and revolt in order to protest Jewish immigration, land purchase, and activity on the Temple Mount. The Saudis helped finance the 1936-38 revolt. Thus the disease pre-dates both the occupation and refugee issues. Pan-Arabism, Palestinian nationalism, Islamic fundamentalism, and sympathy for the plight of the refugees are merely ways to dress up this primitive tribal hated and give it a degree of respectability.

The Saudis have not even contacted Israel regarding their peace plan. Israel couldn't accept it if it wanted to. The Saudis are proposing the plan to the U.N. as something the U.N. should adopt. The plan is not about bilateral relations between Israel and Saudi. The present Saudi and Syrian regimes are highly unlikely to recognize Israel under any circumstances.

this story has been prooved inconclusive and false by czech officials, that's why it was no longer used by the White House to isolate Iraq.
Some people have questioned whether there was a meeting in April 2001, but the Czechs have repeatedly confirmed that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in June 2000.

[Iraq] was a us-ally too, and perceived as such by the American public against arch-ennemy iran, that's why the iran-contragate scandall provoked such heavy emotions in the US. it was not to support iran, but to support the contra's by illegal financement
The "scandal" part of Iran-Contra was that the proceeds of the arms sales were not deposited into the general treasury as required by law, but rather diverted to the Nicaraguan resistance. There was never any question of the arms sales being a betrayal of Iraq since no one in America thought of the Iraqis as allies at the time. This nonsense about Iraq being a U.S. ally never even came up until after Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991. It was at that point that the left-wing press decided to portray Saddam as the new Noriega. (BTW, Nicaragua has an elected pro-American president these days, a vindication of the U.S. strategy of using the resistance to pressure the communists into holding elections.)

Bin laden is by most Arabs perceived as a criminal.
As soon as the World Trade Center was hit, a wave of ecstasy swept through the Arab world. Bin Laden was more popular than Saddam ever was or ever will be (unless of course Saddam fulfills his vow to nuke Tel Aviv). Now that Bin Laden has been defeated, he can't be a hero anymore. But he can still be a victim. The new line from the Muslim street is that the Jews destroyed the WTC and therefore Bin Laden is a falsely accused innocent.

the most part of iraq are Arabs, kurds are only about 15-20% the rest are arabs.
The Shiites are at least 60 percent of Iraq's population. The ruling Sunni Arab ethnic group is only 17 percent of the population.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/6/smyth-f.html

takeo

05-25-2002, 07:30 AM

"Any reason to believe they won't?"

Yes, many reasons, look at the discussion about that in other treads.

"takeo: When you say that the anthrax in the letters came from a U.S. lab, I suppose you are referring to the fact that it is the Ames strain. This strain was isolated at the University of Iowa. Nowadays, it is the standard strain of laboratory anthrax and is used in many labs, but military and civilian. Anthrax is a disease of cattle, so it's not just biowarfare people who are interested in it. It is not a controlled substance. If you give the appearance of being a legitimate researcher, labs will send you samples. It would therefore not have been difficult for Iraqi intelligence to obtain a sample of the Ames strain. We know they obtained a sample of Vollum, another anthrax strain orginally isolated in the U.S., in this fashion. Iraq attempted to obtain the Ames strain from a British company in 1988. But obtaining a sample of anthrax is only the first step in creating an anthrax bioweapon. "

That's right, but this is certainly no evidence that iraq did it, because all the information the Western information services possessed indicated that Iraq didn't have that strain. in fact anyone could have done it, including CIA or FBI.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...2001Nov24?.html

"The best possible environment for terrorism is when the government's education and propaganda machinery promote it, as is the case under the PA. "

of course the schoolsystem and radio of the PA will not praise the israeli (as the israeli schoolsystem and television will not praise the palestinians), but the the against israel is not coming from there from from years of occupation, denyal of their rights, ethnic cleansing and destruction of their houses or lifes. In fact nobody will be suicide-bomber just because of propaganda, you have to feel real deep and personal hate to conduct such actions. the hate existed well before 1993 as well, that's why the first intifadeh erupted. The only reason to take that hate away is to take the reason for hate away.
You are not going to tell me that Americans hate osama bin laden because of the propaganda? The french still hate the germans for what they did in WWII, this is not because of propaganda...

"Ordinary Muslim Arabs had an intense hated of Jews even in pre-Zionist Palestine. Under the British mandate, the Arabs would riot and revolt in order to protest Jewish immigration, land purchase, and activity on the Temple Mount. The Saudis helped finance the 1936-38 revolt. Thus the disease pre-dates both the occupation and refugee issues. Pan-Arabism, Palestinian nationalism, Islamic fundamentalism, and sympathy for the plight of the refugees are merely ways to dress up this primitive tribal hated and give it a degree of respectability. "

You call it pre-zionist palestine, which is wrong, because the colonisation of the historic palestine was already going on.
Jews lived mostly in peace with Arabs before the start of massive zionist immigration, even in Jerusalem, where jews have maintained a community during many centuries.
Of course the facts in 1948 and in 1967 made the anger and hate against israel more widespread, that's when jews started to emigrate from Morocco, iraq, Egypt, etc.

"The Saudis have not even contacted Israel regarding their peace plan. Israel couldn't accept it if it wanted to. The Saudis are proposing the plan to the U.N. as something the U.N. should adopt. The plan is not about bilateral relations between Israel and Saudi. The present Saudi and Syrian regimes are highly unlikely to recognize Israel under any circumstances. "

because this international conflict needs an international solution, israel is not the only party involved. the saoudi's and Syria have explicitly offered recognition of Israel...

"The "scandal" part of Iran-Contra was that the proceeds of the arms sales were not deposited into the general treasury as required by law, but rather diverted to the Nicaraguan resistance. There was never any question of the arms sales being a betrayal of Iraq since no one in America thought of the Iraqis as allies at the time. This nonsense about Iraq being a U.S. ally never even came up until after Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991. It was at that point that the left-wing press decided to portray Saddam as the new Noriega. (BTW, Nicaragua has an elected pro-American president these days, a vindication of the U.S. strategy of using the resistance to pressure the communists into holding elections.) "

so now you are supporting the use of terrorism to gain political influence in a country? so OK, if the US can, the palestinians can too. by the way the sandinists were no communists just perceived as such, the elections happened with many billions of us-support for the opposition, and since 10 years the poverty in Nicaragua has only increased, it is now the second poorest country in the western hemisphere. in the last elections when Ortega could win the US has again given billions of aid and as well the catholic church was involved, the us also warned they would not accept ortega as president, which means another war. This is the US-version of democracy in the thrith world...
anyway, about us- and western support for Saddam Houssein during the iraq-iran-war:

"The United States and Britain have a lot to apologize for
over their support of Iraq while Saddam Hussein was building up his military
might, a British minister said Friday.
In a speech to parliament defending the current sanctions against Iraq,
Peter Hain -- a junior minister in the Foreign Office under the Labor
government -- acknowledged the West had played a supportive role in the
early years of Saddam's rule.
In that period the Iraqi leader was preparing to fight his neighbors, first
Iran, and later Kuwait.
"The West, including Britain and the U.S., have a lot to apologize for about
allowing the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein to get to the strength that
it achieved," Hain said.
"After all, the last (British) Tory government actually armed him, directly
and indirectly," he said."
"

"Last week, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright expressed regret at
American support for Iraq in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, saying "aspects of
U.S. policy toward Iraq during its conflict with Iran appear now to have
been regrettably short-sighted."

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg00400.html

"As soon as the World Trade Center was hit, a wave of ecstasy swept through the Arab world. Bin Laden was more popular than Saddam ever was or ever will be (unless of course Saddam fulfills his vow to nuke Tel Aviv). Now that Bin Laden has been defeated, he can't be a hero anymore. But he can still be a victim. The new line from the Muslim street is that the Jews destroyed the WTC and therefore Bin Laden is a falsely accused innocent. "

How do you know that, have you made personal statistics? All the Arabs i spoke to are against Bin laden as an extremist, and polls by gallup indicate the same. the first thing Arafat did when the 11/9 happened was giving blood.
By the way unfortunately Bin laden isn't defeated yet.

"The Shiites are at least 60 percent of Iraq's population. The ruling Sunni Arab ethnic group is only 17 percent of the population"

actually sunnites are 30%, and Saddam and most of the ruling elite are one of them, however shiites are no ethnic group but just a religious group, just as catholic americans are no ethnic group either, they all speak Arab and consider themselves as Arabs. Sadam is reported to be popular among them as well (only some fundamentalist ayatollahs resist his rule from iran)

kauffner

05-25-2002, 09:45 AM

takeo: The anthrax attacks must have taken months or years to prepare. A batch of letters were sent out immediately after the U.S. began bombing Afghanistan, I assume as protest against the bombing. Who knew months in advance that the U.S. would attack Afghanistan? Only Al Qaeda. Where would Al Qaeda get anthrax? Probably not the CIA or the FBI. Surely Bin Laden would have disassociated himself from the letters if he thought the U.S. government was behind them.

You call it pre-zionist palestine, which is wrong, because the colonisation of the historic palestine was already going on. Jews lived mostly in peace with Arabs before the start of massive zionist immigration, even in Jerusalem, where jews have maintained a community during many centuries.
So the Middle East was all goodness and light until Zionism came and spoiled everything? There is plenty of the documentation to show that the hated of Jews by Palestinian Arabs pre-dates Zionism. A dispatch by a British consul in 1850 discusses the persecution of Jews in Hebron and states that the "Austrian Jewish Agent [is] frequently beaten in the streets there." Of course, Muslims weren't out to exterminate Jews in those days, only to constantly remind them of their inferior status. See http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/nationalism.html

gev

05-25-2002, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by takeo
of course the schoolsystem and radio of the PA will not praise the israeli (as the israeli schoolsystem and television will not praise the palestinians)

Nobody talks about praising Israel, but it seems you haven't seen the televised brodcast of the palestinian national TV, I cant say I am a constant viewer, but the Israeli media brings from time to time the incitments and the calls for violence from there.
but why go that far? Arafat called for a million matyrs (Shahid) to come to Jerusalem, we all know what that word presents, now you think he ment go pray, maybe?

Originally posted by takeo
but the the against israel is not coming from there from from years of occupation, denyal of their rights, ethnic cleansing and destruction of their houses or lifes. In fact nobody will be suicide-bomber just because of propaganda, you have to feel real deep and personal hate to conduct such actions. the hate existed well before 1993 as well, that's why the first intifadeh erupted.

I have two things to say about that:
1. There are many Arabs around the world that expressed their wish to be a martyr by being a suicide bomber: Saddam hussien showed his suicide bomber legion (or whatever), in Protests in Arab Countries and European countries. Are they under Israeli Occupation? the fact is that the suicide bomber is the way they fight, they chose this way because they know it hurts the most, they dont care who they bomb, he could be an Israeli-Arab and a Gush-Shalom activist - thats not something that can be caused by any occupation, but by brain-wash. This is not some act by desperate men, it is a well funded, well organized operation.

2. I havent heard any Jew expressing his wish to blow himself up near Germans after the holocoust, or wanting to blow himself up near palestinians.

a few days ago there was a report that cancer patients and other terminal disease patients are recruted for the terrorist activities, their family will be well paid.

QUOTE]Originally posted by takeo
You are not going to tell me that Americans hate osama bin laden because of the propaganda? The french still hate the germans for what they did in WWII, this is not because of propaganda...[/QUOTE]

yes, do they want to blow themselves up?

Originally posted by takeo
the saoudi's and Syria have explicitly offered recognition of Israel...

And in the meantime finance Terror activities around the World.

The only reason to take that hate away is to take the reason for hate away.

There will always be a reason, when the occupation ends there will be other reasons, in a peace process there are compromises so we can't have everyone happy. especially Terror groups like Hamas, Tanzim, Islamic Jihad and others, they will continue to operate with their activists, using Iran ,Syria and Iraq support. when there is no one to stop them, they will grow. Thats why Israel would a palestinian leader that can and will stop these terror activities, and uuntil then It is bound to fight against these groups in order to assure it's safety.

All this said, I do agree that many palestinians who support armed attacks against Israelies will stop supporting it, once the occupation is over, but as I said it is not enough, because there will be many who will still support it. That's why the way to go, in my opinion, is some uniliteral steps: dismantle isolated settlements and fortify and create a border in the West bank. I dont think these steps will reduce the support for armed attacks against all Israelis but I dont think it will rise either. and it will be alot harder for palestinians to attack.

NewsGuy

05-25-2002, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by gev
I think Israel has a clear Interest of making this happen:
The world will get off our backs about occupation, and somehow I can be sure that no one will claim the Jordan is the occupier now.
Jordan and Israel has both an Interest to stop palestinian militant groups of all kind, and to back off Iran and Iraq influences in these teretories.

What do you think about this option?
Will never happen. Jordan is a very poor and weak country, with the Hashemite monarchy hanging by a thread. King Hussein will never be willing to rule the Palestinians, because he knows that he will have another Black September on his hands soon enough. (When the Palestinians led by Arafat tried to assasinate Hussein Senior and overthrow the Jordanian government, resulting in Jordan's slaughter of thousands of Palestinian terrorists and expelling the PLO.)

But the bigger question is whether Israel should allow the Palestinians to succeed in overthrowing Jordan's government, and then transfer the Palestinians out of the West Bank and into Jordan, which is already a Palestinian state for all intents and purposes.

That may be a much better solution, because the Jordan River is a defensible natural border and the Palestinian terrorists could be more effectively be kept out of Israel and away from their victims.

gev

05-26-2002, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by NewsGuy

Will never happen. Jordan is a very poor and weak country, with the Hashemite monarchy hanging by a thread. King Hussein will never be willing to rule the Palestinians, because he knows that he will have another Black September on his hands soon enough. (When the Palestinians led by Arafat tried to assisinate Hussein Senior and overthrow the Jordanian government, resulting in Jordan's slaughter of thousands of Palestinian terrorists and expelling the PLO.)

I think there can be a creative solution for this, some sort of an autonomy, when the palestinian ruler is reporting to Jordan, Jordan will be really in control. You see, I think that the palestinians will have to compromise with Jordan because they know that once Jordan has the teretories:
a. The world wouldnt care about it.
b. The Arab world would be divided in their opinions and there will be no public support to any fight.

Ofcourse the main thing that should be done to make it work is transferring Arafat to Gaza.

But the bigger question is whether Israel should allow the Palestinians to succeed in overthrowing Jordan's government, and then transfer the Palestinians out of the West Bank and into Jordan, which is already a Palestinian state for all intents and purposes.

I think that would a most devastating move done by Israel:
1. Jordan is the most moderate State among Arab countries (and Some European Countries), why lose them?
2. The Israeli army Surrounds the West bank and monitor the borders, there are attempts, on a daily basis to cross the Jordanian border to the west bank, by Weapon smugllers and terrorists, some but not all are stopped . many Stopped with the help of the Jordanians.

after Transfering the palestinians to jordan and forming a palestinian state there, do you think it will end the claims of Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Do you think that Al-Qayeda, Iran and the Iraqies will be prepared to let go?
Do you really want a palestinian state that it's border we cant monitor? Jordan borders with Iraq,Syria and Saudi Arabia all not exactly Israel lovers and all accomodate many Terror groups. What will heapen is that the Palestinian state will become the center of terrorism, nobody will be able to stop them from gathering massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction, preparing for Dooms day.

in my opinion, when a palestinian state is formed in Jordan, you should start the countdown for Israel's end.

NewsGuy

05-26-2002, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by gev
I think that would a most devastating move done by Israel:
1. Jordan is the most moderate State among Arab countries (and Some European Countries), why lose them?
2. The Israeli army Surrounds the West bank and monitor the borders, there are attempts, on a daily basis to cross the Jordanian border to the west bank, by Weapon smugllers and terrorists, some but not all are stopped . many Stopped with the help of the Jordanians.
1. True, Jordan is considered moderate in comparison with Iraq or Iran, but their government is so weak and so irrlevant even in the eyes of the other Arabs states, that they are an almost worthless ally for Israel. For example, there is still open anti-Semitism in Jordan and there is still an economic boycott against Israel, and there is still no Jordanian ambassador in Israel, which contradicts the peace agreement. The most they contribute is a psychological boost for Israelis, but they simply do not have the influence among their fellow Arabs to have any real impact.

2. Yes, the relatively open border with Jordan is a problem, and therefore should simply be closed completely until there is an end to Palestinian terrorism. I am not sure why Israel keeps the border open to mainly benefit the social agenda of Palestinians visiting their families, when there is such a high security risk. The border with Syria is an example of how to effectively close off a border with an enemy state.

after Transfering the palestinians to jordan and forming a palestinian state there, do you think it will end the claims of Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Do you think that Al-Qayeda, Iran and the Iraqies will be prepared to let go?...What will heapen is that the Palestinian state will become the center of terrorism, nobody will be able to stop them from gathering massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction, preparing for Dooms day.
No, there is no scenario at all that will stop the Arab and Islamic terrorists from trying to commit genocide against Israelis. It doesn't matter if the Palestinians would get their own state or not. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al Qaeda, Iran and Iraq will not stop their massacres of Jews.

As for massing weapons of mass desrtuction on Israel's border, this is already happening. Syria has plenty of those weapons aimed at Israel, and Hizbullah has thousands of mid-range missiles aimed at every city in the Northern half of Israel. At the same time, the Palestinians have attempted to smuggle in 50 tons of heavy weaponry to use against Israel.

Since this is already the case, and all your doomsday scenarios are already happening, at least transferring the Palestinian enemy out of the heart of Israel would be a wise move. Jordan would be a reasonable place for the Palestinians to be transferred.

Mediocrates

05-26-2002, 01:23 PM

Because of delays in deployment of the Arrow anti missile system the northern third of Israel is already under the range of deployed and soon to be deployed Syrian missiles.

kauffner

05-26-2002, 04:07 PM

NewsGuy: Take your best friend in the region and knock him off because he is weak -- is this eugenics or foreign policy? What Arab would ever trust Israel again? Maybe you think peace is impossible so that is irrelevant. But Arafat, Hamas and company are just small time gangsters. You got to keep your eye on the big boys -- Iraq, Iran, etc. What ended the first Intifada? It wasn't ended by blowing away moderate Arabs, but by the U.S. defeat of Iraq. That's what going to happened again. After that, there will be a round of peacemaking and King Abdullah won't be looking so weak.

gev

05-27-2002, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by NewsGuy

but they (Jordan) simply do not have the influence among their fellow Arabs to have any real impact.

yep, but instead of replacing it with a very dangerous country, we must support them and incourage them, if they are weak - make them strong (with the help of the US ofcourse).

As for massing weapons of mass desrtuction on Israel's border, this is already happening. Syria has plenty of those weapons aimed at Israel, and Hizbullah has thousands of mid-range missiles aimed at every city in the Northern half of Israel. At the same time, the Palestinians have attempted to smuggle in 50 tons of heavy weaponry to use against Israel.

Since this is already the case, and all your doomsday scenarios are already happening, at least transferring the Palestinian enemy out of the heart of Israel would be a wise move. Jordan would be a reasonable place for the Palestinians to be transferred.

Well, I think Syria, Iraq and Iran should be delt with, but they can also be "persuaded" that their bigger interest is not making these weapons.

The palestinians are the ones with the biggest interest to have these weapons, what I'm saying is maybe the border is a little harder to protect (but possible) but Israel can sarround the teretory and monitor ALL it's borders. when you take this large group of people that want to kill as much Israelies as possible and put them out of their 'virtual cage' Israel has created, and put them near Iraq and Syria and Saudi Arabia, you actually give them a large boost, and making the problem a lot worse.

the 50 tons of weapons obtained by Israel, is actually a good example to my argument, who will be there to stop the massive flow of weapons from Iraq and Syria and Saudi-Arabia to the former Jordan?

elke

05-27-2002, 09:05 AM

What do you guys think of the new King Abdullah of Jordan? He has been making rounds on US talk shows, and has made quite an impression on me, personally. Do you think he "don't get no respect" because he is young, or doesn't have enough oil, or what? He sounds like a normal person on the shows...

ibrodsky

05-27-2002, 09:15 AM

Elke,

He is obviously very Western in outlook. But as others have said, he is weak and isolated.

I had an unexpected opportunity to engage a Jordanian in an online chat... This guy identified himself as a Palestinian and dismissed King Abdullah as "young and naive."

What I would really like to know is how much support does Abdullah have in his own country, and how reliable is that support? Could Abdullah's forces win a civil war?

Mediocrates

05-27-2002, 12:19 PM

The Arab press occasionally dismisses him as the baby king just as they dismiss Asaad as the baby president. In the West I doubt most people other than the most hardcore even know who he is.

elke

05-27-2002, 12:38 PM

Thanks, guys. Unfortunate though...

takeo

05-27-2002, 02:35 PM

the Jordan monarchy is a dictatorship as in Syria, Iraq or SA.
the feelings of the majority of the population of Jordan I think is that they are living under a "treatorous regime", the disagreement is even bigger than in SA because the majority of Jordans remain poor.
let's not forget that the majority of Jordans are Palestinians, who never forgot their origin, regularly there are demonstrations which are most of the time oppressed by the army; millions more of palestinians would kill the regime for sure. (of course i'm not going to respond to the ethical consequence of newsguy's proposal for massive etnic cleansing, which would be a crime more identical to the holocaust than to the Palestinian suicide-bombers)
There didn't came an end to the first intifadeh because iraq was defeated (as you know Syria was one of the allies of the US at that time...) but because the israeli government was willing to compromise and start negociations, this will most probably mean the end of the second intifadeh as well.
Even if Syria, SA, Iran, etc. "are dealth with" (which is impossible for the US alone, and nobody will cooperate) the palestinians will not stop their intifadeh, most of their weapons are "home-made" (literally in many cases) and the determination to get rid of the israeli oppression will be the same as well. Even is Arafat get killed the groups you mentioned will not stop their war, and most probably the moderate ones will become more radical (they already became more radical after the destruction of the PA)

takeo

05-27-2002, 03:22 PM

"Nobody talks about praising Israel, but it seems you haven't seen the televised brodcast of the palestinian national TV, I cant say I am a constant viewer, but the Israeli media brings from time to time the incitments and the calls for violence from there.
but why go that far? Arafat called for a million matyrs (Shahid) to come to Jerusalem, we all know what that word presents, now you think he ment go pray, maybe? "

I indeed haven't seen it, what you saw was an israeli selection of palestinian broadcast for propaganda purposes, not the whole palestinian television-program.
but perhaps yes it could be true palesinian television is calling upon palestinians to fight israel (altough i don't know if that is really so, maybe what you call agitation is just a little biased view of the israeli actions, as the israeli television is very biased as well), after all people defending their towns and cities against israeli incursions are no criminals but it is their duty(after all there is military propaganda on israeli television as well), but i can't imagine there is propaganda for the palestinians to become suicide-bombers on palestinian television.
about the martyrs, that wasn't a call for suicide-bombers (which arafat condamned regularly, both to the international community as to his own), martyrs is used in many ways and can have many meanings.

"I have two things to say about that:
1. There are many Arabs around the world that expressed their wish to be a martyr by being a suicide bomber: Saddam hussien showed his suicide bomber legion (or whatever), in Protests in Arab Countries and European countries. Are they under Israeli Occupation? the fact is that the suicide bomber is the way they fight, they chose this way because they know it hurts the most, they dont care who they bomb, he could be an Israeli-Arab and a Gush-Shalom activist - thats not something that can be caused by any occupation, but by brain-wash. This is not some act by desperate men, it is a well funded, well organized operation. "

actually the suffering in Palestine is inciting many people to hate israel, as well as 11/9 incited many americans to hate al-quaida, even if they didn't suffer personally. is this purely the result of propaganda? i don't think so.
yes, the mordid consequence of this tactic is that it is mostly indiscriminate, and that's why i condamn it. However those people would not offer their lifes just for something they have been incited against by propaganda, some small minority of extremists would, but not the 100's of palestinians which are in most cases common people (since 1 year i mean, more or less the period Sharon came to power, when suicide-bombing was no longer exclusively the method of hamas or Jihad extremists), no die-hard extremists. The people who do such actions see israel as evil, and think the "collateral damage" is regrettable but necessary. They think as Americans and israeli who also don't care for civilian casualties, a wrong logic according to me.

"2. I havent heard any Jew expressing his wish to blow himself up near Germans after the holocoust, or wanting to blow himself up near palestinians. "

no, because Jews nor French are living in such bad conditions and years of misery that they would be desperate enough to do such actions. however some extremists do risk their life to carry out assasinations, as the one who killed Rabin or Goldstein for example.

"There will always be a reason, when the occupation ends there will be other reasons, in a peace process there are compromises so we can't have everyone happy. especially Terror groups like Hamas, Tanzim, Islamic Jihad and others, they will continue to operate with their activists, using Iran ,Syria and Iraq support. when there is no one to stop them, they will grow. Thats why Israel would a palestinian leader that can and will stop these terror activities, and uuntil then It is bound to fight against these groups in order to assure it's safety. "

There isn't always a reason, look at northern ireland, some extremists will continue but the big majority will seek peace in this new better conditions. a change of leader is not necessary, israel had peace in the 90's (on the exception of some hamas-terrorism) so arafat is capable of securing peace. an israeli change of policy more than ever. i'm absolutely sure tanzim will stop their aggressions against israel the moment a peace-deal is reached. they started their activities only after israel started to attack the pa and killed 100's of stone-trowing Palestinians.

"All this said, I do agree that many palestinians who support armed attacks against Israelies will stop supporting it, once the occupation is over, but as I said it is not enough, because there will be many who will still support it. That's why the way to go, in my opinion, is some uniliteral steps: dismantle isolated settlements and fortify and create a border in the West bank. I dont think these steps will reduce the support for armed attacks against all Israelis but I dont think it will rise either. and it will be alot harder for palestinians to attack. "

This steps however would not secure israel (no single border is 100% safe as we saw in the past) because without negociations the Palestinians will do nothing to stop terrorism. it would probably not become worse, but certainly not better either. i think a negociated stable solution as with Egypt is much more preferable than a situation as near the border with libanon.

"kauffner takeo: The anthrax attacks must have taken months or years to prepare. A batch of letters were sent out immediately after the U.S. began bombing Afghanistan, I assume as protest against the bombing. Who knew months in advance that the U.S. would attack Afghanistan? Only Al Qaeda. Where would Al Qaeda get anthrax? Probably not the CIA or the FBI. Surely Bin Laden would have disassociated himself from the letters if he thought the U.S. government was behind them. "

OK, this could be a theory, but than again it is nothing but wild speculation. I think al quaida did not dissociate itself from the letter because they see it as an honour to conduct such actions. However the reason those letters were indeed well coordinated is another possible indication for CIA/FBI involvement (which is, i agree as well, another wild speculation, but not less probable than the al-quaida theory). The US-government would love to have any terrorist link to Iraq, which would make it much easier to attack iraq.

"So the Middle East was all goodness and light until Zionism came and spoiled everything? There is plenty of the documentation to show that the hated of Jews by Palestinian Arabs pre-dates Zionism. A dispatch by a British consul in 1850 discusses the persecution of Jews in Hebron and states that the "Austrian Jewish Agent [is] frequently beaten in the streets there." Of course, Muslims weren't out to exterminate Jews in those days, only to constantly remind them of their inferior status. See http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/nationalism.html "

not a real neutral source.
i have some others:

"The aim of the [Jewish National] Fund was `to redeem the land of Palestine as the inalienable possession of the Jewish people.'...As early as 1891, Zionist leader Ahad Ha'am wrote that the Arabs "understood very well what we were doing and what we were aiming at'...[Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, stated] `We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly'...At various locations in northern Palestine Arab farmers refused to move from land the Fund purchased from absentee owners, and the Turkish authorities, at the Fund's request, evicted them...The indigenous Jews of Palestine also reacted negatively to Zionism. They did not see the need for a Jewish state in Palestine and did not want to exacerbate relations with the Arabs." John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

"Before the 20th century, most Jews in Palestine belonged to old Yishuv, or community, that had settled more for religious than for political reasons. There was little if any conflict between them and the Arab population. Tensions began after the first Zionist settlers arrived in the 1880's...when [they] purchased land from absentee Arab owners, leading to dispossession of the peasants who had cultivated it." Don Peretz, "The Arab-Israeli Dispute."

"[During the Middle Ages,] North Africa and the Arab Middle East became places of refuge and a haven for the persecuted Jews of Spain and elsewhere...In the Holy Land...they lived together in [relative] harmony, a harmony only disrupted when the Zionists began to claim that Palestine was the 'rightful' possession of the 'Jewish people' to the exclusion of its Moslem and Christian inhabitants." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

"Serfs they (the Jews) were in the lands of the Diaspora, and suddenly they find themselves in freedom [in Palestine]; and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination." Zionist writer Ahad Ha'am, quoted in Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

http://www.cactus48.com/earlyhistory.html

Vic

05-27-2002, 04:05 PM

[So much for the fairytale of a Jewish paradise in the Arab countries destroyed by the creation of Israel - since someone was so kind as to scan the text and put it in another internet forum]

Islam generally, and the Ottoman Empire in particular, treated the Jews in its midst as second-class citizens. During the Islamic High Middle Ages, c. A.D. 850-1250, Judaism and the Jews had flourished, and would later designate the period a "golden era" of Jewish history. Jews figured prominently in politics, finance, and the arts and sciences in a number of Islamic kingdoms and empires; one or two served as chamberlains and ministers to kings and princes. Moses Maimonides, a physician to a sultan, emerged as one of the major philosophers of the Middle Ages. But thereafter the condition of the Jews in the Islamic world deteriorated, along with the general stagnation of that world; throughout they suffered discrimination, humiliation, and a sense of insecurity. Occasionally they were subjected to persecution and violence.

One distinguished Israeli historian, David Vital, has written pithily of "the unrectifiably inferior role allotted the Jews in the Muslim cosmology." Islam - much like Christianity and Judaism - has traditionally divided the world into "us" and "them," the true believers (Dar al Islam, the "house of Islam") and the infidels (Dar al Harb, the "house of war," those who should or could be put to the sword). The principle of equality - between believer and nonbeliever as between man and woman - is alien to Islam, and the Islamic world, normally in conflict with Dar al Harb in one region or another, has traditionally exhibited a deep xenophobia.

...

Muhammad's relations with the Jews, and subsequent Koranic attitudes, were eventually embodied in the treaty of submission to Muslim rule, or writ of protection, known as the dhimma, or Pact of 'Umar, extended by Muhammad's successor, the second caliph, 'Umar 'ibn al-Khattab (634-44). The dhimma governed Muslim behavior toward both Jews and Christians, the other "People of the Book," in Muslim parlance. The dhimmi, the subject Jewish or Christian (and later Zoroastrian Persian) communities, were forced to pay a poll tax, the jizya, plus the kharaj, a special tax imposed by the Muslim conquerors on nonbelievers whose lands they had confiscated. By dint of this tax, the dhimmi were allowed to continue to live on and cultivate these lands under Muslim protection, though an apparently later insertion allowed Muslim rulers to tear up the agreement at will and expel the "protected" communities. On this basis 'Umar expelled all the remaining Jews of the Hejaz, the area of western Arabia around Mecca.

The dhimmi were forbidden to strike a Muslim, carry arms, ride horses, build new houses of worship or repair old ones, and they had to wear distinctive clothing. "Contemptuous tolerance," in the phrase of historian Elie Kedourie, came to be the attitude adopted by Muslim states toward their Jewish communities. This stance was generally mixed with a measure of hostility, especially in times of political crisis. Tolerance was then superseded by intolerance, which occasionally erupted into violence. Throughout, Muslims treated the dhimmi, and perhaps especially the Jews, as impure.

...

Some of the restrictions to which the dhimmi were subjected no doubt originated in real considerations of security. But they came to be codified in Islamic law, and were later invoked and implemented without reference to changing realities. Jews were forbidden to bear arms; were permitted to ride asses only, not camels or horses, and only sidesaddle rather than astride; and were obliged to wear distinctive garb. Other restrictions had nothing to do with security and everything to do with religious and economic discrimination, and Jewish poverty in most of the Ottoman lands in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries appears to have been, in some measure at least, the result of discriminatory practices.

Mass violence against Jews, akin to the pogroms in Westem Europe in the late Middle Ages and in Eastern Europe during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, was rare in the Muslim world. But it did occur, often when a Jew who had risen to a senior government position fell from grace, died, or excited the hostility of envious Muslims. In 1066 nearly three thousand Jews were massacred in Granada, Spain. In Fez, Morocco, some six thousand Jews were murdered in 1033, and massacres took place again in 1276 and 1465. There were massacres in Tetuán in Morocco in 1790; in Mashhad and Barfurush in Persia in 1839 and 1867, respectively; and in Baghdad in 1828. Tbe Jewish quarter of Fez was almost destroyed in 1912 by a Muslim mob; and pro-Nazi mobs slaughtered dozens of Jews in Baghdad in 1941. Repeatedly, in various parts of the Islamic world, Jewish communities - contrary to the provisions of the dhimma-were given the choice of conversion or death. Usually, though not always, the incidents of mass violence occurred in the vulnerable extremities of the Muslim empire rather than at its more self-confident core. But the underlying attitude, that Jews were infidels and opponents of Islam, and necessarily inferior in the eyes of God, prevailed throughout Muslim lands down the ages.

Maimonides, writing in the twelfth century, lamented: "God has cast us into the midst of this people, the nation of Ishmael, who persecute us severely, and who devise ways to harm us and to debase us.... None has matched [them] in debasing and humiliating us…" But generally the Jews' lot was not a matter of violence; rather, it was one of petty mortification and harassment, coupled with a general sense of insecurity.

At least initially, Jews may have been concentrated in the late Middle Ages in urban mellahs (ghettos) for their own protection, but this segregation was certainly also a sign of their isolation and marginality. Certainly the mellahs established in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were founded with the intent of ostracism rather than protection. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the Jews of Ottoman Islam prospered in comparison with their coreligionists in Western Europe. But during the following centuries the condition of the Jews grew increasingly debased and precarious as the empire grew progressively weaker and, as a result, less tolerant, prey to the European powers baying at its heels. A Western traveler spoke of the Jews as "the ... most degraded of the turkish non-believer communities ... their pusillanimity is so excessive, that they will flee before the uplifted hand of a child ... a ster- ling proof of the effects of oppression."

One measure and symbol of Jewish degradation was the common phenomenon - amounting in certain places, such as Yemen and Morocco, to a local custom - of stone-throwing at Jews by Muslim children." A nineteenth-century Western traveler wrote: "I have seen a little fellow of six years old, with a troop of fat toddlers of only three and four, teaching [them] to throw stones at a Jew, and one little urchin would, with the greatest coolness, waddle up to the man and literally spit upon his Jewish gabardine. To all this the Jew is obliged to submit, it would he more than his life was worth to offer to strike a Mahommedan."

kauffner

05-27-2002, 04:07 PM

takeo: The first Intifada began to wane at the time of the Gulf War in 1991 and clearly ended in 1992, well before the Oslo agreement was signed in 1993.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/intifada.html

Vic

05-27-2002, 04:07 PM

There was a spate of blood-libel incidents against the Jews during the last decades of the empire. The most famous occurred in Damascus in 1840: A Capuchin monk from Sardinia disappeared, along with his Muslim servant. The Christian community in the city, egged on by the French consul, Count Ratti-Menton, accused the Jews of killing the monk and using his blood for ritual purposes. The governor, Sharif Pasha, rounded up seven Jewish eiders and had them tortured; two died and one converted to Islam to save himself. Sixty-three children were imprisoned, and several homes were destroyed as the authorities searched for the missing bodies. Six months passed before British government pressure persuaded the authorities, meaning the nominally Ottoman governor of Egypt, Muhammad 'Ali Pasha, who was semi-independent of Constantinople, to release the remaining prisoners. Soon afterward Constantinople regained full control of Syria and Palestine (though not of Egypt), and the Sublime Porte issued an edict reaffirming its protection of the Jews and denouncing the blood libel. But such accusations continued to plague the empire for decades.

There was certainly an increase in Christian anti-Semitism - originating with European diplomats, traders, and clerics - in the empire during the second half of the nineteenth century. As it spread among the Christian Arabs, it also irradiated some of the Muslims among whom they lived. It was not just a matter of ideology; as the Jews, like their Christian dhimmi compatriots, were gradually emancipated, they became, or were feared as, competitors with the Christian merchants and professionals. European-style anti-Semitism penetrated the Levant. Anti-Semitic literature, which flourished in France against the backdrop of the Dreyfus affair, soon appeared in Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt in Arabic translations. An Arabic edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for example, was published in Cairo in 1927.

However, despite continuing discrimination and occasional axis of violence, both by state bureaucracies and by Muslim mobs and individuals, the nineteenth century witnessed a gradual change for the better in the Jews' status. Both the empire and the Muslim states on its peripheries were subject to emancipatory and egalitarian winds blowing in from Europe.

The penetration of Western influence into Ottoman lands also took a more direct route. British, Prussian, and French consuls were posted in Jerusalem in I839, 1842, and 1843, respectively. Increasingly the powers took the empire's Christians and subsequently many of its Jews under their wing. Many Jews held European passports. In a series of bilateral treaties with the Sublime Porte, known as the "Capitulations," the European powers established extraterritorial rights within the Empire, especially in Palestine. For example, visiting or resident European nationals who committed crimes could not be detained or tried by the Ottoman authorities without the express permission of their country's consul, which was almost never forthcoming.

A formal change in the status of the dhimmi followed shortly. In February 1856 the Sublime Porte promulgated the reformist firman (edict), the Khatt-i Humayun, which declared all Ottoman subjects equal, regardless of religion, and repealed all restrictions. Almost two decades earlier, in 1839, another firman (the Khatt-i Sherif) had echoed the egalitarianism of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man - but had gone almost completely unimplemented in the various provinces, largely because of local Muslim opposition. Similar opposition, especially among Christians regarding the emancipation of the Jews, was to greet the 1856 firman, but this time the position of the dhimmi began to improve substantially, at least in terms of the law and government permits.

In practice, however, the dhimmi remained second-class citizens of the empire until its collapse in World War I. As part of the reaction to growing European influence, the Ottoman authorities - in an effort at "Islamization" - transferred tens of thousands of Muslims from the empire's northern and Balkan peripheries (Bukhara, the Caucasus, Albania, and Bosnia) to its Levantine core, including Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. This increased the Muslim proportion of the population and, perhaps, intensified Islamic consciousness as well. The history and tradition of Muslim attitudes and behavior toward the Jews was to affect profoundly the unfolding of Turkish-Zionist and Arab-Zionist relations in Palestine. The view of the Jews as objects, unassertive and subservient, was to underlie to some degree both the initial weak, irresolute Ottoman and Arab responses to the gradual Zionist influx into Palestine - Why bother, the Jews could achieve nothing anyway! - and the eventual aggressive reactions, including vandalism and murder - the Jews were accursed of God and meant only harm; their lives and property were therefore forfeit. And the traditional view of the Jews as inconsequential weaklings was for decades thereafter to stoke the fires of resentment and humiliation. In the course of the twentieth century the Arabs of the Levant were repeatedly to be humbled by the Jews, and none more so than the Palestinians, ultimately transformed into a weak minority in their own land. Such slights the Muslim world found difficult to countenance; such a situation could not be allowed to endure.

...

Benny Morris: Righteous Victims, 2001, pp. 8-13

NewsGuy

05-27-2002, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by kauffner
NewsGuy: Take your best friend in the region and knock him off because he is weak -- is this eugenics or foreign policy? Well, I, for one, would not weep if the Jordanian monarchy is overthrown.

For all the good intentions of the King Junior and Senior, the Hashemite kingdom is pretty much worthless as an ally for Israel.

Even at the absolute height of the Jordanian goodwill, which was just in the last few weeks, when they supposedly pressed Arafat to end terrorism, we can see that even this was worthless.

In recognition of the Hashemite kings good intentions, I think that Israel should allow him to have a nice house in Ramot, but the area East of the Jordan river would be ideal as the only place for the Palestinians.

Nonetheless, I recognize that this most excellent scenario of transferring the Palestinians into Jordan, is not likely to happen, so other arrangements need to be made for a resolution.

NewsGuy

05-27-2002, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by ibrodsky
What I would really like to know is how much support does Abdullah have in his own country, and how reliable is that support? Could Abdullah's forces win a civil war? IMO, he is hanging by a thread and could not withstand a full-force Palestinian grassroots revolt. At least not without killing perhaps 10s of thousands of Palestinian civilians, which he will not do.

takeo

05-27-2002, 05:05 PM

all right, all this is well known and true, yet a bit one-sided and certainly Jews were better off than in most parts of Europe, at least untill early 19th century, and better than in Eastern Europe untill the October revolution.

"Mass violence against Jews, akin to the pogroms in Westem Europe in the late Middle Ages and in Eastern Europe during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, was rare in the Muslim world. But it did occur, often when a Jew who had risen to a senior government position fell from grace, died, or excited the hostility of envious Muslims. "

so this meant that Jews COULD rise to a senior position, which was very unlikely in Europe (and the US) untill the 18th century and Eastern europe untill the 20th century.

by the way the incident in Damask was incited by Christians, nor Muslims.
And ottomans policy may have been biased against Christians and muslims(this is the 19th century you know!!), still Ottomans protected the property of zionists.

"At least not without killing perhaps 10s of thousands of Palestinian civilians, which he will not do."

he should take sharon as his example of how to deal properly with palestinians, this weak bastard!!!

With jordan as the new palestine and all palestinians expulsed from their original homeland, your "excellent scenario ", I can garantee you that jordan in that case will be a base of terrorism against israel which would make Jenin or gaza look like disneyland for Israel.

NewsGuy

05-27-2002, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by takeo
all right, all this is well known and true, yet a bit one-sided and certainly Jews were better off than in most parts of Europe, The classic argument of Arab apologists is that in Europe Jews were violently robbed, raped, pillaged and massacred, while in Muslim countries Jews were much better off just being selectivley robbed, raped, discriminated against, humiliated and only smaller numbers of Jews murdered. For Arab apologists, this shows Muslim compassion.

I would challenge Muslims to consent to being treated by the world in the same way they treated their Jewish citizens historically.

With jordan as the new palestine and all palestinians expulsed from their original homeland, your "excellent scenario ", I can garantee you that jordan in that case will be a base of terrorism against israel which would make Jenin or gaza look like disneyland for IsraelWhy? What exactly would the Palestinians do that is not already being done?

Of course it would be a most excellent scenario if Palestinians would be forced back to their true homeland where they came from before becoming squatters in the Jewish homeland.

Then, the Palestinians would be free from Israeli rule and have their own country.

Too bad this is not likely to happen. Really.

takeo

05-27-2002, 08:18 PM

"Of course it would be a most excellent scenario if Palestinians would be forced back to their true homeland where they came from before becoming squatters in the Jewish homeland. "

again, you show that security is not important for Sharon apologists, but your problem with a Palestinian state is ideological, as you consider the historical palestine to be the Heimat for Jews and for jews only, purified of non-Jewish elements (who used to live there for many 100's of years, but who cares?).

For you it would be a most excellant scenario, but millions of Palestinians would not give up their land so easily.
Jordan as a palestinian state with huge sympathy from other Arab countries and the whole world after the etnic cleansing you proposed, would build-up a n impressive weapons-arsenal, and attack israel in all possible ways, than israel would occupy Jordan, where the struggle would continue but on a larger scale and at a larger cost (both military, economically, and diplomatically) for israel. No single palestinian would talk with israel and they wouldn't mind so much jordan being destructed, after all it's not their land. of course iraq and Syria would interfeare in the war in Jordan and so israel would have to occupy iraq and syria as well (no more us-friendship since the massive etnic cleansing) , than iran and egypt, than pakistan, etc. etc. untill nothing is left of israel.
And than of course you could all blame it on "muslim anti-semitism"

"I would challenge Muslims to consent to being treated by the world in the same way they treated their Jewish citizens historically"

untill the 18th century in many countries all people of a different religion were persecuted, of course the Jews were the victim of this, in both the islamic and christian world. But it was certainly worse in many Christian countries than in the Ottoman empire(Jews and Christians enjoyed some privileges), if not those 100's of 1000's of sephardic Jews from Spain (after it became Christian again) wouldn't have immigrated to the Balcans.

sharonbn

05-28-2002, 12:33 AM

Some historical facts to contribute to the discussion:

The London agreement:

On April 11th, 1987, Shimon Peres (then Foreign Minister in the national unity government) and King Hussein signed the secret "London Agreement". This was the realization of the Labor party’s preferred solution to the Palestinian problem and was dubbed as the “Jordanian option”. The main theme of the agreement was that Israel is to hand over WB to Jordanian rule. In return, peace and normal relationship will be established between the two states.

Peres failed to pass the agreement in the Knesset, mainly because PM Shamir opposed it and ultimately blocked the progress.

Its worth mentioning that until that time, Jordan maintained official offices and governmental representation in WB. Jordanian currency was legal tender in WB. Jordan was responsible for the relative peace that was maintained in WB after 67.
After the failure of the London agreement, Hussein closed all his official offices and effectively stopped pursuing annexation of WB to Jordan. Consequently he stopped being viewed as the representative of the Palestinian people.

8 months later, on December 1987, the first Intifada broke.

elke

05-28-2002, 04:22 AM

no, because Jews nor French are living in such bad conditions and years of misery that they would be desperate enough to do such actions.

You are kidding about the Jews' lives, right? Either that, or your parents haven't told you enough about what the Jews' lives were like in Russia, let alone during the WWII in Europe. They haven't told you about the pogroms, the "5th column", the abysmal poverty of most of them, the forced military service, etc.,etc.

however some extremists do risk their life to carry out assasinations, as the one who killed Rabin or Goldstein for example.

??? You still don't understand the difference between "risking one's life" and suicide murder?

takeo

05-28-2002, 05:37 AM

yea, ok i understand the difference but it's practically the same.

I know more than enough and heard enough stories from my parents about all the misery the Jewish people had to endure during history, especially in Ukrain and Russia, yet since the 50's this is no longer the case, not in Russia, not in France and not in the US. So they have no longer a reason for carrying out such actions.

takeo

05-28-2002, 05:41 AM

i think the first intifadeh erupted because there was no longer any perspective of an end of occupation trough negociation or diplomatic pressure on israel.
jordan never effectively controlled the WB-population after 1967

Vic

05-28-2002, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by takeo
I know more than enough and heard enough stories from my parents about all the misery the Jewish people had to endure during history, especially in Ukrain and Russia, yet since the 50's this is no longer the case, not in Russia, ...
You forgot to mention Ukraine, especially its western part in the post-Soviet period. Just why, I wonder?

Mediocrates

05-28-2002, 06:42 AM

"so this meant that Jews COULD rise to a senior position, which was very unlikely in Europe (and the US) untill the 18th century and Eastern europe untill the 20th century. "

If you want to base your civilization on being a "Court Jew" I guess that might be the root of your inferiority complex.

Mediocrates

05-28-2002, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by NewsGuy
IMO, he is hanging by a thread and could not withstand a full-force Palestinian grassroots revolt. At least not without killing perhaps 10s of thousands of Palestinian civilians, which he will not do.

Not at all. The Jordanians have proven over and over their utter disregard for restraint in dealing with their own Palestinian underclass. Those they can't keep on the reservation they simply chase after with tanks. Their civil war of 1970-1 was brutal repression of the Palestinians and those who they couldn't keep squashed in the mud of their own camps they simply killed or drove over the river to the WB.

Both Gaza and WB are the perfect static solutions for Egypt and Jordan respectively. They don't want their own Palestinians and if they have to give up some land to push them out of their own country, I guess that's an acceptable price to pay. This is how repatriation will be handled by all the Arab countries....as soon as there is an independent Palistan all the other Arab countries will expel their own. Another 4 million murderers, I mean, militants, I mean activists, I mean refugees, I mean peaceful peaceloving people of peace, I mean angels, I mean the most wonderful people made in God image, I mean gods themselves......living in 'occupied' Palestine.

chocolady

05-28-2002, 08:21 AM

I suggested it a while back. But, Israel should not stop there - don't forget to return Gaza to Egypt!

elke

05-28-2002, 10:14 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by takeo
yea, ok i understand the difference but it's practically the same.

mmmm...Come again? If it's different, it can't be the same - by definition :)

I know more than enough and heard enough stories from my parents about all the misery the Jewish people had to endure during history, especially in Ukrain and Russia, yet since the 50's this is no longer the case, not in Russia, not in France and not in the US. So they have no longer a reason for carrying out such actions.

I can assure you that I was not even born in the '50's (I may seem old to you, but as my kids tell me, I am "medium" :) ). There was plenty of garbage going right through the '70's that I can vouch for; and if ALL our friends and my Grandfather are to be believed (which I do), is still going on in the 2000's.

NewsGuy

05-28-2002, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Not at all. The Jordanians have proven over and over their utter disregard for restraint in dealing with their own Palestinian underclass.
True. The Jordanians and all other Arab countries, for that matter, know very well how to deal with their Palestinian problem.

But I still highly doubt that the current Jordanian leadership will be willing to do what is necessary in the event of an all-out Palestinian attempt to overthrow the kingdom. Who knows. I could be surprised.

NewsGuy

05-28-2002, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by takeo
again, you show that security is not important for Sharon apologists, but your problem with a Palestinian state is ideological, as you consider the historical palestine to be the Heimat for Jews and for jews only, purified of non-Jewish elements (who used to live there for many 100's of years, but who cares?).
Right, I consider Israel to be the Jewish homeland and the Palestinians to be squatters and nothing more, so far as they have no right, IMO, to live in Israel.

They do, however, have every right to go back to the Arabian desert where they originated and live there in freedom.

For you it would be a most excellant scenario, but millions of Palestinians would not give up their land so easily.
Well, for me and for millions of Israeli it would be an excellent scenario. And for the Palestinians, too, for that matter, because again, they would be entitiled to live freely, not under occupation.

Jordan as a palestinian state with huge sympathy from other Arab countries and the whole world after the etnic cleansing you proposed, would build-up a n impressive weapons-arsenal, and attack israel in all possible ways...

I don't know why you bother to bring up those threats as if they might happen some time in the future. In reality, all that is already happening right now, so it's not like the situation will get any worse. At least in my scenario, Israel would have the benefit of ridding itself of the Palestinian problem, and the Palestinians themselves will be able to live independently.

untill the 18th century in many countries all people of a different religion were persecuted, of course the Jews were the victim of this, in both the islamic and christian world.
Right, so the trip down memory lane of the "good old days" for Jews under Muslim rule, is completely false. That is my point.

Gatorade

05-28-2002, 11:33 AM

a different perspective from an article by By Michale Matza from Knight Ridder Newspapers.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/2002/05/22/news/front/3312156.htm

Arafat has run the Palestinian territories virtually unchallenged since Israel permitted his return from exile eight years ago. Between 1967 and 1994, Israel administered the territories. In the beginning of Israeli rule, life for the common Palestinian wasn't so bad. Even while opposing the occupation, residents found work in Israel and their incomes rose. Corruption and inefficiency in the Palestinian Authority, along with Israeli foot-dragging toward final peace negotiations, reversed the trend.

The point being that maybe the Palestinians under Israelis rule wasn't that bad. Maybe the average Palestinian in the West Bank was better off under Israeli rule than the current Palestinian rule. Maybe their own goverment is a bigger problem for them than Israel is now.

Still, I don't think the solution is for Israel to annex the West Bank and make the Palestinians citizens of Israel, nor do I agree with Newsguy about transfering the population of Palestinians out of the West Bank.

Safe secure borders for Israel is the solution and that won't requre all of the West Bank to be annexed into Israel.

gev

05-28-2002, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by takeo
"I indeed haven't seen it, what you saw was an israeli selection of palestinian broadcast for propaganda purposes, not the whole palestinian television-program.
but perhaps yes it could be true palesinian television is calling upon palestinians to fight israel (altough i don't know if that is really so, maybe what you call agitation is just a little biased view of the israeli actions, as the israeli television is very biased as well)...

I know you would find this link biased, but I don't think the creators of the site would invent this:

http://www.bridgesforpeace.com/publications/dispatch/notablequotes/Article-41.html

sadly, I dont need to go far back, today after the Petah-Tikwa terror attack which was launched by the Al-Aqsa martyrs (which is part of the Fatah organization led by Arafat, mind you) Arafat condemn the Terror attack, in the mean time there was a television program praising the Al-Aqsa martyrs as the true fighters for freedom (or whatever) this was on the official PA television.

Originally posted by takeo
"about the martyrs, that wasn't a call for suicide-bombers (which arafat condamned regularly, both to the international community as to his own), martyrs is used in many ways and can have many meanings.

a high rank Fatah-Tanzim member said in a rally today that "history will tell that Arafat knew and approved all the acts we have done in the Intifadah"
might I remind you that the Fatah-Tanzim is resposible for many vicous terror attacks.
I saw it in the Israeli TV, I'm just guessing here, but no western TV station reported it right?

I also want to direct you to this link, this is Imad Faluji speech in a refugee camp in Lebanon (Imad Faluji is a minister in the PA)

http://www.jsfp.org/Faluji.html

Takeo, I sense you base your opinions by seeing what the PA leaders say in international TV, and what Israel is saying on international TV, and the reports on international TV...
I dont understand how from that you can get so strong opinions on the subject?
When I see other conflicts in the world on Israeli TV and international TV I dont base any opinion because I know its not the whole story and it must be much more comlicated than what the international TV try to sell.

They think as Americans and israeli who also don't care for civilian casualties, a wrong logic according to me.

not true, if Israel and Israelies wouldnt care about civilian casulities the situation was much more different. the fact is that many military operations are planned in a way to cause as little casualities as possible. one famous example is Jenin refugee camp: why do you think israel chose a ground operation, ended in the death of 13 soldeirs? why not bomb from the air?

There isn't always a reason, look at northern ireland, some extremists will continue but the big majority will seek peace in this new better conditions.

when other countries has the interest of keeping this conflict going they will do it, what country has the interest of keeping the Ireland-Britian conflict going?

a change of leader is not necessary, israel had peace in the 90's (on the exception of some hamas-terrorism) so arafat is capable of securing peace.

it was a deal broken by arafat and Hamas, no major terror attacks in a row, just some here and there to remind the public you are there. Arafat left the Hamas and Islamic-Jihad to grow in it's power and infrastructure all these years, he didnt fight them.
thats what will be done when he is the ruler of the palestininan state - thats part of the reason why Israel wants a changed PA.

This steps however would not secure israel (no single border is 100% safe as we saw in the past) because without negociations the Palestinians will do nothing to stop terrorism. it would probably not become worse, but certainly not better either. i think a negociated stable solution as with Egypt is much more preferable than a situation as near the border with libanon.

we havn't saw nothing in the past, because there wasn't any good border in the past, what we did saw in the past and see now is a border that I wouldn't call half as what can be done in a matter of electronic devices and fortifications - the border between the Gaza strip and Israel - Gaza is homebase for Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and still all attempts to launch a suicide attack from there fails. if a better border is set there and in the west bank, it will reduce or stop completely the suicide attacks.

and your remark about palestinians will never stop terrorism as long as there isn't any peace... well, do you think they are entitled to do so?

gev

05-28-2002, 01:50 PM

NULL

takeo

05-28-2002, 07:52 PM

"You forgot to mention Ukraine, especially its western part in the post-Soviet period. Just why, I wonder?"

i did mention ukrain, but in the post-Soviet period?

i don't know of any pogroms since the 90's...

well, i would have prefered to be a court-jew than to live in the Pale, wouldn't you???

"sadly, I dont need to go far back, today after the Petah-Tikwa terror attack which was launched by the Al-Aqsa martyrs (which is part of the Fatah organization led by Arafat, mind you) Arafat condemn the Terror attack, in the mean time there was a television program praising the Al-Aqsa martyrs as the true fighters for freedom (or whatever) this was on the official PA television. "

again, i have difficulty to believe that al-aqsa, which has never been prooved to be a part of Fatah, would have its own program on television. It would be very much undermining the autority of Arafat, which is not allowed in palestinian state institutions.

"a high rank Fatah-Tanzim member said in a rally today that "history will tell that Arafat knew and approved all the acts we have done in the Intifadah"
might I remind you that the Fatah-Tanzim is resposible for many vicous terror attacks.
I saw it in the Israeli TV, I'm just guessing here, but no western TV station reported it right? "

Well, if you saw it in the israeli television and no Western tv reported about it (it would be breaking news), i would be highly sceptical about the originality of this.
Fatah is not responsible by the way of attacks against civilians in israel.

"http://www.jsfp.org/Faluji.html"

this link didn't work.

"Takeo, I sense you base your opinions by seeing what the PA leaders say in international TV, and what Israel is saying on international TV, and the reports on international TV...
I dont understand how from that you can get so strong opinions on the subject?
When I see other conflicts in the world on Israeli TV and international TV I dont base any opinion because I know its not the whole story and it must be much more comlicated than what the international TV try to sell. "

actually i base my opinions as well on my travel experiences in Israel and the occupied territories and on all kinds of websites, newspapers, and scientific studies. I also have israeli and palestinian friends.
I think most people on this forum base their opinions solely on international tv, websites or newspapers.

"not true, if Israel and Israelies wouldnt care about civilian casulities the situation was much more different. the fact is that many military operations are planned in a way to cause as little casualities as possible. one famous example is Jenin refugee camp: why do you think israel chose a ground operation, ended in the death of 13 soldeirs? why not bomb from the air? "

because it was an urbanised territory, it would have killed 1000's of innocent civilians, which would have strong international and diplomatic repercussions for israel, much worse than after what happened in jenin. according to amnesty international and HRW israel DID target on purpose civilian infrastructure and people, however not on a massive scale.

"when other countries has the interest of keeping this conflict going they will do it, what country has the interest of keeping the Ireland-Britian conflict going? "

what neighbouring country is interested in keeping the conflict between palestinians and israeli going on?

"it was a deal broken by arafat and Hamas, no major terror attacks in a row, just some here and there to remind the public you are there. Arafat left the Hamas and Islamic-Jihad to grow in it's power and infrastructure all these years, he didnt fight them.
thats what will be done when he is the ruler of the palestininan state - thats part of the reason why Israel wants a changed PA. "

Arafat was condamned by Amnesty International for hard repression and unlawfull arrests of Hamas-members, remember???
arafat had never full controll of the occupied territories and his autority and police were always weak because of the limitations of ythe oslo-achievements. Yet if he could maintain relative peace in this conditions he would do for sure much better in a real state with international obligations.

"we havn't saw nothing in the past, because there wasn't any good border in the past, what we did saw in the past and see now is a border that I wouldn't call half as what can be done in a matter of electronic devices and fortifications - the border between the Gaza strip and Israel - Gaza is homebase for Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and still all attempts to launch a suicide attack from there fails. if a better border is set there and in the west bank, it will reduce or stop completely the suicide attacks. "

i'm not so sure, i heard that still suicide-attackers are coming from Gaza, that's why recently israel made some incursions into Gaza.

"and your remark about palestinians will never stop terrorism as long as there isn't any peace... well, do you think they are entitled to do so? "

Yes of course if you mean actions that are legitimised by the geneva-conventions, so actions against the occupation-force, politicians and armed colonisers, NOT against civilians.

"Arafat has run the Palestinian territories virtually unchallenged since Israel permitted his return from exile eight years ago. Between 1967 and 1994, Israel administered the territories. In the beginning of Israeli rule, life for the common Palestinian wasn't so bad. Even while opposing the occupation, residents found work in Israel and their incomes rose. Corruption and inefficiency in the Palestinian Authority, along with Israeli foot-dragging toward final peace negotiations, reversed the trend. "

the palestinian economic and social situation during 1967-1994 period did certainly not improove, I would say on the contrary, and the fact that nobody starved was because of international aid. it was certainly not a "happy occupation", if not the intifadah wouldn't have started...
the only advantage for both parties was palestinians being able to be low-wage labour-forces for the israeli economy.
after the palestinian autonomy in some parts of the occupied territory things improoved, yet the many israeli blockades and expulsion of palestinians working in israel had negative effects on the economy. Of course since 2000 it's totally an empty basket.

"Safe secure borders for Israel is the solution and that won't requre all of the West Bank to be annexed into Israel. "

I think save borders are not possible without a negociated solution, and a negotiated solution won't be possible if israel is planning to keep large parts of the occupied territories.

takeo

05-28-2002, 08:24 PM

"Both Gaza and WB are the perfect static solutions for Egypt and Jordan respectively. They don't want their own Palestinians and if they have to give up some land to push them out of their own country, I guess that's an acceptable price to pay. This is how repatriation will be handled by all the Arab countries....as soon as there is an independent Palistan all the other Arab countries will expel their own. Another 4 million murderers, I mean, militants, I mean activists, I mean refugees, I mean peaceful peaceloving people of peace, I mean angels, I mean the most wonderful people made in God image, I mean gods themselves......living in 'occupied' Palestine."

:mad:

this must be one of the most racist descriptions of an entire people ever since Hitler and lomplighter...
but of course you are right that a stable solution for palestine after the end of israeli occupation can not be established unless the refugee-problem is equally solved too. Which means israel sooner or later will have to negociate and compromise about this un-resolution and the etnic cleansing of 1948 as well, considering both the demographic concerns of israel and the legitimate demands of the palestinians.

"I can assure you that I was not even born in the '50's (I may seem old to you, but as my kids tell me, I am "medium" ). There was plenty of garbage going right through the '70's that I can vouch for; and if ALL our friends and my Grandfather are to be believed (which I do), is still going on in the 2000's."

what garbage do you mean(not the old stories but in YOUR life, medium, which is the best actually ;) )"? is it in any sence comparable to what the palestinians have endured and are still enduring???

True. The Jordanians and all other Arab countries, for that matter, know very well how to deal with their Palestinian problem.
But I still highly doubt that the current Jordanian leadership will be willing to do what is necessary in the event of an all-out Palestinian attempt to overthrow the kingdom. Who knows. I could be surprised."

actually with millions more of palestinians, who have since many years fought for their independance and freedom, the regime, which is even today not supported by the majority and has stability problems, would not resist i think.

"Right, I consider Israel to be the Jewish homeland and the Palestinians to be squatters and nothing more, so far as they have no right, IMO, to live in Israel.
They do, however, have every right to go back to the Arabian desert where they originated and live there in freedom. "

this is clear, you want an etnic cleansing of all of the historical palestine of its original population based on religious or etnic convictions. there is a name for such theories.
anyway, if this is your viewpoint we should stop talking about security-matters because that's not the real issue here, even with 100% security for israel you would still want to etnic cleanse the occupied territories. if this is as well the logic of the israeli government (it could be if netanyahu comes to power) than of course i would urge the palestinians to stop all calls for negociation and launch a full war against israel, WITH military support of France and many other countries i can assure you.

"Well, for me and for millions of Israeli it would be an excellent scenario. And for the Palestinians, too, for that matter, because again, they would be entitiled to live freely, not under occupation."

not under occupation but in exile. Of course in that same logic of yours it would be preferable if all israeli would immigrate to the us to live in full security... that's without any doubt what extremist palestinians want, as well as extremist israeli want the expulsion of all Palestinians.
but fortunately you're wrong that millions of israeli support your lunatic view, the polls show differently.

"I don't know why you bother to bring up those threats as if they might happen some time in the future. In reality, all that is already happening right now, so it's not like the situation will get any worse. At least in my scenario, Israel would have the benefit of ridding itself of the Palestinian problem, and the Palestinians themselves will be able to live independently. "

palestinians would of course not accept such an etnic cleansing, i'm sure you can imagine this. they would attack israel with all possible means, nobody would be calling for restraint as happening today, would have unlimited acces to all kinds of weapons (what they haven't now), israel would have lost its remaining allies, and israeli intrusions in jordan to stop terrorism would draw the whole Arab and muslim world in this war. israel can't possibly win against one billion of people...
It can be A LOT worse than today.

"Right, so the trip down memory lane of the "good old days" for Jews under Muslim rule, is completely false. That is my point. "

I never said so.
I said that Muslims are not any more anti-semitic than Christians troughout the whole history, but less.

NewsGuy

05-28-2002, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by takeo
but fortunately you're wrong that millions of israeli support your lunatic view, the polls show differently.
I am willing to bet any amount of money that if Israelis could honestly choose to have the Arabs leave the land of Israel and go back to their desert homeland taking their terrorism and Jihad with them, I think most Israelis would love that. But, as I said before, it is an unfortunate reality that this most excellent scenario will most probably never happen, unless of course there occurs a very extreme attack on Israel, God forbid.

Anyway, the real lunacy here is your own point of view that equates Israeli victims with their Arab murderers, and you wishing to see 200,000 Jews forcibly expelled from their homes (many second and third generation) to make place for members of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad to live in the Jews' homes. That, mon ami, is the real lunatic position which you support, as well as making apologies for the Arab mass murderers and as well as hoping that France joins the Arabs in an effort to exterminate the 5.5 million Jews of Israel.

they would attack israel with all possible means... the whole Arab and muslim world in this war. israel can't possibly win against one billion of people... It can be A LOT worse than today.
The Palestinians are already conducting an all-out war against Israel, but Defensive Shield has eliminated some of the Palestinian war machine.

As for a regional war, this has been under discussion in Israel forever, and there are plans in place to handle that situation if there would be a need. The main reason it has not happened yet is because the Arab countries know very well that their oil wells would be glowing for the next two centuries and a whole lot of two-headed babies would be born -- something very unhealthy for tourism, especially with a mushroom-shaped cloud hanging overhead.

Sorry to say it, but this ridiculous outcome is the only reason the Arabs have not yet attempted to wipe out Israel since 1973.

kauffner

05-28-2002, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by takeo
I said that Muslims are not any more anti-semitic than Christians troughout the whole history, but less.
The original question was whether Zionism turned Muslims against Jews. Comparing Muslims to Christians is an irrevelent exercise. Not only that, but your claim in nonsense. What Jew would rather live in Baghdad or Damascus than in New York or London?

takeo

05-28-2002, 09:32 PM

"I am willing to bet any amount of money that if Israelis could honestly choose to have the Arabs leave the land if Israel and go back to their desert homeland taking their terrorism and Jihad with them, I think most Israelis would love that. But, as I said before, it is an unfortunate reality that this most excellent scenario will most probably never happen, unless of course there occurs a very extreme attack on Israel, God forbid. "

i don't think most israeli would love that, actually many people in Israel have family who suffered in the Holocaust and do not support fascist ideas, not even if it would be beneficial for israel.

"Anyway, the real lunacy here is your own point of view that equates Israeli victims with their Arab murderers, and you wishing to see 200,000 Jews forcibly expelled from their homes (many second and third generation) to make place for members of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad to live in the Jews' homes. That, mon ami, is the real lunatic position which you support, as well as making apologies for the Arab mass murderers and as well as hoping that France joins the Arabs in an effort to exterminate the 5.5 million Jews of Israel. "

those 200000 immigrants came there under foreign occupation and have no roots in this land. Their establishment was prohibited by the 4th article of the Geneva-conventions.
those millions of Palestinians lived in this area for 1000's of years.
apparently you consider Palestinians to be lower human beings with less rights than israeli. very unfortunate that some Jewish people have such views.
Palestinians have suffered more than israeli, and israel committed more war-crimes and violations of international law during its history than the palestinians, that is the hard truth my friend.
i would only support france helping the palestinians if real lunatics with your kind of ideas would take power. Sharon is a war-criminal but not yet lunatic.

"As for a regional war, this has been under discussion in Israel forever, and there are plans in place to handle that situation if there would be a need. The main reason it has not happened yet is because the Arab countries know very well that their oil wells would be glowing for the next two centuries and a whole lot of two-headed babies would be born -- something very unhealthy for tourism, especially with a mushroom-shaped cloud hanging overhead. "

In such an extreme situation i believe the Arab world would not care anymore. besides even the most lunatic leader in israel should know that israel doesn't have the capacity to win against all the islamic world without american support, don't forget that pakistan and most probably Iran have nuclear weapons too, and in case of massive etnic cleansing and israel using nuclear weapons i'm not sure France, Russia and china will watch from the side-lines. israel by the way certainly wouldn't have enough atomic weapons to bomb all of the islamic world, and there would be enough troops available to destroy Israel.
anyway the moment israel launches its first nuclear bomb it will be lost and its population will face the repercussions.
most probably israel would have to rely on the US to cool down things if it gets involved in a regional war, but in the first place the us would never allow such a lunatic israeli policy. and i don't think either the us would appreciate israel bombing the oil-fields...

kauffner

05-28-2002, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by takeo
In such an extreme situation i believe the Arab world would not care anymore.
If only Israel starved the people who oppose its rule and then shot them when they tried to flee as refugees, the situation would be so much more moderate, just like it is in North Korea.

takeo

05-29-2002, 12:22 AM

however north-Korea is doing this with dissident northkoreans, while israel is dealing with palestinians in territory not belonging to israel, which makes the situation international.

elke

05-29-2002, 07:05 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by takeo
what garbage do you mean(not the old stories but in YOUR life, medium, which is the best actually )"? is it in any sence comparable to what the palestinians have endured and are still enduring???

Well, my grandfather is afraid for his life (he is 85 and lives in Odessa, Ukraine). Our friends and relatives who have arrived recently are saying the same thing. My father was about to be arrested when he opened his mouth regarding invasion of Chechoslovakia in '68 (his boss pulled some strings to prevent that). You know what would have happened to him if he was taken in, don't you? From anti-semitic beatings, to arrests for such things as learning Hebrew, it wasn't - and isn't - a pretty picture. This is my family and my friends I am talking about, within my 36 years (btw, thanks for the compliment - I agree, this is the best! :) )

I know what you are going to say: this does not compare to what Palestinians are going through right now. However, we were NOT throwing stones, shooting, or otherwise molesting the Russian troops - or government. We did things that are perfectly legal, even encouraged elsewhere. Three guesses what would have happened if we did what the Palestinians have been doing.

gev

05-29-2002, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by takeo
"

"sadly, I dont need to go far back, today after the Petah-Tikwa terror attack which was launched by the Al-Aqsa martyrs (which is part of the Fatah organization led by Arafat, mind you) Arafat condemn the Terror attack, in the mean time there was a television program praising the Al-Aqsa martyrs as the true fighters for freedom (or whatever) this was on the official PA television. "

again, i have difficulty to believe that al-aqsa, which has never been prooved to be a part of Fatah, would have its own program on television. It would be very much undermining the autority of Arafat, which is not allowed in palestinian state institutions.

"a high rank Fatah-Tanzim member said in a rally today that "history will tell that Arafat knew and approved all the acts we have done in the Intifadah"
might I remind you that the Fatah-Tanzim is resposible for many vicous terror attacks.
I saw it in the Israeli TV, I'm just guessing here, but no western TV station reported it right? "

Well, if you saw it in the israeli television and no Western tv reported about it (it would be breaking news), i would be highly sceptical about the originality of this.

Those Israeli TV reports I'm talking about showed the original programs in Arabic from the palestinian official TV. do you want to tell me they fabricated it?

Let me ask you this: If all these reports are true, will it change your view on Arafat and the PA?

Fatah is not responsible by the way of attacks against civilians in israel.

the Fatah-Tanzim is responsible of many attacks of Israeli citizens.

"http://www.jsfp.org/Faluji.html"

this link didn't work.

Are you sure?
I tried it again and it does...
Here is what it says:

The Daily Star ( Beirut, Lebanon )

PA minister says intifada planned

Mohammed Zaatari
Daily Star correspondent

March 03, 2001 - A Palestinian Cabinet minister said on Friday that the five-month-old uprising against Israel had been planned since the Camp David peace talks failed in July, contradicting past contentions of a spontaneous outburst from Palestinians on the street.

Imad Faluji, the Palestinian Nation Authority's Communications Minister, said during a PLO rally in Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp outside of Sidon that it was a mistake to think that the intifada was sparked by Israeli Prime Minister-elect Ariel Sharon's controversial visit to Al-Aqsa mosque compound in late September.

"It had been planned since Chairman Arafat's return from Camp David, when he turned the tables in the face of the former US president (Bill Clinton) and rejected the American conditions," Faluji said.

At the US presidential retreat of Camp David, Maryland, Clinton had pressed Arafat to make concessions, particularly on the return of Palestinian refugees, in response to outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's willingness to surrender some Jerusalem neighborhoods to the Palestinians. Barak's unprecedented step is widely viewed as contributing to Sharon's election victory.

Faluji's remarks contrast with previous Palestinian statements blaming Sharon's visit to the mosque compound for sparking a spontaneous uprising by Palestinians frustrated with the peace process. Israel has long contended the intifada, in which more than 400 people have been killed, was planned.

Faluji did not elaborate on the planning or who was involved.

He also said the PLO was reviving its "military action" groups to escalate the fighting against Israel and called for a meeting of Arab defense ministers to "face up to Israeli aggression."

"The PLO is going back to the 60s, 70s and 80s. The Fatah Hawks, the Kassam Brigades, the Red Eagle and all the military action groups are returning to work," he told a crowd of nearly 2,500 people who included local Palestinian faction leaders.

Faluji warned Israel that it would not "enjoy a single night of calm" if Palestinians continued to be killed at the hands of the Jewish state.

He praised the stand adopted by Lebanon and Syria in backing the Palestine cause. "What the Zionist entity faced in south Lebanon will be a picnic compared with what it will face when the Palestinian people become enraged," he said. "The Palestinian resistance will strike in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and in every inch of Palestinian territory.

"Palestinian vengeance will be harder and stronger than many expect. We won't let Israel enjoy a single night of calm as long Palestinian blood continues to flow."

He argued that Palestinians were in Lebanon temporarily "and it's not permissible to encroach on the right of refugees to return (to their homeland) in accordance with United Nations Resolution 194." - withagencies

DS 03/03/01

did any western television report it? isn't it a "breaking news"?!
you can be sure that the Israeli TV did report it.

This is the real face of the PA
the face they dont want you and the international community to see

gev

05-29-2002, 02:30 PM

what neighbouring country is interested in keeping the conflict between palestinians and israeli going on?

Syria,Iraq and Iran.

each has it's own interest:

Iraq uses the conflict largely to fail US attack on Iraq, as you know it is working.

Iran is the major problem, it wants to spread the Islamic revolution into the rest of the middle East, they support and engourage the suicide attack and armed attacks against Israel. gives support to Hamas, the Fatah and Hizbullah.

Syria mainly wants the Golan heights and it's president is pressuring the Arab world and palestinians to continue the conflict until it gets it.

"we havn't saw nothing in the past, because there wasn't any good border in the past, what we did saw in the past and see now is a border that I wouldn't call half as what can be done in a matter of electronic devices and fortifications - the border between the Gaza strip and Israel - Gaza is homebase for Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and still all attempts to launch a suicide attack from there fails. if a better border is set there and in the west bank, it will reduce or stop completely the suicide attacks. "

i'm not so sure, i heard that still suicide-attackers are coming from Gaza, that's why recently israel made some incursions into Gaza.

Nope, attacks on isolated settlements inside the Gaza strip.
those settlements has to be evacuated.
the incursion should proceed, because as I said that is the Home base of many Terror groups, and Israel should not let them blossom, but the borers are defindable, many military experts say so.

NewsGuy

05-29-2002, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by takeo
those 200000 immigrants came there under foreign occupation and have no roots in this land. Their establishment was prohibited by the 4th article of the Geneva-conventions.
those millions of Palestinians lived in this area for 1000's of years.
apparently you consider Palestinians to be lower human beings with less rights than israeli. very unfortunate that some Jewish people have such views.

ok, Takeo, the 200,000 Jewish people living in Judea and Samaria "have no roots in this land," while the Palestinians have been there for "1000's of years." Are you getting a little confused now?

And please don't put words in my mouth about the Palestinians being "lower human beings." Those are certainly not my words, nor is it something I think.

However, the Palestinians do have less rights to the land of Israel. In fact, they have no rights whatsoever because they are just squatters who decided to ride in from the Arabian desert into the Jewish homeland.

The fact that the UN decided to arbitrarily divide the Jewish homeland into 2 states, (which the Palestinians rejected anyway) is an unfortunate reality we need to deal with, but it does not make it right.

At this point, that division is history and the decades of Palestinian and Arab attempts to commit genocide against the Jewish people has created a new reality on the ground. At this point, the Palestinians should be grateful to even be allowed to keep Gaza and their Palestinian settlements in the West Bank.

takeo

05-30-2002, 04:34 PM

"Well, my grandfather is afraid for his life (he is 85 and lives in Odessa, Ukraine). Our friends and relatives who have arrived recently are saying the same thing. My father was about to be arrested when he opened his mouth regarding invasion of Chechoslovakia in '68 (his boss pulled some strings to prevent that). You know what would have happened to him if he was taken in, don't you? From anti-semitic beatings, to arrests for such things as learning Hebrew, it wasn't - and isn't - a pretty picture. This is my family and my friends I am talking about, within my 36 years (btw, thanks for the compliment - I agree, this is the best! ) "

i didn't know the situation is so bad in the Ukrain, my parents went to Russia recently and didn't complain about this kind of problems. there is increased anti-semitism in Russia, that's for sure, but not on such a scale that it would affect the life of people living there.
My family never got problems in the old Soviet-Union, my grand-mother (more recently she came to live here) even told me that they made some nasty jokes about the chief of the Sverdlovsk party-committee (the predecessor of yeltsin by the way), and about the system in general during sessions of the local party-branch (even if she is communist herself) it was all possible. however i heard it was very different during the Stalin-time. She also never complained about anti-semitism, some individual people yes but not the society in general.

"I know what you are going to say: this does not compare to what Palestinians are going through right now. However, we were NOT throwing stones, shooting, or otherwise molesting the Russian troops - or government. We did things that are perfectly legal, even encouraged elsewhere. Three guesses what would have happened if we did what the Palestinians have been doing."

that's right, but of course face it the Soviet Jews's situation can not be compared to what happened and still happens with the palestinians.
Palestinians trowing stones can maybe be compared to the lithoanians trowing stones or shooting to Russian tanks in 1990-1991 and they got their independance. however the situation of the Lithoanians under Soviet-rule was still very good compared to the situation of the Palestinians today, and it was internationally recognised as a part of the Soviet-Union.

"Let me ask you this: If all these reports are true, will it change your view on Arafat and the PA? "

i think it would, i would still find israel the prime responsible for the conflict, but i would doubt the qualities and capacity of Arafat to lead the Palestinian resistance.

which crimes against civilians in Israel have been committed by fatah?

"did any western television report it? isn't it a "breaking news"?!
you can be sure that the Israeli TV did report it.

This is the real face of the PA
the face they dont want you and the international community to see"

i don't know if it is true, yet it could be true that the intifadeh was prepared before the visit of Sharon to the Temple Mount.
When it was clear Israel was not going to negociate with the palestinians about their fundamental rights and that the building of colonies was just going on as usual without palestinians could do anything to stop it or force israel(only take it or leave it proposals).

"Syria,Iraq and Iran. "

You could be right about Iran and Iraq, but syria certainly does want its Golan heights back and stability in the region, even at the price of recognising israel. Syria backed a peace-proposal recognising israel by Egypt and SA.

"Syria mainly wants the Golan heights and it's president is pressuring the Arab world and palestinians to continue the conflict until it gets it. "

the Golan-heights are integrally part of the problem created in 1967.

"ok, Takeo, the 200,000 Jewish people living in Judea and Samaria "have no roots in this land," while the Palestinians have been there for "1000's of years." Are you getting a little confused now? "

Those families have no link to the land, their families can not proove to originate in this lands, their grand-father, grand-father, etc. none of them were born in WB or Gaza. the only link with this land is some kind of mysterious religious claim on the land because 2000 years ago Jews lived here.

"And please don't put words in my mouth about the Palestinians being "lower human beings." Those are certainly not my words, nor is it something I think. "

OK, I hope so, yet still they can be etnically cleansed and occupied according to you without any moral problems.

"However, the Palestinians do have less rights to the land of Israel. In fact, they have no rights whatsoever because they are just squatters who decided to ride in from the Arabian desert into the Jewish homeland. "

this is historical BS in the first place (we had this dscussion already some months ago). no single people can claim a land after 1000's of years of absence (the Jews who have family who lived there as a minority continuously in peace with their Palestinian neighbours are an exception) and cleanse the current inhabitants who lived there for 1000's of year without interruption.

"The fact that the UN decided to arbitrarily divide the Jewish homeland into 2 states, (which the Palestinians rejected anyway) is an unfortunate reality we need to deal with, but it does not make it right. "

You claim the whole for israel and want to etnically cleanse the palestinians from all of the original palestine. that's clear...
i think you are very happy that palestinians didn't accept israel on part of their sole in 1948, which permitted israel to take it all.

"At this point, that division is history and the decades of Palestinian and Arab attempts to commit genocide against the Jewish people has created a new reality on the ground. At this point, the Palestinians should be grateful to even be allowed to keep Gaza and their Palestinian settlements in the West Bank. "

i think after decades of etnic cleansing and occupation and depriving the palestinians of all their rights, israel should be very gratefull that the majority of palestinians want to recognise israel and live at peace with it.
Hitler also said that Jews should be gratefull to live in Germany, but abused their hospitality... that's typical fascist language, people of other etnic origin should be "gratefull" to live on land that is claimed by another etnic group.

elke

05-31-2002, 06:49 AM

Syria,Iraq and Iran.

each has it's own interest:

Iraq uses the conflict largely to fail US attack on Iraq, as you know it is working.

Iran is the major problem, it wants to spread the Islamic revolution into the rest of the middle East, they support and engourage the suicide attack and armed attacks against Israel. gives support to Hamas, the Fatah and Hizbullah.

Syria mainly wants the Golan heights and it's president is pressuring the Arab world and palestinians to continue the conflict until it gets it

You forgot to mention Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. Saudi Arabia is teetering on the brink due to its political and economic woes. The Israeli-Palestinian crisis is very convenient for "venting".

Lebanon wants to rid itself of all the Palestinians it houses as of now.

takeo

05-31-2002, 09:06 PM

i think the current crisis is not very beneficial for the SA-regime, which would be much more comfortable if the us, it's main ally, would not be hated by its population.
you are right about Libanon, they want to send the refugees back to where they came from.

gev

06-01-2002, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by takeo
"Let me ask you this: If all these reports are true, will it change your view on Arafat and the PA? "

i think it would, i would still find israel the prime responsible for the conflict, but i would doubt the qualities and capacity of Arafat to lead the Palestinian resistance.

Well then you can understand the opinion of most Israelies, They think the occupation must end, but not at the price of letting a Terror palestinian state grow beside it.
Thats why, in the mean time, while there is no serious palestinian leadership, Terror must be fought with - and thats the recent Israeli operations.

What we have seen in reports on palestinian TV is nothing compared to what is flowing daily from the Israeli Intelligence agencys to the Israeli and the American Government, and thats why you see people that you can't suspect them of wanting the continuation of the occupation think that the current incursions should continue: Shimon Peres, Ben Eliezer

which crimes against civilians in Israel have been committed by fatah?

many attacks on soldiers and civilians in settlements in the West bank.
you must agree that killing a women and her child while they sleep in their home no matter where that home is, is terrorism and crime against humanity. those attacks were commited by the Fatah-Tanzim movement led by Marwan Barguthi, part of the Fatah movement led by Arafat.

"did any western television report it? isn't it a "breaking news"?!
you can be sure that the Israeli TV did report it.

This is the real face of the PA
the face they dont want you and the international community to see"

i don't know if it is true,

it was reported by a Lebanese newspaper, so you can't suspect it's bias towards Israel.

yet it could be true that the intifadeh was prepared before the visit of Sharon to the Temple Mount.
When it was clear Israel was not going to negociate with the palestinians about their fundamental rights and that the building of colonies was just going on as usual without palestinians could do anything to stop it or force israel(only take it or leave it proposals).

Faluji says it was planned after Arafat returned from the Camp David talks. let me remind you that there were Tabah talks as well, and the palestinians themselves said that there was progress in those talks. But, in the mean time, they were already planning the Intifidah, and not just throwing stones, Faluji is speciffically talking about armed attacks.

the talks were stopped AFTER the intifadah has broken and because of it. so the palestinian break the intfiadah IN THE MIDDLE OF PEACE TALKS.

The palestinian themselves say they want to return to the clinton offer, so where is the logic of starting a war to get something they already have? Israel is tired of playing this cycle...

Lets examine what they have accomplished with the breaking of the intifadah:
1. many palestinians dead, some innocent civilians who caught in the cross fire or thought of mistakengly as terrorists.

2. instead of getting the end of occupation, even the A territories which they had already, is no longer theirs as Israel is getting in and out fighting their terrorists.

3. palestinians suffer as they never suffered before, because the war is going on in their back yard. towns are being seiged in the fear of terrorists getting out of there. people who before the intifadah could have worked in Israel, now cant.

4. Israeli public opinion has changed, more people think that transfer is the way to go, although they are still a minority.
there is more fear and mistrust of the palestinian PA and their final goal, and palestinian state which seems so close before the intifadah, now seems like something that is so far and maybe never happen. Sharon was elected because of the Intifadah.

5. US and many other Arab and European countries dont trust Arafat.

6. The majority of palestinians beleived in the peace process before the intifadah, now the majority support armed attacks against Israelie civilians inside Israel. Actually this is something Arafat WANTED To accomplish and he did.

"Syria,Iraq and Iran. "

You could be right about Iran and Iraq, but syria certainly does want its Golan heights back and stability in the region, even at the price of recognising israel. Syria backed a peace-proposal recognising israel by Egypt and SA.

Syria would rather see the Palestinian-Israeli conflict going until they have the golan heights.
thats why until Syria have the golan heights, and until Iran and Iraq are overthrown - the conflict will go on (with a palestinian state or without one).
only, with a palestinian state and Arafat and the current PA at the head of it, it will be much worse to both sides.

kauffner

06-01-2002, 02:53 AM

At the time of Camp David in 2000, Egypt and Saudi Arabia threatened to withdraw support from Arafat if he accepted any peace proposal. Iran supports Hamas, which deliberately times its attacks to disrupt the peace process. Iraq pays bounties to the families of suicide terrorists. All these countries see Palestinian-Israeli fighting as a useful way to distract attention from other issues.

Since 9-11, Saudi Arabia has been desperately trying to change the subject to something other than Saudi links to the Taliban and the 9-11 hijackers. They don't let the FBI interview the hijackers' families and friends and haven't closed a single bank account for financing terror. US is Saudi's "main ally" -- that's a good one. That was ten years ago. Have you been living a yurt for the last year? In the Washington Times today: Somebody launched a rocket at a U.S. base in Saudi. Saudi police destroyed the launcher and wouldn't let the U.S. investigate. Crown Prince Abdullah needs his ass whipped just as badly as Assad, Saddam, or Khamenei. If it was up to me, I'd sponsor Shiite seperatism in the Eastern Province and give Mecca back to the Hashemites.

Arafat's approval rating dropped 20 points right after he rejected Barak's peace proposal and have stayed low ever since. It's not the Palestinian people who want this war.

takeo

06-01-2002, 04:23 AM

"Well then you can understand the opinion of most Israelies, They think the occupation must end, but not at the price of letting a Terror palestinian state grow beside it.
Thats why, in the mean time, while there is no serious palestinian leadership, Terror must be fought with - and thats the recent Israeli operations. "

the problem with such logic is that it is a cycle without end, because the palestinians think that as long there isn't a palestinian state and a solution for the refugees, or at least serious neogciations about this, the war must go on. And israeli actions as in Jenin (which prooved to be quite useless if the aim was really eradicating terrorism) have only improoved Palestinian hate against israel. As if the majority of palestinians want war, there will be war, Arafat or no Arafat.
The problem is not Arafat, he can be replaced by another leader, which is quite likely once Palestine gets independant. If the majority of palestinians believe in peace, and it is usefull too for Arafat (once he has his state he would be crazy to allow further attacks on israel) than there will be peace and groups as Hamas will slowly loose all their support.

"What we have seen in reports on palestinian TV is nothing compared to what is flowing daily from the Israeli Intelligence agencys to the Israeli and the American Government, and thats why you see people that you can't suspect them of wanting the continuation of the occupation think that the current incursions should continue: Shimon Peres, Ben Eliezer "

such actions will only further undermine any possible approach to peace. Since israel was determined to destroy the PA, terrorism against israel has grown rapidly and the PA itself became more radical. The PA may not be ideal and the best one possible, but it is with this PA that israel eventually will have to negociate, this is also the position of the EU and the US.

"many attacks on soldiers and civilians in settlements in the West bank.
you must agree that killing a women and her child while they sleep in their home no matter where that home is, is terrorism and crime against humanity. those attacks were commited by the Fatah-Tanzim movement led by Marwan Barguthi, part of the Fatah movement led by Arafat. "

i tought the attacks on civilians in the Westbank were committed by al-aqsa, which has not been prooven a part of Fatah. (maybe some fatah people are involved, but it is clearly not a group supported by the PA).
Anyway the question wether or not colonisers should be attacked is not very clear.
my moral opinion is that you can shoot armed colonisers or colonisers who are part of a militia, which makes them part of the occupying force, but not their wifes and kids of course. by the way barghouti is very popular among palestinians, he will probably be the sucessor of Arafat if there are free elections.

"Faluji says it was planned after Arafat returned from the Camp David talks. let me remind you that there were Tabah talks as well, and the palestinians themselves said that there was progress in those talks. But, in the mean time, they were already planning the Intifidah, and not just throwing stones, Faluji is speciffically talking about armed attacks."

Maybe so, but the intifadeh only became as violent and blind as it is today after heavy repression by israel of protesters trowing stones and after israel started to destroy the pa buildings.

"the talks were stopped AFTER the intifadah has broken and because of it. so the palestinian break the intfiadah IN THE MIDDLE OF PEACE TALKS. "

there were still talks going on untill sharon was elected, in january 2001, quite succesfull talks according tothe palestinians whic were on the edge of a break-trough, Sharon immidiately stopped all talks. Since he came to power the violence only accelerated.

"he palestinian themselves say they want to return to the clinton offer, so where is the logic of starting a war to get something they already have? Israel is tired of playing this cycle... "

Whendid they say so and who? maybe oou mean they want to use the clinton-offer as a starting point for further negociations

takeo

06-01-2002, 04:24 AM

"lets examine what they have accomplished with the breaking of the intifadah:

1. many palestinians dead, some innocent civilians who caught in the cross fire or thought of mistakengly as terrorists.

2. instead of getting the end of occupation, even the A territories which they had already, is no longer theirs as Israel is getting in and out fighting their terrorists.

3. palestinians suffer as they never suffered before, because the war is going on in their back yard. towns are being seiged in the fear of terrorists getting out of there. people who before the intifadah could have worked in Israel, now cant.

4. Israeli public opinion has changed, more people think that transfer is the way to go, although they are still a minority.
there is more fear and mistrust of the palestinian PA and their final goal, and palestinian state which seems so close before the intifadah, now seems like something that is so far and maybe never happen. Sharon was elected because of the Intifadah.

5. US and many other Arab and European countries dont trust Arafat.

6. The majority of palestinians beleived in the peace process before the intifadah, now the majority support armed attacks against Israelie civilians inside Israel. Actually this is something Arafat WANTED To accomplish and he did. "

Most palestinians now support suicide actions because of the israeli response to the intifadeh, all the points you just mentioned are true, and Arafat was considered the man of peace by the palestinians, a radicalisation has prooved to undermine his autority and was certainly not beneficial for Arafat. I think many palestinians hoped a new intifadeh would pressure israel to concede more so that new peace-talks would include the refugees and other ery important (for the palestinians) issues.
The israeli reaction however, even when the intifadeh was not directed towards civilians, was to destroy the PA and use violence instead of diplomacy to end the violence (well maybe barak at the end of his mandate changed that policy, but sharon on the contrary choose unconditional for the violent way;

"yria would rather see the Palestinian-Israeli conflict going until they have the golan heights.
thats why until Syria have the golan heights, and until Iran and Iraq are overthrown - the conflict will go on (with a palestinian state or without one).
only, with a palestinian state and Arafat and the current PA at the head of it, it will be much worse to both sides.
"

I think iran and iraq, except for financing some terror groups, have not a big influence on the middle-east war;
any negociation with the palestinians should include the golan-heights, that's clear to almost everyone involved

"t the time of Camp David in 2000, Egypt and Saudi Arabia threatened to withdraw support from Arafat if he accepted any peace proposal. Iran supports Hamas, which deliberately times its attacks to disrupt the peace process. Iraq pays bounties to the families of suicide terrorists. All these countries see Palestinian-Israeli fighting as a useful way to distract attention from other issues. "

The peace-proposals, which for example said nothing about the refugees, were totally unacceptable for the Arab world AND palestinians, that's why SA or Egypt rejected them without rectification.
Again SA and egypt are confronted with a population highly critical of their own government that are supposed to be too indulgent for israel and its big ally. of course there is criticism for other issueas as well, but the israeli-palestinian conflict is certainly not helping those regimes.

"
Since 9-11, Saudi Arabia has been desperately trying to change the subject to something other than Saudi links to the Taliban and the 9-11 hijackers. They don't let the FBI interview the hijackers' families and friends and haven't closed a single bank account for financing terror. US is Saudi's "main ally" -- that's a good one. That was ten years ago. Have you been living a yurt for the last year? In the Washington Times today: Somebody launched a rocket at a U.S. base in Saudi. Saudi police destroyed the launcher and wouldn't let the U.S. investigate. Crown Prince Abdullah needs his ass whipped just as badly as Assad, Saddam, or Khamenei. If it was up to me, I'd sponsor Shiite seperatism in the Eastern Province and give Mecca back to the Hashemites. "

SA is still an ally of the US, if not SA would not any longer accept american troops on its soil and wouldn't push for lower petrol-prices against the wishes of most other opec- members. You don't know what American troops on the holy land of the Muslims mean for the Muslim world, it is one of the reasons obl began to attack us-targets.
but of course there is still a difference between being an ally and being a slave or puppet, SA will not agree to every US-demands and don't want to give great publicity to the Saoudi links of OBL. France is an ally too of the US yet we won't agree to every aspect of the us-policy in the world.
The US invading SA would be one of the biggest mistakes in US-history, it would turn all of the Islamic world against the us. If the us stops supporting the regime by weaponssales and military aid, the regime, which is extremely inpopular in SA, will collapse pretty soon i think. I think a new regime would certainly be worse than the old one for American interests.

"rafat's approval rating dropped 20 points right after he rejected Barak's peace proposal and have stayed low ever since. It's not the Palestinian people who want this war."

at the same time, palestinians consider arafat to have given in too much concessions to the israeli...
most palestinians support by the way the intifadeh, arafat's ratings dropped because he is cosidered the man who brought peace since 1993, he could not fulfll his promise of a palestinian state.

elke

06-01-2002, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by takeo
i think the current crisis is not very beneficial for the SA-regime, which would be much more comfortable if the us, it's main ally, would not be hated by its population.
you are right about Libanon, they want to send the refugees back to where they came from.

Well, it's a delicate balance for the Saudis: this way, they feel they can "have their cake and eat it too". A "peace proposal" for Western consumption, and fund the terror for domestic. When all is said and done, it balances out with the House of Saud still on top.

takeo

06-01-2002, 03:39 PM

maybe so...

but this kind of balance is necessary because the middle east war is a delicate problem for the Saudi royal family. they would rather not choose between the US and the Arab world if the problem didn't exist.

kauffner

06-01-2002, 04:14 PM

Low oil prices aren't some kind of Saudi favor to the U.S. They want to sell more oil and increase revenue, so they are offering a discount. It's a straight business decision, nothing to do with politics. Other oil producers are going all out for market share as well, even Iraq.

If Saudi Arabia is not a U.S. ally with respect to cracking down on anti-American terrorism, especially 9-11, then they are not an ally, period. Oil and military bases is small beer as long as there is a danger of some-Saudi financed Islamofascist group getting a hold nuclear device or other weapon of mass destruction.

As far as the military bases go, it sounds like the Saudis aren't going to let the U.S. use them for the attack on Iraq. I suppose it's possible that the Bush administration has some private assurance that the Saudis will allow the U.S. to use the bases. Otherwise, they are just serving as targets for terrorists.

The Saudi military is a joke. The have some modern hardware, but no fighting spirit at all. They ran away from the Iraqis in 1991. By about mid-afternoon on D-Day, U.S. troops would be over in Mecca, roasting pork and popping open some beers.

As far as turning "the Islamic world against the U.S." goes, we've heard that song before. The Muslim world was united in rage against America when we were bombing Afghanistan. So many people were so sure that the Muslim world go berserk if the U.S. took military action during Ramadan. What the Middle East respects is power and the will to use it, not a bunch of antique taboos.

U.S. troops have been in Saudi since 1951. They were certainly popular in the days when an invasion by Iraq was seen as real danger, which was only a few years ago.

Saudi oil revenue has declined dramatically in the last years, so there are a lot of unhappy Saudis these days. The Palestinian and U.S. troop issues are ways to deflect that unhappiness away from the Saudi government.

The U.S. doesn't give Saudi any military aid and I don't why sales of say, AWACS, are going to affect the regime's ability to stay in power. Being "extremely unpopular" doesn't stop a government from ruling in the Middle East. The regimes in Syria, Iraq, and Iran are all even more unpopular than the Saudi regime. The Saudi religious police are an extremely unpleasant group, beating people with sticks on the slightest pretext, breaking into house, and in one case even beating schoolgirls as they tried to flee from a fire. The Saudi people are apparently too afraid to actively complain about it. But common sense suggests that nobody likes live that way.

elke

06-01-2002, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by takeo
maybe so...

but this kind of balance is necessary because the middle east war is a delicate problem for the Saudi royal family. they would rather not choose between the US and the Arab world if the problem didn't exist.

But that's the whole point: if the Israeli-Palestinian issues were resolved, and Palestinians began to have a semblance of a normal life, all the pent-up energy and dissatisfaction of the "Arab Street" would break out. Three guesses what would happen to the House of Saud. They don't have to choose: they have enough clout, with their oil, to keep the West in check - and their financial contributions to the "cause" are adequate to keep the fire inside the country under control.

Thought

06-01-2002, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by takeo

Hitler also said that Jews should be gratefull to live in Germany, but abused their hospitality... that's typical fascist language, people of other etnic origin should be "gratefull" to live on land that is claimed by another etnic group.

I agree with you mostly there, but by the way, Hitler wasn't the only person to say that: by looking at the Quran, one can also see this was said by Mohamed. From "The Immunity" [9.29]:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."

I would be interested to hear your opinion of Islam now that you can see an ideology you admitted to be "typical fascist language" is expounded in the Quran.

takeo

06-02-2002, 03:09 AM

"Low oil prices aren't some kind of Saudi favor to the U.S. They want to sell more oil and increase revenue, so they are offering a discount. It's a straight business decision, nothing to do with politics. Other oil producers are going all out for market share as well, even Iraq. "

Iraq, venezuela, Iran, etc. all want higher oil-prices because it is more beneficial for their economy and oil-reserves.

"If Saudi Arabia is not a U.S. ally with respect to cracking down on anti-American terrorism, especially 9-11, then they are not an ally, period. Oil and military bases is small beer as long as there is a danger of some-Saudi financed Islamofascist group getting a hold nuclear device or other weapon of mass destruction. "

i don't agree, oil and military bases in the middle east are very basic for the us-interests, and by the way SA is cooperating with the us, they see OBL as an ennemy too (and al-quaida is targetting the saoudi-dinasty as well), but on their own terms.
if SA was a hostile country it would start by evicting all the us-military from its soil, that's by the way what most saoudi's want according to Christina Amanpour of CNN.

"As far as the military bases go, it sounds like the Saudis aren't going to let the U.S. use them for the attack on Iraq. I suppose it's possible that the Bush administration has some private assurance that the Saudis will allow the U.S. to use the bases. Otherwise, they are just serving as targets for terrorists. "

OK, SA doesn't agree on a new aggression against iraq for no reason at all except to remove the regime in place, but the us could use the bases on several occations in the past.

"The Saudi military is a joke. The have some modern hardware, but no fighting spirit at all. They ran away from the Iraqis in 1991. By about mid-afternoon on D-Day, U.S. troops would be over in Mecca, roasting pork and popping open some beers. "

that's absolutely right, but think about the consequences of US troops roasting porc and popping open beers in mecca! it would create a1000 obl's and the us could forget about support from any muslim country for centuries to come.

"As far as turning "the Islamic world against the U.S." goes, we've heard that song before. The Muslim world was united in rage against America when we were bombing Afghanistan."

absolutely ********. Without the cooperation of Pakistan, Iran (yes!!!) Uzbekistan, Tadzikistan, the northern alliance (their official name is Islamic hesbollah!!!), Turkey, etc. the US would have never managed to get rid of its former allies the taliban.

"U.S. troops have been in Saudi since 1951. They were certainly popular in the days when an invasion by Iraq was seen as real danger, which was only a few years ago. "

that's right, but now they don't see iraq any longer as a danger, so they want the us-troops out! As we French were very gratefull the US helped to liberate us but we wouldn't accept any permanent us-bases on our soil. I'm sure you wouldn't accept French or SA-military bases in Nevada or New york.

"Saudi oil revenue has declined dramatically in the last years, so there are a lot of unhappy Saudis these days. The Palestinian and U.S. troop issues are ways to deflect that unhappiness away from the Saudi government. "

perhaps so, but the palestinian and us-troops issues are very embarrassing for the sa-regime and contribute to their unpopularity.

"The U.S. doesn't give Saudi any military aid and I don't why sales of say, AWACS, are going to affect the regime's ability to stay in power. Being "extremely unpopular" doesn't stop a government from ruling in the Middle East. The regimes in Syria, Iraq, and Iran are all even more unpopular than the Saudi regime. The Saudi religious police are an extremely unpleasant group, beating people with sticks on the slightest pretext, breaking into house, and in one case even beating schoolgirls as they tried to flee from a fire. The Saudi people are apparently too afraid to actively complain about it. But common sense suggests that nobody likes live that way."

that's right, but i think the syrian and irakian regime are more popular the the SA-regime, i have been to Syria and iraq and there is no general feeling of hate against the regime, just criticism of corruption, etc. In iraq the general feeling is completely dominated by the overwelming hate against the US, also in private, actually the regime is a lot more popular today than during the 80's. Also syria and iraq are secular "socialist ba'ath" countries, you can find house-parties in Bagdad with young girls and boys kissing in public and even gays! (by the way i saw such things in Tunisia as well) i 've not been to SA (one can not enter without a job there) but i think it's quite different...
in Iran the regime is split, one part hugely popular, the other part hated.

"But that's the whole point: if the Israeli-Palestinian issues were resolved, and Palestinians began to have a semblance of a normal life, all the pent-up energy and dissatisfaction of the "Arab Street" would break out. Three guesses what would happen to the House of Saud. They don't have to choose: they have enough clout, with their oil, to keep the West in check - and their financial contributions to the "cause" are adequate to keep the fire inside the country under control. "

Actually as i said the palestinian question is a great embarrasment for the SA-regime, if it would be solved the regime could somehow manage to present the US as a friendly nation without loosing face for its population.

elke

06-02-2002, 08:15 AM

Actually as i said the palestinian question is a great embarrasment for the SA-regime, if it would be solved the regime could somehow manage to present the US as a friendly nation without loosing face for its population.

It may be an embarrassment, but the bigger one is the US bases on the Saudi soil (again, look at the OBL's gripes in their order of importance). After decades of teaching Wahabiism, they couldn't convince their people that the West is their ally if their life depended on it. Luckily, there is this Israeli-Palestinian diversion, so their life doesn't depend on it.

kauffner

06-02-2002, 09:29 AM

takeo: In WWII. we didn't ask the Germans what they thought of Hitler or the Japanese what they thought of Tojo. I don't give a rat's behind what the Saudis think of U.S. bases or what the Iraqis think of Saddam. Isn't it amazing that people in so many different countries agree with you? You sound exactly like all those U.S. and European Sandinista supporters in 1990 who were so sure Ortega was going to the win the Nicaraguan election.

Iraq has more anthrax to send and will soon have nuclear weapons. Saddam says he want to blow up a nuclear bomb in Tel Aviv, and that's probably not the only place he wants to blow up. Just as dangerous is the suicide terrorist phenomenon, which is inspired by Saddam's defiance of the US. Trainees at Iraq's terrorist training camps are told that, for Saddam, the Gulf War never ended. Sixty Minutes will be broadcasting an interview this week with Yasin, one of the terrorists involved in the 1993 WTC bombing. He is living free as bird in Baghdad. That's reason enough to go to war right there. I would also demand that Iraq hand over the intelligence agent who talked to Atta in Prague and comply with all relevent UN Security Council resolutions.

Bush gave a bellicose speech to the cadets at West Point on Saturday, so I think he's getting back in the saddle. Seems to me he has to, otherwise he's gonna be a one term president. Next he needs fire those chicken- generals on JCS.

American troops entering Mecca was just an example. Obviously, it would be better if Jordanian troops were used to liberated the city.

elke

06-02-2002, 09:38 AM

I would also demand that Iraq hand over the intelligence agent who talked to Atta in Prague and comply with all relevent UN Security Council resolutions.

LOL - if I am not mistaken, the agent has (or had) "diplomatic immunity". Wasn't he some sort of Iraqi official?

kauffner

06-02-2002, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by elke
LOL - if I am not mistaken, the agent has (or had) "diplomatic immunity". Wasn't he some sort of Iraqi official?
Diplomatic immunity would only protect him from Czech law. It wouldn't affect his status under American law. Even if there were no charges that would stick, I'd still put him in Guantanamo.

Diplomatic immunity isn't a license to kill. Diplomats accused of hit and run have been stripped of their diplomatic immunity, tried, and sent to prison.

elke

06-02-2002, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by kauffner

Diplomatic immunity would only protect him from Czech law. It wouldn't affect his status under American law. Even if there were no charges that would stick, I'd still put him in Guantanamo.

Diplomatic immunity isn't a license to kill. Diplomats accused of hit and run have been stripped of their diplomatic immunity, tried, and sent to prison.

Sorry, Kauffner, I am not against this - it's just that I found it ironic that a representative of any government would stoop to even meeting with the likes of Atta.

takeo

06-02-2002, 08:27 PM

"Luckily, there is this Israeli-Palestinian diversion, so their life doesn't depend on it."

it isn't very fun diversion for the regime, it makes their problem even worse.

"Isn't it amazing that people in so many different countries agree with you? You sound exactly like all those U.S. and European Sandinista supporters in 1990 who were so sure Ortega was going to the win the Nicaraguan election. "

Those people tought the us had no busniness interfearing in Nicaraguan politics trough terrorism, and they were right, still, if you see what a mess nicaragua has become. it's not any worse criticising us-policy that criticising iraqi policy.

"Iraq has more anthrax to send and will soon have nuclear weapons. Saddam says he want to blow up a nuclear bomb in Tel Aviv, and that's probably not the only place he wants to blow one up. Just as dangerous is the suicide terrorist phenomenon, which is inspired by Saddam's defiance of the US. Trainees at Iraq's terrorist training camps are told that, for Saddam, the Gulf War never ended. Sixty Minutes will be broadcasting an interview this week with Yasin, one of the terrorists involved in the 1993 WTC bombing. He is living free as bird in Baghdad. That's reason enough to go to war right there. I would also demand that Iraq hand over the intelligence agent who talked to Atta in Prague and comply with all relevent UN Security Council resolutions. "

all of a sudden un-resolutions are important to you? iraq is complying to all un-resolutions and is ready to cooperate with th weapons-inspectors.
there is however no un-resolution that allows the us to determine who should be in power in Iraq.
iraq has never invaded the us, and has never committed a terrorist act in the us, all those BS about iraqi links of AQ are not even taken serious by the white house, only one fact remains, that the US has committed terrorist actions in iraq numerous times, NOT allowed by the un as during the gulf-war.
IF the US invades iraq another time, i hope iraq will hit back killing a lot of us-troops, the us has killed too much iraqi during 10 years, it can't go on unpunished. I have been in iraq and consider those people my friends, (not the regime) everyone hurting them in a terrible way as the us does deserves to be punished. And only the iraqi will decide if they will overtrow Saddam or not, it's none of your ******* business, stay out and take care of your own naition, than the terrorists will loose interest in you as well. (funny that they always target the us, not Europe, isn't it?)

"Diplomatic immunity would only protect him from Czech law. It wouldn't affect his status under American law. Even if there were no charges that would stick, I'd still put him in Guantanamo.
Diplomatic immunity isn't a license to kill. Diplomats accused of hit and run have been stripped of their diplomatic immunity, tried, and sent to prison."

OK, i hope we will remember that next time an israeli diplomat is caught for spying in France.

"Sorry, Kauffner, I am not against this - it's just that I found it ironic that a representative of any government would stoop to even meeting with the likes of Atta. "

elke, there is no proofe at all Atta ever met with iraqi officials, this seems to be another product of the lie-factory "let's nail Saddam"

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/atta_iraq020430.html

kauffner

06-02-2002, 09:39 PM

takeo: The Czechs have repeatedly confirmed that Atta did meet with Al-Ani. The source for your article is an anonymous American who quotes anonymous Czechs. This is two levels of indirection as is therefore not as trustworthy as an article that quotes named Czech officials directly, as this one does:

http://www.praguepost.com/P02/2002/20508/news3.php

It's no secret that there is a bureaucratic faction in Washington that is trying to prevent U.S. intervention in Iraq by issuing damaging leaks. But it is silly to take the word of some anonymous Washington bureaucrat on what the Czechs are saying when we can go to the Czechs directly.

Islamic terrorists do attack Europeans. Somebody in Pakistan killed 11 Frenchmen just recently. Al Qaeda tried to blow up Strassbourg Cathedral for Millenium New Year.

Saddam has a grudge against the U.S. because we drove him out of Kuwait in 1991. Do you think it would have been better if we had let the Iraqis stay? And what could the U.S. possibly do that would satisfy a man whose life for the last 11 years has centered on this grudge?

christian

06-03-2002, 01:08 AM

Takeo,
I don't think US, taking European views seriously. It is decided that US will attack iraq next year. A year before the presidential election, bush will get elected.

That is the scheme.

Worse, European give in.

elke

06-03-2002, 04:54 AM

all of a sudden un-resolutions are important to you? iraq is complying to all un-resolutions and is ready to cooperate with th weapons-inspectors.

What are you talking about? Iraq has been stalling for the past 4 years to let inspectors in. Saddam is "negotiating" with the UN lately, but for a long time he was dead-set against it.

As far as the meeting between Atta and the Iraqi diplomat, the jury is still out. Considering the fact that it happened in Chech Republic, isn't it reasonable to believe the Chechs rather than an "unnamed source"?

We know for a fact that Saddam invaded Kuwait. We know for a fact that he had a nuclear reactor in 1981. That makes it reasonable to assume that he is bad news and that he may be trying to get nuclear weapons. No one, including France, can afford to make a mistake with regard to Iraq, or to give them the benefit of the doubt, UN resolutions or no.

kauffner

06-03-2002, 04:54 AM

takeo: Knowing that you look forward to seeing Americans die certainly explains a lot. I guess that's why you don't want the U.S. to strike before Saddam's nuclear weapons are ready. Saddam starves Iraq's children to get international sympathy while pouring money into grandiose presidential palaces and weapons of mass destruction. But apparently you are willing to side with anyone who is killing Americans.

all of a sudden un-resolutions are important to you?
When were U.N. resolutions important to you, Mr. Shoot the Refugees? Aside from the resolutions and treaties protecting refugees, returning refugees to North Korea is illegal because the North Korean regime is not a lawful government according to U.N. General Assembly Resolution 195.

Without the cooperation of Pakistan, Iran (yes!!!) Uzbekistan, Tadzikistan, Turkey, etc. the US would have never managed to get rid of its former allies the taliban.
I don't know what Pakistan is supposed to have done for the U.S., except take our money. Oh, OK, they gave us overflight permission. But we going to fly over anyway, whether Pakistan liked it or not, so big whup. Musharraf was doing his best to keep the Taliban in power right up until the day Kabul was liberated.

Iran gave cash to Al Qaeda. U.S. troops found some at Tora Bora. They have also been backing former Prime Minister Hekmatyar and generally doing their best to make trouble.

As for the Trashcanistan states, they are clients of Russia.

the northern alliance (their official name is Islamic hesbollah!!!
I think you mean Jamiat-i-Islami, which was the largest faction of the Northern Alliance. Of course the Afghans have to live in Afghanistan, so they were not willing to sacrifice their country on the altar of anti-American emotionalism.

elke

06-03-2002, 08:35 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kauffner
Saddam starves Iraq's children to get international sympathy while pouring money into grandiose presidential palaces and weapons of mass destruction.

...And suicide murderers

But apparently you are willing to side with anyone who is killing Americans.

...And Israelis.

takeo

06-03-2002, 05:16 PM

"It's no secret that there is a bureaucratic faction in Washington that is trying to prevent U.S. intervention in Iraq by issuing damaging leaks. But it is silly to take the word of some anonymous Washington bureaucrat on what the Czechs are saying when we can go to the Czechs directly. "

the Czechs have retracted their statements:

"But Czech authorities have since retracted their statements to the U.S. government, saying that no such meetings took place. "
And president havel questioned the autencity of the statements

"Islamic terrorists do attack Europeans. Somebody in Pakistan killed 11 Frenchmen just recently. Al Qaeda tried to blow up Strassbourg Cathedral for Millenium New Year. "

OK, that's right, but it is primarily directed towards the US.

"Saddam has a grudge against the U.S. because we drove him out of Kuwait in 1991. Do you think it would have been better if we had let the Iraqis stay? And what could the U.S. possibly do that would satisfy a man whose life for the last 11 years has centered on this grudge?"

no of course not, but since iraq withdrew, the us had no more reason or legitimacy to attack iraq, impose no-fly zones etc. and also the embargo is only maintained because of political reasons.
the US could stop attacking Iraq, for a start, and accept an end to the murderous embargo, weapons inspectors have been in iraq for many years, but the us and GB (on the contrary to france, China and Russia) always refused to end the embargo. iraq only refused to cooperate any longer with the inspections after the us (and GB) attacked the country in 1998, an attack, as all attacks after 1991, condamned by the world community. Also Butler, the leader of the weapons inspections, confessed he leaked information to the mossad and the CIA.

"Worse, European give in."

France will certainly voice strong condamnation of any new unprovoked terrorist action against iraq, but will not take any serious action to assist iraq unfortunately.

"We know for a fact that Saddam invaded Kuwait. We know for a fact that he had a nuclear reactor in 1981. That makes it reasonable to assume that he is bad news and that he may be trying to get nuclear weapons. No one, including France, can afford to make a mistake with regard to Iraq, or to give them the benefit of the doubt, UN resolutions or no."

they gave israel the benefit of the doubt, didn't they? israel has certainly nuclear weapons, and as iraq is officially not allowed to do so by international non-proliferation agreements.
We should give anyone the benefit of the doubt, one can't condamn someone actually before he committed a crime. Iraq has no nuclear weapons and thus never used any.

"takeo: Knowing that you look forward to seeing Americans die certainly explains a lot. I guess that's why you don't want the U.S. to strike before Saddam's nuclear weapons are ready. Saddam starves Iraq's children to get international sympathy while pouring money into grandiose presidential palaces and weapons of mass destruction. But apparently you are willing to side with anyone who is killing Americans. "

saddam is not starving children, the embargo is, that was also the opinion of several un food-for-oil-programm directors who resigned exactly because of that reason. the us is even blocking importation of steel and other products which are necessary to build up the devastated country.
i am not willing to side with anyone killing americans, i ddn't side with Osama bin laden, because he was the aggressor, he attacked the us and the us responded to that, but iraq never attacked the us so any war against iraq that will certainly kill many more iraqi's is a crime that should have severe consequences for the us.
What you want is an aggression against iraq and other Arab and tirth world countries as soon as possible, that explains a lot too.

"I don't know what Pakistan is supposed to have done for the U.S., except take our money. Oh, OK, they gave us overflight permission. But we going to fly over anyway, whether Pakistan liked it or not, so big whup. Musharraf was doing his best to keep the Taliban in power right up until the day Kabul was liberated. "

that's right, but with help of the us, the us never demanded their pakistan allies any end to the support for the terror regime in afghanistan, untill the us was attacked themselves.
Al-quaida was very helpfull for the us in its struggle against soviet-influence in central Asia.
if pakistan would have refused cooperation with the us, the us plains would have been shot from the air, and al-qaida could have used pakistan as a secure hide-away without any us-troops searching for them.
in reality it means the us would not have been able to end the taliban-regime. Brutal force against nuclear power and 150 million-nation pakistan seems like a bad idea.

"Iran gave cash to Al Qaeda. U.S. troops found some at Tora Bora. They have also been backing former Prime Minister Hekmatyar and generally doing their best to make trouble.
"

Hekmatyar, for your information, was fighting the Taliban as well!!!
Iran was one of the greatest ennemies of the taliban and al-quaida, they gave money and weapons to the northern alliance, and at several moments iran and the taliban-regime were at the edge of fighting a war. iran also gave information about the taliban-movement to the us-intelligence and closed its borders for any fleeing taliban or al-quaida militias.
what did the us-troops found at tora-bora? i have never heard of it, and it would extremely surprise me.

"I think you mean Jamiat-i-Islami, which was the largest faction of the Northern Alliance. Of course the Afghans have to live in Afghanistan, so they were not willing to sacrifice their country on the altar of anti-American emotionalism."

they fought with the us because they share their hate of al-quaida and the taliban with the us, but they are certainly not pro-american. it undermines your position that the whole Islamic world supported Osama Bin Laden. i'm sure once al-quaida and taliban are totally defeated the afghan warlords will kick the us as well, as they did with the Russians before them.

"But apparently you are willing to side with anyone who is killing Americans.

...And Israelis."

i am willing to side with anyone who is under treat of foreign attack, iraq, palestine, Cuba, yougoslavia, Vietnam, Libia, eastern timor, etc.

i would defend israel if it would be invaded by arab countries with the aim of destroying israel, and i defended the us-war against al-quaida and the taliban, because it was legitimate self-defense, on the contrary to any action in iraq or the israeli occupation and etnic cleansing.
(if the us would abuse this war to stay in afghanistan and controll the country for decades to come, than i would change my support for the war in afghanistan of course)

kauffner

06-03-2002, 10:05 PM

"the Czechs have retracted their statements:"

This is only according to ABC's unnamed American source, who is clearly mistaken. Did you read the article I linked to earlier?

"but the us and GB (on the contrary to france, China and Russia) always refused to end the embargo."

I've never been a big fan of the economic sanctions myself. In my view, the U.S. should have blown the oil pipelines when Iraq expelled the U.N. inspectors in 1998. On September 12, the U.S. should told Iraq, "Give us Yasin, or we will declare war."

Iraq is the world's number three oil exporter. They'd have plenty of money for food if that is what they wanted to spend it on. They don't have to use the oil-for-food program at all. Before the Gulf War, Iraq was self-sufficient in food.

"if pakistan would have refused cooperation with the us, the us plains would have been shot from the air, and al-qaida could have used pakistan as a secure hide-away without any us-troops searching for them."

Pakistan vs. America -- That's a war that would be over with pretty quick. Al Qaeda did use Pakistan as a secure hide-away. If Pakistan wasn't such an "ally," U.S. troops could have pursued them into Pakistani terroritory.

Only after the Taliban and Al Qaeda were completely defeated in Afghanistan did Pakistan turn on them and conduct police raids in Pakistani cities. During the bombing campaign, they talked nice and continued to supply the Taliban. Now the Pakistanis are back at their old tricks again. They have pulled troops away from the Afghan border, using their problems with India as a pretext.

"Al-quaida was very helpfull for the us in its struggle against soviet-influence in central Asia."

Al Qaeda wasn't even created until after the collapse the Soviet Union. Bin Laden was just a bit player during the Soviet-Afghan War. He was the number two guy in an obscure support organization for Arab fighters in Peshewar.

"i am willing to side with anyone who is under treat of foreign attack, iraq, palestine, Cuba, yougoslavia, Vietnam, Libia, eastern timor, etc."

Don't let all those nice Iraqi friends of yours find out you support East Timor (or the Serbs, for that matter). Wouldn't want anything bad to happen to you when the Allah lovers take over.

When U.S. troops landed in Normandy, the local villagers were pro-Vichy and didn't much appreciate the arrival of GIs. But by the time the U.S. troops entered Paris, everyone in France was a resistance fighter. When U.S. forces enter Baghdad, there won't be any Saddam supporters.

gev

06-04-2002, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by takeo
"Well then you can understand the opinion of most Israelies, They think the occupation must end, but not at the price of letting a Terror palestinian state grow beside it.
Thats why, in the mean time, while there is no serious palestinian leadership, Terror must be fought with - and thats the recent Israeli operations. "

the problem with such logic is that it is a cycle without end, because the palestinians think that as long there isn't a palestinian state and a solution for the refugees, or at least serious neogciations about this, the war must go on.

I disagree, It's not an endless cycle. it started by Arafat and it can be stopped by Arafat or by another leader. Arafat needs the violence and that's why he started it and encouraged it in several occasions and so are other Terror groups by inciting for violence.

This is a process that feeds itself, evetually the majority beleives this is the way.

And israeli actions as in Jenin (which prooved to be quite useless if the aim was really eradicating terrorism) have only improoved Palestinian hate against israel.

Actually, before the operation many military personells and Sharon and Ben-Eliezer said it would not eradicate terrorism so I dont know where you are getting this information.
but it actually served its purposes, in march there were 100 israeli civilians killed by terror attack, almost every day there was a suicide attack, now the situation is much different.

I wonder, how can you explain the decline in terror attacks if the Israeli operation and the every-day operation in the West bank is not the cause for this decline of attacks?

As if the majority of palestinians want war, there will be war, Arafat or no Arafat.

you forgot something: if there wasnt Arafat the palestinians wouldnt want a war.

operations like these, unileteral withdrawl and fortifications of borders, will ensure the inability of terror groups to act, as it would lead to frustration of the palestinians of the war.

If the majority of palestinians believe in peace, and it is usefull too for Arafat (once he has his state he would be crazy to allow further attacks on israel)

again, you are applying European logic where there is no such logic. I beleived that too, a few years ago, But I dont understand how anyone can beleive that now. how can you explain that he supports the violence - the only thing that prevents the palestinian state from happening?

another theory is that the palestinians are desperate and poor and hungry and thats why they commit these terror attacks.
but actually this theory that many has conviced themselves as logic is actually not sit well in reality: many palestinian workeres who worked for an Israeli employer mudered their employer. the Israeli that actually provided them with the food on the table. the fundamentalism and the brain-wash is far greater in the palestinian terretories than some people would want to beleive.

"What we have seen in reports on palestinian TV is nothing compared to what is flowing daily from the Israeli Intelligence agencys to the Israeli and the American Government, and thats why you see people that you can't suspect them of wanting the continuation of the occupation think that the current incursions should continue: Shimon Peres, Ben Eliezer "

such actions will only further undermine any possible approach to peace. Since israel was determined to destroy the PA, terrorism against israel has grown rapidly and the PA itself became more radical. The PA may not be ideal and the best one possible, but it is with this PA that israel eventually will have to negociate, this is also the position of the EU and the US.

the PA was radical already, only it wasnt shown to the world, when the PA is planning and producing a large armed struggle against Israel in the middle of the Tabba talks, which the negociators themselves says it is progressing - would you call it moderate?

i tought the attacks on civilians in the Westbank were committed by al-aqsa, which has not been prooven a part of Fatah. (maybe some fatah people are involved, but it is clearly not a group supported by the PA).

you are mistaken. The Fatah-Tanzim (which is part of the Fatah and led by Marwan barguthi) is the one carrying the attacks against soldiers and settlements. see Marwan barguthi statements and others about killing settlements and soldeirs, and recently about killing israelies inside Israel, you will be enlightened.

the Al-Aqsa martyrs brigades (part of the Fatah) are resposible for many suicide attacks inside Israel, those same brigades who are praised as heroes in the palestinian TV.

There are documents proving that the Al-Aqsa martyrs are a part of the Fatah. and in the talks about joining all the "security" organization of the Fatah, the Al-Aqsa brigade is also mentioned as a group inside the Fatah by the fatah itself.

Anyway the question wether or not colonisers should be attacked is not very clear.

on the other hand, the EU agrees that Israel should not attack terrorists, is this a balanced opinion? Who is worse, the one killing an innocent civilian or the one building a house next to his?

my moral opinion is that you can shoot armed colonisers or colonisers who are part of a militia, which makes them part of the occupying force, but not their wifes and kids of course.

the Israeli military in the west bank is far from being an occupation force, it is a defensive force, it defends the settlers until there is a final arrangement about them. and it defend Israel by stopping terrorists that try to attack israelies.

by the way barghouti is very popular among palestinians, he will probably be the sucessor of Arafat if there are free elections.

I hope this will not be the case. for their sake and owers.

"Faluji says it was planned after Arafat returned from the Camp David talks. let me remind you that there were Tabah talks as well, and the palestinians themselves said that there was progress in those talks. But, in the mean time, they were already planning the Intifidah, and not just throwing stones, Faluji is speciffically talking about armed attacks."

Maybe so, but the intifadeh only became as violent and blind as it is today after heavy repression by israel of protesters trowing stones and after israel started to destroy the pa buildings.

first of all, a rain of stones can kill, and the protestors were with molotov bottles also.
think of what will happen with your own police:
what if you would do gather a group of people, take stones, iron bars and molotov bottles and run towards a group of cops while throwing stones, waving the bars and throwing the bottles, and shouting "allah wackbar". I dont think any of them will stay alive after that.

second of all, Faluji said that it was planed that way, and that the PA will escalate the situation, so Israel is actually prevented the some successes of attacks.

takeo

06-04-2002, 06:43 PM

"This is only according to ABC's unnamed American source, who is clearly mistaken. Did you read the article I linked to earlier? "

no, it's according to the czech officials themselves.

"Iraq is the world's number three oil exporter. They'd have plenty of money for food if that is what they wanted to spend it on. They don't have to use the oil-for-food program at all. Before the Gulf War, Iraq was self-sufficient in food. "

yes, but the problem is the us prohibits the importation of materials important to build the economy or even rebuild the irrigation-system for agriculture.

"Pakistan vs. America -- That's a war that would be over with pretty quick. Al Qaeda did use Pakistan as a secure hide-away. If Pakistan wasn't such an "ally," U.S. troops could have pursued them into Pakistani terroritory. "

i'm not so sure, the us couldn't even win a smooth victory against some bunch of cavemen in afghanistan or the vietnamese, invading pakistan, with a militant population and nuclear weapons which they will certainly use against the us on the case of an attack, would cause great problems for the us. Of course the us would win, but at what cost? us-troops could persue al-quaida members in the mountains of north-western pakistan.

"Don't let all those nice Iraqi friends of yours find out you support East Timor (or the Serbs, for that matter). Wouldn't want anything bad to happen to you when the Allah lovers take over. "

actually iraq and milosevic-yougoslavia had cooperation-agreements, and exchanged information over what kind of bombs the us used, etc.. iraqi's don't know anything about indonesia.
iraqi are no extremist people,but they would certainly not accept american rule, a military victory could be achieved, but iraqi would fight the us-troops in guerilla war-fare and the streets of bagdad. you can be sure that suicide-bombs will become fashionable in the streets of bagdad;
Your comparison with France is ridiculous, 90% of the French or even more were very happy that the nazi-occupation ended. 100000's of france risked their life in the resistance, much more french than americans died in fighting the nazi's. And how could local villagers in normandy be pro-vichy, normandy was under direct occupation of the germans, while the puppet vichy-regime was only established in the south of France.

takeo

06-04-2002, 07:06 PM

"I disagree, It's not an endless cycle. it started by Arafat and it can be stopped by Arafat or by another leader. Arafat needs the violence and that's why he started it and encouraged it in several occasions and so are other Terror groups by inciting for violence.

This is a process that feeds itself, evetually the majority beleives this is the way. "

arafat doesn't need violence, on the contrary, the intifadeh made his position worse, but he can not accept an unjust peace.
if israel would offer to comply to the un-resolutions, palestinians would stop their war almost immediately.

"Actually, before the operation many military personells and Sharon and Ben-Eliezer said it would not eradicate terrorism so I dont know where you are getting this information.
but it actually served its purposes, in march there were 100 israeli civilians killed by terror attack, almost every day there was a suicide attack, now the situation is much different. "

really? there is still much more terror than before sharon came to power.

"I wonder, how can you explain the decline in terror attacks if the Israeli operation and the every-day operation in the West bank is not the cause for this decline of attacks? "

it was just a temporary decline, last weeks there are again almost daily attacks, as before the operation.

"you forgot something: if there wasnt Arafat the palestinians wouldnt want a war. "

they would, the first and second intifadeh initiated on the ground, the pa only joined what already existed. Palestinians think by the way Arafat is too soft on the israeli.

"again, you are applying European logic where there is no such logic. I beleived that too, a few years ago, But I dont understand how anyone can beleive that now. how can you explain that he supports the violence - the only thing that prevents the palestinian state from happening? "

it's not the only thing, before the first intifadeh israel was not even willing to talk with the pals. in 2000 israel was still not prepared to talk about a real independant palestinian state (with own borders and aircontroll) and the refugees.

"another theory is that the palestinians are desperate and poor and hungry and thats why they commit these terror attacks.
but actually this theory that many has conviced themselves as logic is actually not sit well in reality: many palestinian workeres who worked for an Israeli employer mudered their employer. the Israeli that actually provided them with the food on the table. the fundamentalism and the brain-wash is far greater in the palestinian terretories than some people would want to beleive. "

it's no only their bad material position, it's also the many provocations they have faced and the tragic history of their family and their country.

"the PA was radical already, only it wasnt shown to the world, when the PA is planning and producing a large armed struggle against Israel in the middle of the Tabba talks, which the negociators themselves says it is progressing - would you call it moderate? "

yes, sometimes a war is necessary to stop unjustice.
they are moderate because they recognise israel and want to live in peace in the region, unlike hamas or jihad.

"you are mistaken. The Fatah-Tanzim (which is part of the Fatah and led by Marwan barguthi) is the one carrying the attacks against soldiers and settlements. see Marwan barguthi statements and others about killing settlements and soldeirs, and recently about killing israelies inside Israel, you will be enlightened. "

yes, about attacks against soldiers and colonisers, but such attacks are legitimate according to to the geneva-conventions, it is part of the legitimate self-defense against occupation.
i don't think he ever supported killing israeli civilians in israel.

"the Al-Aqsa martyrs brigades (part of the Fatah) are resposible for many suicide attacks inside Israel, those same brigades who are praised as heroes in the palestinian TV. "

i don't think al-aqsa is part of al-fatah, there is no evidence for that, and all responsibles deny it.

"There are documents proving that the Al-Aqsa martyrs are a part of the Fatah. and in the talks about joining all the "security" organization of the Fatah, the Al-Aqsa brigade is also mentioned as a group inside the Fatah by the fatah itself. "

which documents?
where??

"n the other hand, the EU agrees that Israel should not attack terrorists, is this a balanced opinion? Who is worse, the one killing an innocent civilian or the one building a house next to his? "

the eu said israel could not make those incursions, because it would make too much civilian victims, and because they prefere peace-talks instead of escalation. also israel is not even allowed to be in the WB.

"he Israeli military in the west bank is far from being an occupation force, it is a defensive force, it defends the settlers until there is a final arrangement about them. and it defend Israel by stopping terrorists that try to attack israelies. "

LOL, the settlements are an indication on themselves that israel is not only in the westbank and Gaza for self-defense.
israel is an occupation force according to the geneva-conventions and un-resolutions.
israeli soldiers could do a better job defending israel instead of those colonies.

"irst of all, a rain of stones can kill, and the protestors were with molotov bottles also. "

that's still no reason to kill them, there are other methods available.

"hink of what will happen with your own police:
what if you would do gather a group of people, take stones, iron bars and molotov bottles and run towards a group of cops while throwing stones, waving the bars and throwing the bottles, and shouting "allah wackbar". I dont think any of them will stay alive after that. "

it all happened in france, for example during those anti-globalisation protests or during peasants manifestations, nobody got shot.

kauffner

06-06-2002, 04:19 AM

takeo: I think you have a very propagandistic view of what happened in France during WWII. Of course, nobody liked living under German occupation. But Vichy wasn't something imposed on France by Germany. The French people blamed the defeat of 1940 on the left and the Vichy government reflected the widespread desire to return to old-fashion values and "moral order." "Better Hitler than [Socialist leader] Blum," was a common slogan. There were many enthusiastic pro-Vichy demonstrations at that time and anti-British and anti-American views were widespread. The French fleet in Toulan had the opportunity to join the British or the Free French, but instead sank itself.

Many saw the Germans as protecting France from the menace of communist Russia. Petain was revered for his role as a WWI hero. Laval had been premier three times in the 1930s and was once named Man of the Year by Time magazine. These were respected figures who were concerned about their place in history. They wouldn't have done what they did if they hadn't believed in it. Although based on the faulty assumption that German victory was inevitable, their actions were otherwise sensible enough.

Vichy wasn't only in the south. Even in the areas under German occupation, Vichy ran the education system, civil service, and so forth. From 1942 to 1944, all of France was under German occupation and there was no North/South division.

As far as suicide terrorism goes, I find your blood-thirsty fantasies unrealistic. The kamikazes were a big problem in the Pacific in last few months of the war. But such suicide attacks were rare after Japan surrendered. Saddam is already throwing everything he has at Israel and the U.S. After Baghdad is liberated and the Islamofascist cause clearly defeated, the fanaticism that drives suicide terrorism will dissappear.

rgonce

06-06-2002, 05:28 AM

Jordan and Israel have a treaty agreement to develop the potential of the Dead Sea valley.

Such development could be tied to providing economic opportunity for settlement of Palestinians in the Arabah.

The Ezekiel Project outlines the possibilities. Anyone interested please contact me and I will give the details by personal email.

takeo

06-06-2002, 04:08 PM

"The French people blamed the defeat of 1940 on the left and the Vichy government reflected the widespread desire to return to old-fashion values and "moral order." "Better Hitler than [Socialist leader] Blum," was a common slogan. There were many enthusiastic pro-Vichy demonstrations at that time and anti-British and anti-American views were widespread. The French fleet in Toulan had the opportunity to join the British or the Free French, but instead sank itself. "

What you describe as "the French people" were just supporters of petain, a right-wing minority of French, who of course hated the germans even before the invasion. Remember that before WWII a Popular Front raised to power, with parties as the PCF included, very much hated by petain and his followers.
But not all rightwing people supported petain (who was indeed a hero of WWI but considered a traitor in WWII), many people of the former rightw-ing parties joined the resistance, while many 10000's of communists (more than 25% of the votes before the war) were executed by the germans and their friends.

"As far as suicide terrorism goes, I find your blood-thirsty fantasies unrealistic. The kamikazes were a big problem in the Pacific in last few months of the war. But such suicide attacks were rare after Japan surrendered. Saddam is already throwing everything he has at Israel and the U.S. After Baghdad is liberated and the Islamofascist cause clearly defeated, the fanaticism that drives suicide terrorism will dissappear."

Saddam is not doing anything to the us or israel, except attacking us-planes invading iraqi airspace. But i'm sure he will take the most radical actions when his power would be endangered. Also iraqi's, who hate the us and will never feel as being liberated by the US, will not easily accept a US-occupation.
if the us wants to keep its influence in iraq it will have to put in power an autocratic regime (elections would certainly favor the most radical anti-american) and keep troops in place to support that regime, and those troops will be permanent targets of violence;
the parallel with Japan is wrong, because the emperor himself stayed in power and asked the japanese to surrender, moreover, the us soon made japan a powerfull independant country again and most japanese came to respect the us. There is nobody however in iraq, as there was in afghanistan, with a lot of influence and popularity, who will support the us.
iraqi, who hate the us because of what happened the last 10 years, and, as all Arabs, because of its support for israel, will react different, not to mention the danger such actions could mean for autocratic states in egypt or jordan, where the population is pro-saddam and very much anti-us. the us would also have a hard time attacking iraq if no single neighbouring state would be ready to cooperate. (all Arab states, including kouweit, and iran have declared they will resist any new american aggression against iraq)