 |
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Defiant
"In this assasination, they should've waited."
Eli, that is all I wanted to hear, you are right, they should have waited, and if your public is smart enough and also didn't like the children dying and speak up a little, your gov't will probably avoid it next time. Thank you. |
Dont worry. After assasinations with civilian casualties the main issue on the media for two days is "how this could happen?" and "what lessons will be learned?".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lightblue
|
|
L'Boro, UK
Oct 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
I don't think there was a reasonable alternative to what Israel did. It would have been impossible to sneak in an Israeli good enough to pass as a Palestinian, have him kill a guy without being detected, and leave; using a Palestinian agent would have endangered his family. |
I don't know how feasible this is, but couldn't they have used a sniper in hovering helicopter. I suppose it is probably quite hard what with the turbulence and stuff. I also wonder if the rocket was explosive, or if it was the fuel tank or the explosives in the back seat that ended up killing the kids. If the rocket was explosive you wonder if they couldn't have used the machinegun mounted at the front of the Cobras?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Defiant
Natan,
In some cases you are correct but the Israelis or "Massad", Eli correct me if I am using the wrong term, knew he was in the car, somebody was on the ground there that knew what the hell was going on, and they do it all the time over there. Israelis go back and forth between Israel and Palistine holding almost at will.
|
Israel has 20,000 Palestinian cooperators who supply real time information. This is how all the assasinations succeed. AFAIK the info these cooperators give even goes to the details of how many people are sitting in a car in a given moment.
In this case, either such info was unavailable, or they had a good reason to shoot, or the one sitting in the Helicopter made a mistake.
The rockets are guided, as Natan said. Israel gets all the **** when civilians get hurt so they put a lot of importance to direct hits.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lightblue
I don't know how feasible this is, but couldn't they have used a sniper in hovering helicopter. I suppose it is probably quite hard what with the turbulence and stuff. I also wonder if the rocket was explosive, or if it was the fuel tank or the explosives in the back seat that ended up killing the kids. If the rocket was explosive you wonder if they couldn't have used the machinegun mounted at the front of the Cobras? |
IIRC the helicopter is so far away from the scene that it cant be seen or heard. I know of one event when some "militant" heard a helicopter so he jumped out of his car and grabbed two kids who were nearby knowing that if he is the target they will save his life.
Anyway, for a sniper to shoot you need the Helo to be close, and this will cause them to run before you can shoot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jules
|
 |
Chairman & CEO, Dallas Oil Company
Jul 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
It's been my experience in the 4 months I've been here that many Apolytoners seem to wretch anytime I mention Lyndon LaRouche (perhaps I'm too young to understand why he's hated so much in the U.S.), but I post this anyway with the hope that someone will be persuaded by it and recognize the potentially fatal path currently being taken by Sharon and his collaborators.
Bush Cannot Make Excuses For Sharon's Suicidal War
by Michele Steinberg
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Democratic Presidential pre-candidate for 2004, is warning that the Bush Administration must not make any excuses for what Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is doing in the Dec. 2-8 attacks on Palestinians. "Sharon and the IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] are determined to kill Arafat and to destroy the Palestinian Authority. We will not tolerate this," said LaRouche.
On Dec. 7, LaRouche further asserted that the present government in Israel represents currents inside Israel and abroad that must be judged as clinically insane. Even after the intervention by the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin—who warned that unless there was a fundamental change in Israeli policy, the nation would soon cease to exist—those same suicidal policies were continued, and were, in fact, the driving factor behind Rabin's assassination. LaRouche emphasized that a government that pursues suicidal policies cannot be treated as sane. If Israel persists in its current policies, somewhere down the line, the result will be the destruction of Israel, and its vilification as a Hitler-like state.
LaRouche demanded the Bush Administration tell Sharon: Stop this Nazi-like policy toward the Palestinians, or the United States will come at you full force and crush you; such unequivocal action could stop Sharon's madness.
Killing The Palestinian Negotiators
At about 3:30 a.m. on Dec. 7, in defiance of appeals from Pope John Paul II and other leaders in the world community, Prime Minister Sharon escalated his attacks on the Palestinian Authority, ordering Israeli F-16s to bomb the police station and police academy of the Palestinian National Authority in the Gaza Strip. At the same time, in a show of Hitler-style insanity, Sharon demanded the same Palestinian police crack down on terrorism, while he is bombing their headquarters, stations, and prisons.
The new attacks came on Pearl Harbor day, just hours after Sharon's government had told U.S. envoy Gen. Anthony Zinni (ret.) that Israeli security officials would meet with their Palestinian security counterparts to begin discussing how to end the violence. The deceit is an exact replica of Sharon's behavior, then as Defense Minister, in Lebanon in 1982. The Israeli Prime Minister not only is pursuing an agenda for war: He also has a clear ulterior purpose in mind—a continuing vendetta to kill Palestinian National Authority President Yasser Arafat, which dates back 20 years.
LaRouche emphasized that the Bush Administration and other leaders in the United States must have the courage to tell the truth, despite the U.S. mid-term elections next November and all the pressures from the right-wing Zionist lobby that go with them.
Sharon's actions, LaRouche said, are creating a Thirty Years War-type of situation, and the administration must not make apologies for Sharon and his IDF murder machine. The Israelis are bombing their own occupied population and carrying out systematic, pre-meditated assassination campaigns among them, and are violating every international resolution passed by the United Nations regarding Israel.
The Israeli people and institutions themselves must be told, said LaRouche, that "these madmen," Sharon and fellow Likud party leader, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, are leading them and the nation of Israel to destruction. LaRouche compared the situation to that of Count Wallenstein in the middle of the Thirty Years War (1618-48), as described by the great poet Friedrich Schiller in his play of that name. Wallenstein, commander of Imperial ("Catholic") forces, was assassinated for his "unauthorized" search for peace with the Protestant alliance—guaranteeing nearly two decades more of war, and the absolute devastation of much of Europe.
LaRouche referred to the importance of the treaty that did end that war. "The Peace of Westphalia policy is what must be applied, now," LaRouche said. "It is the only policy which can rescue the situation."
Sharon 'Alliance With Hamas' Exposed
Inside Israel itself, evidence of opposition to Sharon's actions is showing up in the press. In fact, some are exposing that Sharon has a secret deal with Hamas, reporting that a stormy Cabinet meeting followed Sharon's return from the United States after meeting with President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. In the Cabinet session, members of Sharon's inner circle were pounding the table and telling Foreign Minister Shimon Peres that they intend to bring the deadly Hamas group that claimed credit for the suicide terrorist acts, into power to replace Arafat. At that point, led by Peres, Labor Party members of the governing coalition walked out of the meeting, and are now debating whether to bring down the Sharon government.
This Faustian pact with Hamas was detailed in a Dec. 4 Ha'aretz article by senior commentator Akiva Eldar, who revealed that at a Cabinet meeting, Minister Silvan Shalom blasted Peres for advocating "negotiations" with Arafat. Shalom stated, "Between Hamas and Arafat, I prefer Hamas," adding that Arafat is a "terrorist in a diplomat's suit, while Hamas can be hit unmercifully ... there won't be any international protests." The London Times, owned by Rupert Murdoch, one of Sharon's biggest backers, also reported that Sharon's Cabinet wants Hamas to replace Arafat.
Those familiar with the 30-years-long mode of operation of Israel's "Terror Against Terror" hit teams, dismiss the standard "preventive retaliation" explanation as calculated double-talk: The assassinations are pre-calculated to provoke revenge strikes from Hamas or other terrorists, which in turn unleash the IDF generals.
Bully The White House
These events in the Middle East should shock no one who has heard LaRouche's warnings that the region was being used to ignite a global religious war, by forces in the United States and Britain seeking such a "clash of civilizations." The World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks had this purpose, and were an attempted coup d'état against President Bush. But already on July 20, LaRouche warned that the "Guns of August" were being readied, and that a faction inside the IDF command even more rabid than Sharon, might consider assassinating him, to blame Palestinians and justify launching a general Mideast war. Then on Oct. 21, LaRouche identified how the phony terrorism is used in detail. "Who benefitted from the assassination of [Tourism Minister Rehavam] Ze'evi?" wrote LaRouche. "None other than that section of the Israeli military command which is determined to bully the Bush administration into allowing, or even conducting full-scale attacks on Syria and Iraq."
And "bully the Administration" is what Sharon is doing, using the assets in Congress of the "billionaires club" of Jewish donors who call themselves "Mega."
Sharon claimed he got a "green light" from Bush to give Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. "the Taliban treatment." But Israeli sources expose this as a lie. On Dec. 5, Ha'aretz coorespondent Zev Schiff wrote that, in their meeting, Bush laid out a series of "red lines"—not "green lights"—to Sharon, warning him not to harm Arafat, nor topple the PA, which is the U.S.-recognized partner in the peace negotiations. Sharon is ignoring Bush and counting on Mega's politicial clout.
To further the Sharon/Mega aims, a resolution sponsored by Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) and Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), two of Sharon's biggest backers, was rammed through the House of Representatives by a vote of 384-11, to pressure Bush to crush Arafat in the name of a "war on terrorism." At the same time, ten members of Congress, including Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.), Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) sent a letter to Bush, demanding Iraq be made the next war target in the "war on terrorism."
Despite the broad margin, however, there is some clear-minded opposition, reflected in the warning by Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), that this resolution pushes a policy for Israel and the United States that leads to world war.
----------------
And for those of you who made it this far, my tribute to Stefu.
Looks like all those people who were turned into Scotsmen by the alien blancmanges in Monty Python's "science fiction sketch" episode. 
Thanks, Stefu. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Goingonit
|
 |
Toronto, Canada - AECCP member
Apr 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
To accept that article, we have to accept the following:
1. Sharon likes killing Palestinians
2. The Palestinians are peaceloving folk who would happily accept any compromise to end the violence perpetrated against their people
3. Bush loves seeing Sharon kill people, just because.
4. Sharon is Hitler
Now, as for the causes of Rabin's assasination? Extremists. They were on the opposite side of the Palestinian terrorists, but extremists nonetheless.
The Sharon quote about Hamas does not expose any secret alliance - it is saying that while Arafat is a terrorist has assumed a different form, more pleasing to the eye. It is harder to demonstrate to people like Jules here that Arafat is a terrorist, whereas if someone who spoke what Arafat thinks, i.e. Hamas, would show these people's true form.
It is worth noting that the PLO shares offices with Hamas. They must have some sort of working coalition. I mean, would the Democras and the Republicans share office space? Would Mr. LaRouche share office space with Al Gore? You need to be on pretty informal and friendly terms to enter into such an agreement.
Also worth noting is a quote that best demonstrates Arafat's willingness to negotiate:
"That is not the Western Wall at all, but a Moslem shrine."
Yasser Arafat, Ma'ariv, October 11, 1996.
Imagine if Ariel Sharon said, "You know that Qabah over there in Meccah? That's actually a synagogue". There'd be a war! But Arafat and his officials say things tantamount to that every day!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
 |
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
I have don't have time right now to stick around, but I had to post this editorial from the washington post. It basically reiterates the same point I have made repeatedly on these ME thread during the last months: Sharon is not interested in peace, and has never been. Sharon and Hamas are two sides of the same coin.
Though they may be sworn enemies, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the Hamas terrorist movement have spent the past week engaged in the same exercise -- trying to push Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority over the precipice on which it teeters, without being blamed for the subsequent crash.
Even as it shreds Arafat's international standing with a steady stream of suicide bombs, Hamas protests that its real goal is to defend the Palestinian president against Israel. And even while he bombs Arafat's offices and security headquarters, Sharon insists that he's only trying to inspire his old enemy to take on the terrorists -- whose quarters Israel has left untouched the past seven days.
It's not that either Sharon or Hamas worries about a pro-Arafat backlash -- the old man has lost his last defenders both at home and abroad. But neither wants its fingerprints on the most likely consequence of the chairman's downfall -- the final destruction of the Oslo peace process, that vision of a peaceful negotiated settlement between Israel and a new Palestinian state that is still supported, in theory, by the overwhelming majority of both peoples.
The hawks in Israel and Washington who have been demanding Arafat's ouster usually fail to offer any idea of what would happen afterward. But both Hamas and Sharon have a post-Arafat plan -- one that starts by turning the clock back a decade, before Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization agreed to recognize each other at Oslo. Hamas's idea is to drive Israel from the West Bank and Gaza with suicide bombings, then, after consolidating an Islamic Palestinian regime, mount a war to liquidate Israel altogether. Sharon and those who egg him on want to lead Israelis into a new era of bloody struggle that will consolidate their control over far larger stretches of territory than could ever be obtained in a negotiated deal. If only his people will commit themselves to a few years of old-fashioned Zionist sacrifice, Sharon figures, the next Israeli generation could settle with the Palestinians from a new position of strength.
These are dangerous dreams, and most Israelis and Palestinians know it. So Sharon and Hamas don't talk about them much -- instead, they peddle the short-term goals they know will sell to their audiences at home and abroad. Hamas says it is merely resisting Israel's oppressive occupation of Palestinian territory and avenging its assassination of Palestinian militants -- a position that has won it increasing popularity among both average West Bankers and the al-Jazeera television audience around the region. Sharon, of course, insists that he is merely fighting terrorism, just like the United States in Afghanistan -- never mind that the Bush administration has no plan to settle and annex Afghan territory.
For most of the 1990s, these pitches never worked -- Israelis and Palestinians accepted that their only genuine out lay in a negotiated settlement. They knew it because decades of terrorism and retaliatory violence, and 26 years of full Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, had proven that neither side could ever hope to obtain its maximalist goals. The terrible achievement of Arafat is that in a mere 14 months he has gone from the brink of ending the occupation and its violence to convincing both sides that it is, at least for now, the only choice -- and thereby allowed the maximalist agendas to rise from the dead.
There may be no way to save him and his tattered administration now. Arafat is no more capable of moving decisively against Hamas than he was able to accept the extraordinary peace settlement he could have signed just over a year ago. To do either would require making the kind of irrevocable choice that he has evaded all his life. The best that might be expected are enough half-measures to hold back Hamas -- and Sharon -- and return the situation to a U.S.-sponsored stalemate. The stalemate is terrible, but it has two advantages: It prevents Palestinian extremists from taking power and Israel from fully reoccupying the territories; and it preserves the cadre of Palestinian peacemakers who still cluster around Arafat, desperately hoping to somehow, someday steer their people back to the Oslo deal.
These are sophisticated, passionate civilian politicians who represent the Palestinians' would-be modernizing elite: people such as Nabil Shaath and Saeb Erekat, Sari Nusseibeh and Yasser Abed Rabbo. As a group, they are probably the smartest, most worldly and most pro-Western political elite in the Middle East -- and, ironically, the one with the best chance of creating a genuine Arab democracy some day. History has stuck them with Arafat; they roll their eyes over his frequent flights of fantasy, tear their hair at his inability to lead, but fear for his life. Sharon would have you believe that they would step in if Arafat fell, but they feel differently: His collapse now, they say, would touch off bitter power struggles that -- thanks to the 700 Palestinian deaths during the past year and Israel's relentless military pressure -- the extremists would most likely win.
Far better for the Palestinians that Arafat go quietly, after a period of U.S.-supervised stalemate and reduced tensions, and in a way that preserves the Palestinian Authority and its political class. There would still be turmoil, but chances would be greater that a new leadership would emerge that would embrace the tough choices Arafat has been unable to make. Such an outcome, of course, would mean oblivion for Sharon and for Hamas. That is why they both would like to push Arafat over the brink now, so that he takes the peacemakers with him. Sharon and the terrorists share a secret dream: to clear the field for each other.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
And pretty much the same thing, this time by another guy in the Boston Globe.
By H.D.S. Greenway, Globe Correspondent, 12/10/2001
HE HIDEOUS HAMAS terror that was visited upon Israel earlier this month has caused not only Israel and the United States to lose patience with Yasser Arafat, but also Egypt, Jordan, and Israel's sworn enemy, Saudi Arabia. No national aspirations on the part of the Palestinians can excuse these deeds, and every government's first priority is the protection of its citizens. For Israel, keeping Jews out of harm's way was the raison d'etre for a Jewish state in the first place.
There is a profound split in Israel, however, on what should be done. Many of the people around Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and the Labor Party would like to see Israel and the Palestinian Authority back at the negotiating table in order to resume the talks that ended in Taba in January 2001 - talks that came within a hair's breadth of a mutually agreed-upon peace. But many of the people around Sharon and the Likud Party have a different agenda.
The present government would be willing to see a Palestinian state, which is a big change for the Likud Party, coming as it does from Vladimir Jabotinsky's revisionist branch of Zionism that originally saw Israel absorbing not only the West Bank but all of what is now Jordan as well. You seldom see anymore the old Israeli propaganda to delegitimize the Palestinians and their claim to the occupied territories.
But many in Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's camp believe that the Oslo process, with which Peres is so closely identified, was a mistake; that the Palestinians have not really accepted Israel's legitimacy; that Arafat's recognition of Israel's right to exist during the Yitzhak Rabin years was a fraud; and that the best solution would be to continue the occupation - even for another couple of generations if necessary - until the Palestinians can be bent to Israel's will and accept Israel's terms.
If Palestinians don't like it, they can leave, according to this school of thought. After all, until he was assassinated, Rehavam Zeevi, a minister in Sharon's Cabinet, held the public position that all Arabs should be ethnically cleansed from the land.
When Sharon says that ''Arafat is guilty of everything that is happening here''and that ''Arafat is the greatest obstacle to peace and stability in the Middle East,'' he is speaking of his version of peace. It was Hamas that sent the suicide bombers, but it is Arafat, not Hamas, that stands in the way of Sharon's world view. For only Arafat has the international standing and command of what is left of the Palestinian peace camp to stand as a negotiating partner. That helps explain why Sharon has been undermining the Palestinian Authority ever since he came to power.
Get rid of Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, the reasoning goes, and you get rid of what is left of the dangerous Oslo process. If you believe that no Palestinian wants to live in peace with Israel ever, then it is better to face an enemy that everyone can recognize as an enemy rather than deal with a deceiver. The only thing Arabs understand is force, this line of reasoning contends, and Americans are not going to pressure Israel to make peace with Hamas.
In this Sharon and Hamas reinforce each other's philosophies. The Hamas bombings were timed to stop any cease-fire attempts that Arafat might be making in the wake of the Sept. 11 events, and it is no coincidence that the attacks came while Bush's special envoy, Gen. Anthony Zinni, was still unpacking.
The United States sees a clear interest in bringing the morally bankrupt and geopolitically explosive Israeli occupation to an end, but as former Middle East negotiator, Dennis Ross, has said: ''Half measures, Mr. Arafat's stock in trade, will no longer work. America's capacity to influence the Sharon government, much less restrain it, will disappear if there is not an unmistakable decision on Mr. Arafat's part to declare war on Hamas and Islamic Jihad.''
It remains unclear at this writing if Arafat will succeed in his crackdown on Palestinian extremists. His popularity has declined as Hamas's has risen. The Palestinian Authority's corruption and fickleness has made it unpopular, and, as in Israel, the peace camp is being discredited as the second intifada wears on and the number of Palestinian dead mounts. And Israel has offered no carrots; only sticks. But no matter what he does, Arafat is unlikely to get a passing grade from Sharon.
Whatever his weaknesses, however, one shouldn't overlook the fact that Arafat's struggle has been to achieve an independent secular state, not an Islamic theocracy. No matter what their failings, his followers will be more willing to live side by side with Israel than the alternatives: Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Once the secular political struggle gives way to an ethnic and religious struggle, as is happening before our eyes, then the ramifications become truly frightening for the entire Middle East.
There is now a ''total loss of mutual trust between the parties'' and a ''total incapacity to make even the smallest step toward each other, let alone to observe their commitments,'' argues Shlomo Ben-Ami, the former Israeli foreign minister. Writing in the Financial Times, Ben-Ami calls for an ''international alliance for peace ... that will include the European Union, Russia and key Arab States'' under ''American assertive leadership,'' leading to an international conference to supervise negotiations on a final agreement.
Ben-Ami argues that the time has come for ''a multinational peace keeping force'' to ''supervise a disengagement'' leading to the establishment of a multinational protective rule over the territories" as a stage on the way to a comprehensive settlement.
Ben-Ami is not the first to suggest that the Arab-Israeli war has gotten too dangerous to be left to the combatants.
What are the odds that the US will realize they are giving a carte blanche to a homocidial warcriminal? Slim to none... But at least we try to wake people up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
Are you referring to this:
quote:
To accept that article, we have to accept the following:
1. Sharon likes killing Palestinians
2. The Palestinians are peaceloving folk who would happily accept any compromise to end the violence perpetrated against their people
3. Bush loves seeing Sharon kill people, just because.
4. Sharon is Hitler
|
1. Eloquently refuted in both editorials. It has nothing to do with 'liking'. It is a tool to a political goal, the 'Grosse-Israel', if you will.
2. They just want their land back. Barring that, they want a fair deal.
3. Bush is a stupid and cowardly man. As many an american politician, he is under the influence of the very powerful jewish lobby, who contributes plenty of money to campaigns, not to mention spends equally much on PR.
4. Well, I'd say he is the equivalent to a 1936 Hitler. Hitler before he went insane, the Hitler who used ethnic hatred as a political tool. The Hitler who had no intention of stopping without outside pressure... The Hitler who made the name 'Chamberlain' ridiculed because he didn't have the courage to stand up to evil.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
What else was in there?
quote:
The Sharon quote about Hamas does not expose any secret alliance - it is saying that while Arafat is a terrorist has assumed a different form, more pleasing to the eye. It is harder to demonstrate to people like Jules here that Arafat is a terrorist, whereas if someone who spoke what Arafat thinks, i.e. Hamas, would show these people's true form. |
Unfortunately doesn;t reality agree with your assumptions. Arafat staked his political future on negotiations with Israel leading to peace. Why do you think he is under threat of being toppled right now? If he wanted to curry favor with the palestinian populace he would take the Sharon/Hamas approach right now...
quote:
It is worth noting that the PLO shares offices with Hamas. They must have some sort of working coalition. I mean, would the Democras and the Republicans share office space? Would Mr. LaRouche share office space with Al Gore? You need to be on pretty informal and friendly terms to enter into such an agreement. |
Share office? Source?
quote:
Also worth noting is a quote that best demonstrates Arafat's willingness to negotiate:
"That is not the Western Wall at all, but a Moslem shrine."
Yasser Arafat, Ma'ariv, October 11, 1996.
Imagine if Ariel Sharon said, "You know that Qabah over there in Meccah? That's actually a synagogue". There'd be a war! But Arafat and his officials say things tantamount to that every day! |
Well, luckily I'm intelligent enough not to take rhetorics from a country under occupation at face value.
If you really need a lesson in these things, look up and compare Stalins statements vis-a-vi Germany from 1941 and 1943.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
What you're saying Cyber is that the Palestinians are inherently good because Israel is occupying them, which is just nutty. |
How did you get that from what I said? I make no claims whatsoever about whether Palestinians are inherently good. I say, however, that palestinians are not inherently evil because they are resisting occupation. I have also said in previous thread that any people, from aborginies to eskimoes, would behave in the same fashion if occupied by a nation intent on stealing the rest of their land.
quote:
You discount every bad thing they do or say because they are under a different administration then they could have been if history had been what it wasn't. It's really prepostrous. |
Nope, I'm saying that dragging up a statement made five years ago, addressed to his own people about another people who are trying to kill them can not in any way say anything about his intentions if the killing stops. Any student of history knows this.
I also refer you as well to Stalin in 1941 and 1943.
quote:
Furthermore, you ignore the possibility that Arafat could be motivated by the desire to keep his hide safe from Israeli missiles.
|
Well, since this postion was set at the end of the first intifada, I think that is a fairly safe assumption.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jules
|
|
Chairman & CEO, Dallas Oil Company
Jul 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
To accept that article, we have to accept the following:
1. Sharon likes killing Palestinians
2. The Palestinians are peaceloving folk who would happily accept any compromise to end the violence perpetrated against their people
3. Bush loves seeing Sharon kill people, just because.
4. Sharon is Hitler |
1. In his heart of hearts? I doubt it. But it's the only way he knows how to control terrorism. And he has to do it so as not to appear weak, lest more radical elements within the Israeli government decide to get rid of him so they can push forward with their war policy. In a sense Sharon is in a nearly impossible situation. The international community should help him get out of it, and Arafat too.
2. In general, most Palestinians probably are. It's not "Palestinian" terrorism; it's called "international" terrorism. Groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad do not represent the desires of the Palestinian people although they may claim to act on their behalf. Some Palestinians are even credulous enough to believe that kind of nonsense. Terrorism cannot exist without the support of powerful governmental agencies, contrary to the myths expressed by Hollywood in the James Bond films where any eccentric millionaire can run an international terrorist operation out of his home office. All the various terrorist organizations worldwide express a single intention: to destroy the institution of the sovereign nation-state. This is what is being done to Israel and this is what happened to the U.S. on 9-11.
Now Sharon believes he can control terrorism by bombing the PA. This may prevent some attacks in the short-run, but because terrorism is global in its reach this really doesn't solve the problem for very long. All it does is enrage people who would otherwise have supported peace, who are now duped into going along with groups like Hamas. Sharon's policies are suicidal for Israel. Although Israel's armed forces can easily take on any combination of Arab states in a conventional war, it's the irregular ("terrorist") war that follows which they cannot win and which will lead to Israel's destruction. Terrorism is a global problem and must be dealt with on that level.
3. Bush is being bullied by those factions of the international oligarchy who want a Middle East "clash of civilizations" war in order to prevent the kind of economic cooperation in Eurasia which is beginning to develop around Russia and China. The solution to the current global financial crisis is to be found in this kind of cooperation. Threatened with the extinction of their system, what do oligarchies do? In a last desperate attempt to hold on to power, they start wars. A religious war in the Middle East is not in Israel's best interests, but there are those forces more powerful than Israel alone who want it that way. The best argument for preserving the international anti-terror coalition, especially U.S.-Russian cooperation. Bush needs to stand up against this pressure and defend the sovereignty of the U.S. as well as those nations too weak to defend themselves on their own.
4. I don't think the article suggested that at all. It did however say that Sharon is making a monumental mistake for Israel by going along with those who want war, a mistake analagous to the mistake made by Germany in launching World War II (a war it couldn't win). I certainly hope that's not how Sharon wants to be remembered by history.
-----------
Edit: Ugh! This post turned out badly. Too many random thoughts strung together in an incoherent fashion. Trying to prove the First Welfare Theorem in economics...exams over soon... then... can... finally... rest................ *suffers brain overload*
Last edited by Jules on 12-12-2001 at 09:48
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-12-2001 01:31
|