check out the WALL http://www.indymedia.nl/nl/2003/08/13163.shtml166 responses total.
and btw: The officially stated reason for building the 'security fence' is to prevent the unauthorised passage of Palestinians out of the West Bank. However, the route of the so-called does not follow the internationally recognised pre-1967 borders of the State of Israel. The Israeli authorities refuse to publish the official path of their 'security' . However, research carried out by the Israeli human rights group, BTselem, the planned route for the fence will isolate a number of Palestinian villages and rob a great many more of their farmland. Thereby, enabling the acquisition of even more Palestinian land by the Israeli state. B Tselem estimates that the Apartheid Wall will cause direct harm to at least 210,000 Palestinians in 67 cities, towns and villages. http://palsolidarity.org/pressreleases/PR_28Jul03_20_16_47JeninISMJenin.htm
Yes. It is a shame that the Arabs have been unable to control their killings of innocent women, children and the elderly, for had they been willing and able to do so, the wall would not have been built.
From what I understand, the Israeli record hasn't been much better.
Ah. A misunderstanding.
Promoted by our "free press" no doubt.
wall photo gallery:
http://www.4blacksheep.com/photos/separation_wall/
Frequently Asked Questions:
Israel has recently announced that it will isolate Palestinians from Israelis
(both inside Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories) by erecting
walls and buffer zones in a plan styled unilateral separation.
1. Whats wrong with Israels unilateral separation and the
construction of a wall?
The wall will not be built on Israels border. [1] Israel has already
announced that it will build the wall to the east of Israels border in the
Occupied Palestinian Territories, thereby de facto annexing more Palestinian
land. The strategy is to annex as much Palestinian land as possible while
militarily caging in as many Palestinians as possible, all in an attempt to
continue Israels colonization and occupation of Palestinian land. At the same
time, Israel will effectively isolate Palestinian population centers from one
another,[2] and restrict not only freedom of movement of individuals but also
of goods and services, thereby worsening an already crippled Palestinian
economy.
2. Where is Israel planning to build the wall?
Israel will build the wall east of Israels 1967 border in Occupied Palestinian
Territory, thereby de facto annexing more Palestinian land, in particular with
respect to Occupied East Jerusalem.
Not only will Israel build a wall, Israel has also begun erecting
militarily-enforced electrified fences around Palestinian controlled Areas
A (consisting of approximately 17.2% of the West Bank divided into 13 separate
non-contiguous ghettos). The wall, the fences and the new movement
restrictions for Palestinians[3] effectively cage Palestinians into
Israeli-created ghettos or Bantustans.
Israel is not building the wall on the 1967 border. Israeli governments led
by both Labor and Likud have repeatedly stated that Israel will not return
to the pre-1967 border.[4]
3. Isnt the wall necessary for Israels security?
No. The wall is not protecting Israeli citizens inside Israel, it is instead
protecting Israels occupation, illegal colonies and ongoing colonization of
Palestinian land. If Israel is truly interested in its security it will do
one or both of the following: (1) withdraw completely from all of the
territories it occupied in 1967 or (2) place additional security on its
internationally-recognized border, rather than in the Occupied Palestinian
Territories.
Israel has long had the formula for peace and security end the occupation.
In exchange for its complete withdrawal from Palestinian and other Arab land
occupied in 1967, Israel will live in peace and in security. Despite the fact
that peace and normalization were recently offered to Israel by the entire
Arab world during the Arab League Summit of March 2002, Israel walked away
from this gesture, demonstrating that it prefers land and colonization to
peace and security.
4. What is Israel really trying to do by building a wall?
Israel is attempting to annex parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories
by establishing militarily-enforced Palestinian ghettos corresponding to the
Palestinian population centers, while continuing its illegal colonization
policy. The walls will ensure that Palestinians are denied the ability to
move, while Israeli settlers will be able to freely travel throughout the
Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Unilateral separation and walls will also ensure that Occupied East Jerusalem
is completely sealed off from the rest of the Occupied West Bank, in violation
of international law, UN Resolutions and the stated policy of the United
States.[5]
5. Is Israels unilateral separation legal under international law?
No. Unilateral separation violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, including
the following obligations which cannot be abrogated by invoking military
necessity:
* Prohibition on the Use of Collective Punishment:
No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not
personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of
intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. (Fourth Geneva Convention,
Article 33(1))
The wall will serve to divide the Occupied Palestinian Territories with
movement from one area to another controlled entirely by the Israeli army,
in effect punishing the entire Palestinian population. Jewish Israelis
illegally living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories will, however, enjoy
total freedom of movement.
* Prohibition Against Annexation:
Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any
case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention
by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into
the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement
concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the
Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of
the occupied territory. (Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 47)
Israel will de facto annex additional areas of the Occupied Palestinian
Territories.
6. Is Israels unilateral separation legal under the Oslo Agreements?
No, unilateral separation violates the Oslo Agreements.
Obligation to Preserve the Territorial Integrity of the Occupied
Palestinian Territories:
The two sides view the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial
unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim
period. (Interim Agreement, Chapter 2, Article XI)
The construction of a wall within the Occupied Palestinian Territories
violates the territorial integrity of the West Bank.
Prohibition Against Restricting Freedom of Movement:
Without derogating from Israels security powers and responsibilities in
accordance with this Agreement, movement of people, vehicles and goods in the
West Bank, between cities, towns, villages and refugee camps, will be free
and normal and shall not need to be effected through checkpoints or
roadblocks. (Interim Agreement, Annex I, Article IX, para 2(a))
Israels security powers, with respect to freedom of movement, extend only to
prohibiting or limiting the entry into Israel of persons and of vehicles from
the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Building a wall within the Occupied
West Bank affects Palestinian freedom of movement not only into Israel, but
also within and throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
7. What is the international community doing to stop this?
Nothing that has had any effect. The Fourth Geneva Convention obliges the
international community to ensure that the Convention, the primary purpose
of which is to protect a population under occupation, is respected:
The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and ensure respect for the
present Convention in all circumstances. (Fourth Geneva Convention, Article
1)
Despite the fact that these actions are illegal under international law and
the Oslo Agreements, the international community has not stopped Israel. The
international community continues to teach Israel that it is above the law.
Now that the hysterics have abated, may we consider some factual and more logical information? http://www.aipac.org/obstacletoterrorism072903.htm Near East Report, July 29, 2003 Obstacle to Terrorism "After nearly three years of Palestinian terrorism, including 122 successful suicide bombings originating in the West Bank, Israel is building a security fence along its porous border. . . "While Israel continues to look to the Palestinian Authority (PA) to dismantle terrorist groups . . . the Jewish state is taking its own steps to thwart attacks by constructing the fence . . . "This fence is aimed at preventing terrorist attacks and attempts to torpedo the peace process," Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said . . . "The security fence . . . should to a large extent negate the need for the IDF to carry out military action against terrorists in civilian areas . . . Having a fence as a security buffer would also reduce the number of IDF soldiers within Palestinian cities and towns and would serve to minimize the uses of curfews and other security measures . . . "(W)here the construction of the security fence has separated Palestinian farmers from their fields, Israel has begun creating dozens of agricultural passageways to enable the farmers to tend to their crops. Additionally, more than 60,000 olive trees that lay in the path of the security fence have been uprooted and replanted . . . "Israel has approved two sections of the fence, both of which run close to the former "Green Line" border. . . "Along only three sections of the security fence, Israel has built large, concrete barricades. Accounting for less than 10 percent of the entire defensive obstacle, these walls are built right on the former "Green Line" near centers of Palestinian terrorism. . . "The Palestinian town of Qalqilya, which sits adjacent to the Israeli town of K'far Saba, is the only major Palestinian population area that will have a defensive physical obstacle installed around its perimeter under currently approved plans . . . During times of calm, residents will be able to travel east into the West Bank via the major road out of the city without any security checkpoints. So-called enclaves such as Qalqilya will only affect 2 percent of Palestinians . . . "The security fence can be moved or removed to meet a future peace deal. . . In the past, Israel has been willing to move fences . . . Along the border with Lebanon. . . Israel has moved sections of fence more than a dozen times in order to implement its U.N.-certified withdrawal from Lebanon. . . ."
#7 doesn't seem to contradict previous claims. I think even the canadians would have a problem if the US built walls and bunkers on the canadian side of the border. I'm sure mexico would. Perhaps the solution is for the IDF to pay rent to the landowners to build stuff that isn't on their own property.
Israel is welcome to wall itself in. No problem. But what is happening, even mentioned in #8, is Israel is enclosing Palestinian areas as a defensive action. Totally unacceptable. What amazes me is how Israelis can possibly think this will work or help the peace process.
if i were to shove a loaded gun into klg's mouth, we'd get along pretty well.
re: "#8 (pvn): #7 doesn't seem to contradict previous claims." We beg to differ: 1. However, the route of the so-called does not follow the internationally recognised pre-1967 borders of the State of Israel. Accoriding to the Arabs, Israel had/has no recognized borders. And since 1967, that is irrelevant. 2. the planned route for the fence will isolate a number of Palestinian villages Perhaps; however, provisions are made for travel into and out of the villages. 3. rob a great many more of their farmland Provisions are made for farmers to be able to reach their fields. 4. B Tselem estimates that the Apartheid Wall will cause direct harm to at least 210,000 Palestinians in 67 cities, towns and villages. What do they mean by direct harm and where do they get their number?? 5. thereby de facto annexing more Palestinian land If you had bothered to read my post, you would have seen that the term defacto annexing is nonsense, as demonstrated by the fact that Israel has pulled back from the lines of fences it previously erected. 6. Israel will effectively isolate Palestinian population centers from one another With only 2% of the Arab population being surrounded, it is ludicrous to claim that population centers are being isolated. 7. worsening an already crippled Palestinian economy The Arab economic problems are those of their own making, not of Israel s. We have neither the time, nor inclination to spend further time responding to the dozens of other errors. And, Mr. oval, based on what we read in your so-called "argument" we have serious doubts that you'd be able to place the correct end of your gun in our mouth were you to be given the opportunity. But your rabid anti-semitism is, none the less, still projected loud and clear. Have a pleasant day.
re resp:9: I try not to take sides between the Palestinians and Israel, and for that matter, don't usually pay much attention to their problems with each other. That said... I've noticed that people who become frustrated when they attempt solutions to a problem, but don't see any results, then tend to try increasingly unusual solutions. They can be obviously ineffective to outsiders, and can seem likely to make a problem a lot worse. For example, a person who catches his clothing on fire might try to beat it out with his hands. If that doesn't work, he might try running around (panicking). When you're in an intolerable situation like that, it's really difficult to just do nothing. You might do the wrong thing, but the situation is intolerable, and so there's nothing you can do to make it much worse for yourself. Anyone around can tell you that running around is not effective at stopping yourself from being burned, because they've got a better perspective. Eventually, through advice, or by stumbling across the right answer, you will either fall into a lake, roll around on the ground until the fire is extinguished -- which *hurts* while you're doing it -- or you'll be very badly burned and possibly even die. So here's Israel, which doesn't know how to solve it's problems, but has tried a lot of different things, none of which have worked. They're getting attacked by suicide bombings all the time; there's no denying they've got pain. There's no way for them to determine what solutions are analogous to a burning man running around, and what ones are akin to rolling around or falling into a lake. Everyone in the rest of the world is shouting advice to them. The advice is all different. Much has been tried before without positive results. Some of the rest must seem as ludicrous as someone shouting to a burning man that he douse himself in gasoline. So, they're going to try something else now. It probably won't work. Maybe their problems don't *have* solutions -- but it seems to me they've got to keep trying. Giving up is no good either.
The fence wont work unless it gets placed in a fair place. Hopefully, this is something that can be negotiated.
You ought to know that the fence has been used successfully on the borders with both Gaza and with Lebanon. Israel is probably more concerned with what is effective (i.e., protecting its citizens from terrorists) than what some other individuals for their own political purposes may or may not deem to be "fair."
It wont be effective if it isnt fair. Because if people are pissed off enough (or caged), they will cause problems.
This response has been erased.
re: "#15 (slynne): It wont be effective if it isnt fair. Because if people are pissed off enough (or caged), they will cause problems. " Correct. The proof of such being how the Arabs have behaved during the 50+ years when there was no fence!
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
So because some people hate Israel, that absolves them of any responsibility to play fair?
Not to excuse anything, but Israel is very much in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation with the Palestinians. No matter what Israel does, it will be blamed for not doing enough, or not doing it right, while on the whole, the Palestinians have shown absolutely no will to do the ONE thing that will allow Israel to ease up on them: crack down effectively on the promotion and practice of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. I am no big fan of the practices of the more extreme elements of the Israeli society, but the fact remains that attacks on random Palestinians who are just going about their daily business are not an acceptable practice in mainstream Israel, and the inverse simply cannot be said of the Palestinians.
err, "converse" not "inverse"
This response has been erased.
And during this "hudna" ceasefire, the PA refuses to disarm the terrorist groups who instead are using this time to rebuild their forces. Already they are indicating that they won't agree to continue the ceasefire beyond the 3-month period -- if they'll even keep it that long. Prime Minister Abbas must disarm and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in the PA. A few of the claims in the propaganda peace above need to be addressed: > The wall is not protecting Israeli citizens inside Israel, it is instead > protecting Israels occupation, illegal colonies and ongoing colonization > of Palestinian land. Fact of the matter is that 122 of the 122 successful suicide bombings (100%) originated from Trans-Jordan's former "West Bank". No such attackers have come out of Gaza. There already is a security fence between Israel and Gaza. Terrorists in Gaza have been lobbing mortars and Qassam rockets (at Israeli population centers), but with very limited success (they end up falling in fields in this mostly unpopulated region). Similarly there is a fence along the Lebanese border. There has been only 1 successful infiltration from Lebanon into Israel in the 3.3 years since Israel's withdrawal from its 6-mile security zone. Hezbollah is limited to firing anti-aircraft weapons across the border. Another mostly futile exercise (about the worst damage they've done is starting forest fires). Does the author truly consider Hebron to be a Jewish "colony"? Until their massacre in the 1929 anti-Jewish pogrom, Jews had been living in Hebron, continuously, for at least 3300 years. Those who returned following the riots were forced out (or rather, escaped, if they managed to) in 1948 when Trans-Jordan attacked Israel in violation of UN Resolution 181. That Hebron was illegally held by Trans-Jordan for 19 years (until 1967) makes Jews living in Hebron "colonizers"?! Talk about entitlement, what makes all the land "Palestinian land", as if by default? Until the end of WW I this was Turkish land, then it was a British mandate (charged with developing the Jewish Homeland) until 1948. Previously it hasn't been "Arab land" since before the Crusades (and then only as a colony taken, and lost, by force). What next? Is Grenada a Spanish colony in "Arab land"? Is Shiraz a Persian colony on "Arab land"? (Similarly reference to the Geneva Conventions and "occupation" ignore Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which defines what constitutes an "occupation", and this situation does NOT qualify. If you think it does, ask the Arab states why they haven't pursued proper LEGAL venues for resolving this issue, such as taking this before the World Court rather the POLITICAL venues such as the UN.) > If Israel is truly interested in its security it will do one or both > of the following: (1) withdraw completely from all of the territories > it occupied in 1967 or (2) place additional security on its > internationally-recognized border There is a great misconception in the propaganda piece which references to the "1967 border". That is the border that currently exists between Israel and Jordan along the Jordan river. Elsewhere it is correctly identified as the "pre-1967 border", which is a code for the 1949 border. It's not an "internationally-recognized border" but the ceasefire lines of the 1949 armistice -- which specifically states that these borders are open to negotiation. With deference to this, despite Arab opposition, UN Security Council Resolution 242 (the Resolution of record in this matter and further enshrined in the Camp David and Oslo Accords), does not call for a complete Israeli withdrawal but for a negotiated withdrawal as part of a comprehensive peace agreement. That's why the PLO and Arab states rejected UNSCR 242 for a quarter century or more (the lone exception was Egypt, which after a decade made peace with Israel and was promptly thrown out of the Arab League). > Israel has long had the formula for peace and security - end the occupation. > In exchange for its complete withdrawal from Palestinian and other Arab land > occupied in 1967, Israel will live in peace and in security. Really? Then why did the Arabs refuse to make peace prior to 1967? They rejected UNGAR 181 in 1947. They rejected UNGAR 194 in 1949. And in 1956, as a gesture of good will and faith, Israel withdrew from all territories it captured in that war. Yet the Arab League re-issued its infamous "3 NOs" declaration: No negotiations, No recognition, No peace with Israel. For more on this, see: http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/29263.php http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/44258.php Why reject peace and opt for war? Because the goal was NOT peaceful coexistence but rather to destroy Israel. A goal that cannot be achieved by peace and must be pursued through violence. This can further be seen in the "Covenant" of the PLO (established in 1964, 3 years before 1967) which rejects all non-violent solutions. See: http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/32147.php In fact, even before Israel held the disputed territories, the Arab states vowed its destruction, which is why there was another war in 1967 (and 1973). http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/48626_comment.php#48635 > Despite the fact that peace and normalization were recently offered to > Israel by the entire Arab world during the Arab League Summit of March 2002, > Israel walked away from this gesture.... This reference is to the Saudi "Plan-in-the-drawer", which the Arab League never accepted or issued. The plan stayed in the drawer because it lacked support in the Arab world. It's mind-numbing that this is considered progress. One has to ask: where were the Saudis and most of the Arab world during 7 years of Oslo?
Well said, Mr. cross. Thank you, Mr. lk.
Re 23: See, I don't buy that argument that Israel has been overly fair and that the Arabs are irrational and violent. Sounds like a nice little racist attitude, frankly.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
I just don't agree, Dan. You'd basically *have* to be calling the Arabs irrational and violent to explain the situation in "Israel is only defending itself" terms. Of course not even Leeron has "stated" that the Palestinians are violent and/or irrational, but plenty of times he's implied such.
Why Scott? What is irrational about defending one's land from an invader? The Palestinians see the Jews as invaders. They want them gone. Apparently, the others in the area agree with the Palestinians. All are willing to use any method necessary to achieve their goals. The Jews want a secure homeland, everyone else wants them gone.
or dead.
not all arabs are violent. The palestinians just have a high percentage of racists in their base sample, kinda like we used to have KKK in the south.
This response has been erased.
The SOUTH???
This response has been erased.
Good points.
This response has been erased.
Re #29: If Dan's explanation is not correct, exactly how are you supposed to interpret the explicit words and actions of the various Arab muslim nations and terrorist.... excuse me, "freedom fighter" groups?
As usual, Scott has to try and snub me (#29) precisely because he can't address the substance of what I say (#24): > Of course not even Leeron has "stated" that the Palestinians > are violent and/or irrational, but plenty of times he's implied such. Of course, except that for each time Scott has repeated this garbage there is also a time he was unable to cite any example of such an "implication". Scott should attempt to respond to what I do say rather than resort to such straw man arguments. Joe: > The Palestinians see the Jews as invaders. They want them gone. Apparently, > the others in the area agree with the Palestinians. All are willing to use > any method necessary to achieve their goals. I think that sums it up. They aren't interested in compromise or peace. Their goal historically, and at present for a plurality if not a majority, is expelling or killing the Jews. But, Joe, keep in mind that the "Palestinians" are Arabs who are not distinct from the surrounding neighborhood. To the contrary, while some have resided there for a few hundred years, many immigrated from those surrounding areas in the 20th century (a particularly large wave from Egypt in the 1840s). As I've shown previously, in the first half of the 20th century the term "Palestinian" also referred to Jews (living in Mandate Palestine). The organization that represented the Arabs of Palestine was the "Arab High Committee". The term "Palestinian" was adopted in the 2nd half of the 20th century. More on this in a moment. That this is "Arab land" (Or Islamic land, Dar a Salam) has been inculcated into their collective minds. That the Jews are "colonists" (what is the "mother country"?!), not just in the "territories" but in Israel itself, is a cornerstone of their belief. (To this end, you'll find many engaging in various anti-Semitic arguments, suggesting that Jews aren't really Jews but Khazars or contradictingly that Jews are Jews but are a religion and not a people or a nation.) In a recent discussion with a Palestinian Arab, he was surprised to learn that a majority of Israel's Jews were born in Israel. But then he presumed that the majority had European/American parents. Turns out that 79% of the mothers where likewise born in Israel. (Sorry, I didn't find stats about fathers but assume that immigration stats are close enough to 50/50 that this shouldn't matter). And only 15% of the grand-fathers were European or American immigrants. (Oddly, the stats list demographic data for the baby's mother and her father.) In any event, what is troubling about the "colonist" model is that many would-be "progressives" swallowed this faulty analogy as if it were a repeat of the white man's assault upon Native Americans. In this scenario, Jews are greedy invaders while the Arabs are indigenous and defenseless natives (which is why many Jews have a difficult time disassociating this from anti-Semitic myths). Except that the Arabs are Not indigenous, which can be seen from their naming themselves after the land upon which they settled (it's not like they have any connection to the Philistines who themselves were non-native European invaders 3250 years ago). Imagine a group of people who moved to Iowa and called themselves "midwesterners"; would that make them indigenous? Nor was it the Jews who were attacking defenseless Arabs. The exact opposite was the case -- for centuries. For more about the Arab and Muslim mistreatment of Jews, see: http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/40079.php Nor were the Jews greedy. The Jewish Agency accepted the principle of partition when it was first suggested in 1937. And again in the form of the 1947 UN compromise. And UNSCR 242. And most recently the Clinton compromise. The Arabs rejected this at each juncture, prompting the late Aba Eban to quip that they "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity [for peace]". Is this a coincidence? Bad PR? Or can we conclude that they miss these opportunities because they aren't interested? Peace comes at a price -- compromise, and in the Arab world compromise is akin to surrender. And this is where Dan is right on the mark with respect to cultural differences and perspectives.
THE STRATFOR WEEKLY 4 August 2003 by Dr. George Friedman The Wall of Sharon Summary Seeking to end the risk of Palestinian attacks, Israel is building a barrier to separate Palestinians and Israelis. For the wall to work, it must be more like an iron curtain than the U.S.- Mexican border. It must be relatively impermeable: If there are significant crossing points, militants will exploit them. Therefore, the only meaningful strategy is to isolate Israelis and Palestinians. That would lead to a Palestinian dependency on Jordan that might, paradoxically, topple the Hashemite regime in Amman. If that happens, Israel will have solved a painful nuisance by creating the potential for a strategic nightmare. Analysis Israel, under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, is in the process of building a wall that ultimately will separate Israelis and Palestinians along a line roughly -- but not at all precisely -- identical to the cease-fire lines that held from 1948 until 1967. The wall is far from complete, but the logic for it is self- evident: It represents Israel's attempt to impose a reality that will both satisfy the Jewish state's fundamental security needs and the minimal political demands of the Palestinians without requiring Palestinian agreement or acquiescence. It is an extraordinary attempt at applied geopolitics. The question is whether it will work. Let's begin with the technical aspect. It is possible, with substantial effort, to create a barrier that not only stops large-scale population movements but seriously inhibits small- scale movements as well. The Iron Curtain was more than a rhetorical term: We once walked along the Austro-Hungarian border, seeing watch towers with machine guns and search lights; concertina wire; wide, clear-cut killing fields where infiltrators or exfiltrators could be observed day or night using search lights and flares, and dense mine fields. The line ran from the Baltic to the Yugoslav border. It did work -- there was certainly some movement across, but only at great risk and probable failure. The purpose of the Iron Curtain was to prevent eastern Europeans from moving to the west and away from Soviet occupation. It was difficult to build and maintain, but it was built and it did work quite well. It was built with World War II technology. The Israeli project will involve more modern sensor technology, both human and machine. Movement will not be spotted by the luck of the flare, but with sound sensors, ground radar and unmanned aerial vehicles. The point is that from a technical standpoint, if the Iron Curtain could work, this can work. The challenge is political and military, not technical. From the Israeli standpoint, the driving force is desperation. Suicide attacks have achieved what Palestinian planners hoped for -- convincing the Israelis the status quo cannot be maintained. The bombings have convinced Israeli leaders that the continued physical occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza strip are not an option. The problem the Israelis have had to confront is that simply retreating and abandoning the occupation might not solve their strategic problem. From the Israeli standpoint, the problem of the Oslo accords is that they rested on a political decision by the Palestinians, who had to guarantee that they would abandon further claims -- and military operations -- against the state of Israel in return for Israeli withdrawal. The last two years convinced Israeli leaders of two things: First, that any guarantee from a Palestinian government was unstable and could not be regarded as permanent; and second, that even if the Palestinian government was able to maintain its own commitment to an agreement, it was incapable of guaranteeing that all Palestinian factions would honor it. Israel observed the ability of the Irish Republican Army, ETA and other groups to continue operations without or against state sanctions. Since the absolute minimum concession from the Palestinians had to be the cessation of suicide bombings and related actions against Israel, this posed an insuperable problem. On the one hand, the status quo was untenable; on the other, a political foundation for withdrawal appeared to be unattainable. Israel was trapped between two impossible realities. For Israel, the Camp David accords with Egypt provided the basic model for negotiations with Arabs. Camp David consisted of three parts: 1. Egyptian recognition that Israel could not be destroyed through military action. 2. Israeli recognition that Egypt was capable -- as in 1973 -- of carrying out military operations that were too costly for Israel. 3. Recognition that the Sinai desert could serve not only as Israel's strategic depth in maneuver warfare, but equally well as a demilitarized buffer zone large enough to prevent surprise attack. It was on this basis that Menachem Begin, Sharon's intellectual and strategic mentor, reached agreement with Egypt to end hostilities -- an agreement that remains the strategic foundation of Israel's national security policy today. The crucial piece was that the deal did not rely on Egypt's good will: The buffer was sufficiently large that any Egyptian violation would be quickly noticed and could be responded to militarily. In other words, Israel could keep control of its fate without holding Egyptian territory. The Oslo agreement was an attempt to apply this same principle to the Palestinian question. It was built on the Palestinian recognition that Palestinians could not destroy Israel militarily, and Israeli recognition that the cost of occupation was greater than Israel could rationally bear. What was missing - - and always has been -- was a third step. There has been no possibility of disengagement. From the Israeli viewpoint, this has meant that any settlement depended on both the continued goodwill of the Palestinian state and the absence of dissident anti-Israeli movements. Since neither could be guaranteed, no solution was possible. Hence, the fence. It should be noted that the creation of a fixed barrier violates all Israeli military thinking. The state's military doctrine is built around the concept of mobile warfare. Israel's concern is with having sufficient strategic depth to engage an enemy attack and destroy it, rather than depending on a fixed barrier. From a purely military standpoint, Israel would view this barrier as an accident waiting to happen. The view of barriers (such as the Suez Canal) is that they can all be breached using appropriate, massed military force. This is the critical point. From the Israeli standpoint, the wall is not a military solution. It is not a Maginot Line designed to protect against enemy main force; it is designed to achieve a very particular, very limited and very important paramilitary goal. It is designed to stop the infiltration of Palestinian paramilitaries into Israel without requiring either the direct occupation of Palestinian territory -- something that has not worked anyway -- nor precluding the creation of a Palestinian state. It is not the Maginot Line, it is an Iron Curtain. And this is where the conceptual problems start to crop up. The Iron Curtain was a fairly impermeable barrier. Nothing moved across it except at very clearly defined and limited checkpoints. The traffic at these checkpoints was quite low during most of the Cold War, and there was ample opportunity for inspection and interrogation of traffic headed in either direction. Even so, these checkpoints were used by Western intelligence both to penetrate Warsaw Pact countries and to extract people. There were other points along the frontier where more informal traffic crossed, but what never took place -- particularly after the Berlin Wall went up -- was mass, interzonal traffic on a continual basis. The Iron Curtain never looked like the U.S.-Mexican border, nor can the U.S.-Mexican border become an Iron Curtain because neither the United States nor Mexico wants that to happen. Trade is continual, and the movement of illegal labor from Mexico to the Unit manpower. If the wall is not continual and impermeable, it may as well not be there. The geopolitical idea underlying the fence is that that it will not be permeable. If this goal is achieved, regardless of where the final line of the fence will be, then economic and social relations between Israel and Palestine will cease to exist except through third-party transit. Forgetting the question of Jerusalem -- for if Jerusalem is an open city, the fence may as well not be built -- this poses a huge strategic challenge. Palestinians historically have depended on Israel economically. If Israel closes off its frontiers, the only contiguous economic relationship will be with Jordan. In effect, Palestine would become a Jordanian dependency. However, it will not be clear over time which is the dog and which is the tail. Jordan already has a large Palestinian population that has, in the past, threatened the survival of the Hashemite Bedouin regime. By sealing off Palestinian and Israeli territories, the Israelis would slam Palestine and Jordan together. Over the not-so-long term, this could mean the end of Hashemite Jordan and the creation of a single Palestinian state on both sides of the Jordan River. There are Israelis -- including Sharon, in our view -- who would not object to this outcome. They have argued that the Hashemite presence in Amman has long distorted the reality in the region. The Hashemite regime was installed by Britain after World War I. In the opinion of some Israelis, Jordan ought to be the real Palestine. Therefore, if the fence results in the fall of the Jordanian monarchy and the creation of a unitary Palestinian state, these Israelis would find this a positive development. Indeed, one argument goes that a Jordan with boundaries roughly analogous to pre-1967 lines would undermine Palestinian radical movements by creating a more stable, less aggressive Palestinian nation-state. Two other scenarios exist. In one, the Hashemites survive and drive many of the Palestinians on the east bank of the Jordan into the West Bank; the Israelis maintain their cordon sanitaire and the Palestinian nation-state becomes an untenable disaster -- trapped between two enemies, Israel and Jordan. Israel would not object to this, but the problem is that the level of desperation achieved in Palestine might prove so chaotic that it either would threaten Israeli national security or set into motion processes in the Arab world -- and among Israel's Western allies -- that would increase pressure on Israel. In other words, the Israelis would wind up strategically where they started, with the non- trivial exception of fewer or no suicide bombings. The other scenario is that the Palestinians do merge with Jordan, but -- given the dynamics of the Arab and Islamic worlds -- the new nation-state does not moderate but instead generates, with assistance from other Arabs, a major military strike force for whom the fence represents at most a minor tactical barrier rather than a strategic force. Under this scenario, the consequences would be a return to the strategic situation of 1948-1967 (except for Egypt's participation), with a potentially more powerful enemy to the east. If Egypt were to change its policies, the outcome could be strategically disastrous for Israel. The problem with the fence, therefore, is this: 1. If it is to be effective as a barrier, it must be nearly absolute; large-scale movement cannot be permitted. 2. If a Palestinian state is isolated, it would develop a dependency on Jordan that could topple the Hashemite regime, creating a potential strategic threat to Israel. The fence strategy works only if the Palestinian-Jordanian rot have good choices. It has to make some bad ones work. ...................................................................
#40 Source www.stratfor.com
re #35: And you're totally ignoring the fact that there are Jewish racists and extremists as well.
certainly there are extremists and racist on both sides, just as there are in any country including ours. But while 20% if the isralis may be racist, 80% of the palestinians may be.
where did you get those percentages, stinky?
As I've noted before, at the height of his popularity, the late Rabbi
Kahane's extremist Kach party managed to gain 1 seat in Israel's 120-seat
Knesset (parliament). That's less than 1% of the vote.
No one denies or ignores that there are Israeli racists and "extremists".
But this is another false comparison, as if both sides are equal because
both have racists and extremists.
If you read today's entry in item 27, you'll see that:
08:57 Yitzhak Pas and Matityahu Shabo, accused of involvement with Jewish
terror cell, are indicted for transporting explosives
(It should be noted that Pas had his 10-month old daughter murdered,
intentionally shot in the head by an Arab sniper as she slept in her crib.)
What's important here is that the Israeli government does what it can (and
that's quite a lot) to prevent these racists and extremists from carrying
out any violence against Arabs. Either it's pretty good at it or there
aren't that many trying.
In contrast, the PA refuses to arrest known terrorists or even disarm the
terrorists who are harbored in territories where they have security control.
These "racists and extremist" are much more extreme.
Rabbi Kahane never murdered anyone (he advocated transferring the Arabs
out of Israel). Yet he himself was murdered by Arab extremists. So was his
son and daughter-in-law.
Were Kahane an Arab who retained his views in mirror image, he'd be a moderate.
In Israel, Kahane's Kach party was outlawed as a hate group nearly 10
years ago.
In the PA, hate is officially incited at government levels (in the media,
in school books, etc.)
Attempting to equate on the basis of "extremism" is an obfuscation.
Israeli extremists are not that extreme and have little power or influence.
Arab extremists are often murderous thugs and have pretty much run the show
for decades.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Re 46: No, it's not irrelevant. Whether or not they gain specific numbers of seats in the govt, they can still influence the positions of those who do run the country. The tolerance of illegal settlements is proof of that. And if it was the Israelis being oppressed, perhaps those extremists would be running the government.
This response has been erased.
Re #39: You mean "dar al Islam", as opposed to "dar al harb". Re #40: Yeah, so? If the Palestinians won't root out the murderers from their midst, they cannot expect to enjoy the benefits of commerce with Israel. They've got to make a choice. If the king of Jordan wants to keep his post, he'll push to get rid of Hamas and the like. The choices seem to be narrowing to peace and coexistence, or regime change; the players may goof up, but the incentives of the game sure look right.
Sheesh. From Israel to the Freemasons... why I am bothering to argue with this twit?
This response has been erased.
Dan, if you really want to argue you're going to have to keep on target, instead of posting long asides of questionable relevancy. Imagine trying that in a face-to-face argument, and you'll see my point.
the point you'll see will be the way the person is looking at you like you're insane.
(Thanks for the correction, Russ. I knew it was wrong as I typed it but was too tired to look it up and go back and correct it.) Really, Dan, it's only ok for others (oval herself in #6, EArnal in #40) to cut & paste lengthy texts. Seems as if the standard isn't the length of an article but if said article is anti-Israel. Scott really doesn't have much to say. His purpose here is to be a heckler. He seems to enjoy that. Since I've tended to mock his bait, it seems as if you'll be his new target. So don't expect him to respond to rational arguments. Look for him to key in on one thing and use it as a distraction to divert attention from the rest of what you said. Note also his latest odious obfuscation, as if Israeli "extremists" who build illegal settlments can be compared to Arab extremists who blow up buses packed with civilians and pizzerias and ice-cream parlors filled with families with children, or to Arab snipers who intentionally shoot babies sleeping in their cribs, and to the murderers of mothers as they read bed-time stories to their children and who shoot the children as the hide under the covers. The PA refuses to arrest and disarm these butchers, but Scott doesn't see a problem with that. The problem is that Israel doesn't throw the book at a bunch of peaceful people who put up tents as a form of political protest against the government's policies. That, he asserts, shows how beholden the Israeli government is to this group....
I've been ignoring Leeron for the simple reason that he's not here to discuss, he's here to browbeat using any dirty tactics he deems useful.
This response has been erased.
Hey, I'm telling you under what circumstances I'll argue this subject. I don't bother with Leeron precisely because he wants to argue only on *his* terms, with him as referee.
Funny, but for someone who "doesn't bother with Leeron", it's odd that your last 3 responses have been about me. You aren't "arguing". You are heckling. Precisely because you can't address the substance of the issues. Even people who disagree with my political outlook have commented on this in the past. If you want to address the substance of what Dan (or I) said, here's another opportunity to do so. We'll see what road you choose to take.
This response has been erased.
I've directly pointed out where we have differences of opinion, perhaps you didn't notice that?
This response has been erased.
Go back and read the item again, Dan. I made several response explicitly disagreeing with your position, among other things.
This response has been erased.
Really? How exactly does a phrase starting with "I just don't agree, Dan." and following with my opinion NOT constitute discussion?
I recommend people re-read starting at #20 (Scott's first "response").
As I noted in #55:
> Look for him to key in on one thing and use it as a distraction
> to divert attention from the rest of what you said.
In Dan's case, it was the straw man that Dan is making a racist argument.
The rest of what Dan said fell on deaf ears, just as Scott didn't even
bother to address Eric's points (#21) or Joe's questions (#30).
One can also measure the amount of Scott's "discussion" by the length of his
responses. I'm not saying that one need write a dissertation for each
response, but can 2 and 3-line entries really make for an adequate discussion
of such a complex subject -- especially if half of it is about
meta-discussion? And especially in response to a screenful or two that Dan
or others entered?
Responding to what Dan, Eric and Joe (or even I) said would be discussion.
Two-line straw men outbursts is heckling.
I'd almost think that Scott isn't aware of what he's doing, but he previously
admitted getting joy out of harassing people with strongly stated opinions.
Scott also gets the hypocrisy award for telling Grex how he ignores me after
talking about me in his previous 3 responses, but he has to share it with
Oval. She was critical of Dan for entering a lengthy (~80 line) cut & paste
text (to support what he was saying in the first half of his response) and
in #54 oval lambastes him for doing so, saying:
Oval> the point you'll see will be the way the person is looking at you like
> you're insane.
So how are we supposed to look at oval, who posted a much longer (218 line)
spam-propaganda cut-and-paste job in response #6?
Sadly, Oval is more interested in silencing opposition than in discussion.
Recall that she exposed her own racist and hatist thought patterns, attempting
to silence me by threatening that because of me (my arguments on Grex) she's
likely to dislike all Jews.
If that weren't bad enough, I think she followed this up by saying that
anti-Semitism isn't really a problem.
Wow. And all this time Leeron's been claiming that I'm obsessed with him, and now we foind out the opposite is true.
This response has been erased.
Well, I don't view these discussions as an Apocalyptic battle between the forces of good and evil. After butting heads with Leeron for a number of Agoras I'm really not interested in spending a whole lot of time on the subject, frankly. Does that mean that my opinion is somehow flawed? Or just that we disagree not only on whose side has the bloodiest hands, but whether participation in a short-lived item on an antique BBS requires a specific level of discourse?
This response has been erased.
Dan, if you think this is bad, you should look at Scott's record in those other Agoras. But don't take it too seriously, just keep in mind that this is Scott's way to have "fun". At this point it's hard to even say what Scott truly believes -- he heckles for his own perverted personal enjoyment. Which may explain why he didn't bother responding to gelinas and other. That would entail a level of discussion beyond Scott's abilities or desire. Indeed. Strange that first Scott contended that he was discussing the issues yet now he says he's not that interested and lacks the time? Yet he has plenty of time for heckling and meta-discussion? I'm readying the pop-corn in anticipation of Scott's next pot shot. Let's just ignore them and continue the discussion. If he wants he'll chime in with discussion. If not, then not.
If anyone'd like a good overview of Israel's terroristic land-grab wall, watch http://images.indymedia.org/imc/washingtondc/IsraelsWall.mov. It's what's making even the pro-Zionist US Government upset.
Oh, I'd agree that Dan might find these items from past Agoras to be enlightening - especially since some of the arguments don't quite match the way Leeron likes to describe them now. However, I'm not Leeron, and therefore I'm not going to assign several hours of homework to Dan.
It's not a question of assigning "homework". It's a question of being able
to support what you say by citing at least one example.
Dan, you might find Agora40 Item 20, from response 251 onward, particularly
fascinating. Not just because of Scott's antics but for the content.
Now, back to discussion.
Today there were two suicide bombings in Israel (see item 27).
Both in areas without a security wall.
11:05 Terror attacks show importance of fence, which doesn`t surround
Rosh Ha`ayin or Ariel
I wish the three of you would stand on a line, unzip your pants, and empty your bladders. Then we would declare a winner and move on. Do you guys have any idea how silly you look here?
That's no longer the issue, Mary. ;) ;) ;)
This response has been erased.
Seriously, Dan, check out Agora40, Item 20, Respones 251+
There is a lot of good data there.
Today there were two suicide bombings in Israel (see item 27).
Both in areas without a security wall.
11:05 Terror attacks show importance of fence, which doesn`t surround
Rosh Ha`ayin or Ariel
I like scott more than I like lk, because scott doesn't usually advocate genocide.
This response has been erased.
I like scott and polytarp the same. They are so much alike.
You're the one trying to trick people into thinking Israel's fortified wall is a fence, lk: And, you know what, it's that postulate's what's the fence. We all know that's Israel's not "adminstrating", as I'm sure your postulate's: They're KILLING, how about that lk, dead little children, dead because you'd rather kill children than have children be killed, because, lk, you're a deranged mind: Something -- you know -- what's all mixed up. And don't forget, man, you're a scum-ball.
What's all mixed up is your response, but thanks anyhow.
You're the one who kills Christian children.
If you ever tasted Passover Matzah made with the blood of Christian children, you'd do the same. If you knew how much fun it was to poison wells and watch as gentiles die of the black plague, you'd do it to. So don't you sit there and judge me, ok?
This response has been erased.
Well, someone was selling it on ebay so I figured I could go public....
I like Leeron's sense of humour. I could leave Grex for ten years and I'd still find Leeron enetering items and responses about Israel, Mike P talking about how guns save lives, and beady...well...being beady... (the following will be a response from Leeron chiding me for not keeping this item on track...his track)
Oh yeah, for the impared: ;-)
Nah, I'll just chide you for being impared. (It's not his fault, he was born that way.) And... and... and... I didn't enter this item! So there!! On a more serious note, had you entered that comment 10 years ago, I would have thought you were wrong, that by now, 10 years after Oslo, peace would have been achieved. :(
This response has been erased.
To ensure that no one scales it.
there's an israeli guys crashing at my place this week. he reckons this wall will only make things worse. AND HE'S NOT EVEN AN ANTI-SEMITIC PALENSTINIAN, FASCISTS.
This response has been erased.
you mean they didn't roll in on tanks and park ON TOP OF THE HOUSE?
Yup, that's it. It's decided. ONE Israeli guy crashing at Oval's thinks the security fence is a bad idea and therefore there is no need to debate the issue. He's an Israeli, afterall, and if they say or think something with which anti-Israel propagandists agree, then they're automatically right. This is very common on the IMC sites which oval trolls. I've actually seen articles (items) entered which might as well have been titled "Heard it from a Jew". What next? If one woman opposes feminism is that proof that its wrong? Clarence Thomas is proof that affirmative action is wrong? A "cured" homosexual is proof that homosexuality is a disease? I'm disappointed, not in oval, for this is the person who expressed the racist/hatist ideology that because she dislikes me I was going to make her prejudiced and hate all Jews. (OK, maybe she didn't mean it, though she's never apologized or explained it, but if so then it was stated in an attempt to silence me and that's just as chilling.) Given this, one can understand why I'm not waiting for a logical explanation from oval for her criticism of Dan's cut-and-paste posting (about 80 lines to support his thesis) when she herself had previously entered a cut-and-paste posting 3x the length and with no other comment. But I was hoping someone would at least notice the note/music/scale puns.
Ms. oval did not, as we recall, specify that the Israeli was a Jew.
Um, Leeron, I hate to point this out... but you're not even an Israeli, on top of only being "ONE guy" yourself.
This response has been erased.
(spewing tequila out my nose laughing so hard!)
I like tod's sense of humour.
Swish. Scott misses the point. I'm not right because I'm an Israeli. I'm right because -- unlike you -- I can and do support what I say.
So you finally enlisted in the IDF? And you support what you say by posting it on a safe BBS in the middle of the USA while living safely in the middle of the USA where you probably don't even ride a bus which has a chance of being blown up on your way wherever. Yep, you and sure put your money/life where your mouth is. That dog don't hunt.
This response has been erased.
and when was a bus blown up?
Re #103:
I thought Leeron *had* been in the IDF. In fact I seem to remember
overhearing such at a Picofest sometime in the late '80s.
This response has been erased.
re#106: Urban legend.
This response has been erased.
Back to the subject, see #96.
Sorry Leeron, you can't pretend 97-108 never happened. Subject resumes at #108.
This response has been erased.
Well, let's ask Oval directly: 1. If one woman opposes feminism is that "proof" that it's wrong? 2. Is Clarence Thomas "proof" that affirmative action is wrong? 3. Is a "cured" homosexual "proof" that homosexuality is a disease? 4. What's up with being critical of an 80-line cut-and-paste, entered by Dan to support what he said, when you entered a 240-line cut-and-paste (see response #6) with no additional comment? To refresh your memory, after Dan's cut-and-paste Scott said: > Imagine trying that in a face-to-face argument, and you'll see my point. And oval added: > the point you'll see will be the way the person is looking at you like > you're insane. Not that I'm saying we should buy into Oval's "logic" (for then it would be OK to pre-judge and dislike all members of a group because you dislike one member of said group -- or perhaps that it's ok to try to silence someone by invoking such hatist/racist arguments), but I do wonder if Oval looks at herself as if she is insane. Experienced BBSers will of course realize that contrary to Scott's assertion, an on-line discussion is not like a FTF discussion in that no one has to read what others post, one can skim or skip right past it. I suspect that most also realize that Scott's response was meant to attack Dan rather than to respond to what he had said.
Actually, the bit you were trying to (once again) ignore was the question of whether you'd been in the IDF. As before, i guess we can all assume the answer is "no".
mt friend spent a year in prison for refusing to serve in the IDF
What an ironic juxtapostioning of arguments. Scott would have us believe that I'm wrong because (allegedly) I did not serve in the IDF. Oval would have us believe that her (alleged) friend is right because he did not serve in the IDF. Come on, Oval. Can't you address the 4 questions? Are you that duplicitous?
Don't fall for it, oval - Leeron has much more free time than normal people, so he typically wins through attrition.
So, lk, did you serve in the IDF? And lets not play games like "yes" because you attended summer camp as a child. Did you, lk, serve in the IDF the same term of service as the majority of Israeli citizens?
This response has been erased.
well i don't see any of lk's responses. he's the only one on my fascist-filter. my friend refused because he is opposed to war and military, and does not support his country's actions against the palestinian people. even the US doesn't REQUIRE military service. i have another israeli female friend who did serve, doing a desk job. she had to interview draftees and decide where they will be serving. this was disturbing for her and after she served her time she left the country. i personally would take a year in prison over a year or more in the military also. at one point he realized that even by being in prison and doing work required there was also serving the military state and refused to do that too. he was repeatedly put in solitary confinement until after a year they just got fed up and let him go.
This response has been erased.
i think it's ness. for israel to have compulsory military servitude, after all they need all the soldiers they can get, being in the early stages of colonialisation of palestine and all. like in the u.s, in a few generations the pesky natives will have died off, or become so broken culturally that they will no longer be a threat, then they can end the practice of military servitude...hell, your friend should be GRATEFUL to serve in order to earn the privelege of living in that wonderful nevada-like environment!
tod slipped.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
How is signing up for the military different from being a plain old hired gun? You are promising to go anywhere and kill on command, no questions asked. You don't get to question the agenda or morality of the person ordering up the troops. You're a killer contracted out in exchange for a steady paycheck or tuition or both. Sorry, I see people willing to sign such contracts as drones. And if they end up killing innocent people over, say, our oil jones, then they are immoral drones. Enlisting to fight for a specific cause you believe in is a different story.
This response has been erased.
We thank with all our heart all of the "drones" who have served in the U.S. military forces and to whom we owe the blessings of living in this great country.
Re #127: In the military, questioning the morals of your superior's decisions is called 'insubordination'. I understand under certain circumstances it carries the death penalty.
Not quite, gull. Disobeying _lawful_ orders can be punished by death. Obeying unlawful orders is punished by at least imprisonment: consider Lt. Calley.
re#129 and #126: Perhaps in some other country's militaries, but not in the US. Even in basic training for enlisted grunts there is training on the concept of lawful orders. FOr anyone who is going to be in a position to give orders and this includes NCOs and up there is very strict training. THe professional soldier - remember, these are not draftees, they actually want to be there - is well versed in the Geneva Conventions as well as the lessons of the past. "I was just following orders" does't wash - and the penalty for the issuer of the order might even be harsher than the follower of an illegal order. These are not mindless drones and they are enlisting in a specific cause they believe in - the defense of the US - definding your right to post what you do here for one thing.
re#130 - slipped in: Note that Lt. Calley went to prison, not his entire platoon.
didn;t he end up owning a pizzeria?
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
When I spoke of drones it was of those who sign-up, voluntarily, for the military knowing they will have to do what they are told, wherever they are told to do it, and how they might feel about those orders is of no consequence, really. Give you an example - six years ago some nice flag waving kind of guy signs up for the Army. He gets his degree, does some special training, and wakes up one morning on a transport plane to Iraq. Now, six years ago little Bush wasn't on anyone's radar. We were still supporting Saddam, our friend. But now this guy is told to shoot to kill if he sees someone stealing food from a grocery store still smoking from our bombs. He thinks that maybe we should have taken a more diplomatic approach, maybe worked harder and make a case with real and convincing evidence. Maybe worked within the UN instead of going cowboy. But he sure as heck knows he doesn't want to be doing this gig. Does he follow his orders, and shoot? Does he refuse? His first mistake was signing up in the first place. Fighting for a cause you believe in is one thing. But this poor sod become a hired gun. I suspect he's not alone.
Actually, I think we stopped arming Saddam at the end of the Iran/Iraq war. So that makes it like 1988 since we've been friends. Time flies...
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
And another thing, all military commissioned officers are far from mindless. It is not at all uncommon for them to have post-grad degrees. Indeed the professional trade schools such as West Point have academic standards far higher than that of even such as UM (even EMU). Its why their football teams suck.
(think about it for a moment, if they were mindless hulking baby killers they'd field a heck of a football team now wouldn't they.)
The "shoot looters as a deterrent" directive was reported in the New York Times. It caused an uproar and an immediate damage control response from Rumsfeld who when asked about it said, "We have rules of engagement; have had; do today. They've not been changed. We will use whatever force is necessary for self-defense or for other selected purposes," he added. Rumsfeld, when speaking of looters also commented, "The forces there will be using muscle to see that the people who are trying to disrupt what's taking place in that city are stopped and either captured or killed." U.S. officers said, "The rules of engagement haven't changed. Soldiers can shoot suspected looters only if they ignore warning shots, resist arrest or threaten U.S. troops." I find no comfort in the "only", not when chaos reigns. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-05-14-iraq-security-usat_x.htm
This response has been erased.
I think that at the height of the crackdown on looters our soldiers were put in the position of killing or maiming Iraqis who were helping themselves to food and other commodities. Maybe the looters didn't care they put their lives on the line. Maybe they didn't know that warning shot was meant for them. Maybe they were running away out of fear they'd be taken away, as many were. And I also think there were soldiers there who didn't think what they were being told to do was right and moral but who were in a hard place so they simply did what they were told. The crux of the matter is some people find this obedience an example of patriotism, in the extreme. I see it more as a form of moral cowardice. So we disagree.
This response has been erased.
So, how many actual looters were shot and killed?
This response has been erased.
Well, according to General Tommy Franks, "We don't do body counts". So an exact number of looters shot and or killed would be hard to find, I'd guess. But a simple Google search brings up reports on looters being shot, so I guess it does happen. Now, the *civilian* death toll in Iraq, since we started this war, is estimated to be somewhere between 5,000 and 8,000 people. Most sources seem to agree on the range. I sure am glad we don't have an issue with the Iraqi people and we're just after Saddam. I shudder to think how many we'd kill if we weren't trying to help them out.
During the same time period, how many people would Saddam and his sons have killed? (Or, perhaps, it doesn't count when they kill their own people.) (And how many lives have been saved by military doctors working in Iraq. Naw. I spose those wouldn't count, either.)
This response has been erased.
Let's do the math. Saddam killed somewhere between 100,000 and 250,000 of his people between 1968 and his ouster. Let's take a middle figure, 175,000, and divide it out. He killed about 416 people a month, on average. In 6 months we've killed, say, 6,500 civilians. We're averaging 1083 a month. WE'VE GOT A WINNER! A silly question deserves a silly answer. We aren't in competition with a despot. We're there to help the Iraqi people. How are we doing?
haha.
This response has been erased.
How many of those "civilians" were militia and other irregulars like sadaam fedayeen? If you kill two guys driving around in a "civilian vehicle" such as a pickup, who were not wearing a military uniform - wearing civilian clothes- because one of them was firing a .51 heavy machine gun mounted in the bed at you, did you just kill civilians? I betcha the NYT thinks so - I betchas those "statistics" are gathered at morgues and hospitals where everyone who looks like a civilian is a "civilian casualty". Hmm, 9/11 -3000 "civilian casualties"/19 in one day. Gulf War-II, -8000 "civilian casualties"/~100 over the course of how many days? Their kill ratio is still orders of magnitude higher.
re: "#154 (mary): Let's do the math." Don't forget to net out the lives that we're saving. Then there's the small matter of approximately 1 million people who died during the Iran/Iraq and Kuwait wars.
This isn't just a math problem. Assuming that Saddam did kill 175,000 of his own civilians, the average would be better calculated by using the year in which he came to power rather than 11 years earlier. The Baath coup was in 1968, but Saddam didn't become president until 1979. So on *average*, Saddam killed over 600 people per month. Using Mary's numbers, that's a bit less than the numbers killed during the war, but these are *averages*. As stability returns, the average will quickly drop. Of course, I'm not sure that including civilian casualties caused by Baathist guerrillas should accrue in the US death toll, but that's another issue. For nice round numbers, let's just say that the number killed in the 12 months since the war will equal the number that would have been killed by Saddam. So we're no better or worse of in that category, except for one thing: Saddam is no longer in power and in the next year (and those thereafter) some 7500 lives will have been saved.
More children will die this year in the US because of the existance of swimming pools than all the Iraqi civilians killed by our military during GulfWar-II. In the US a child is way more likely to be killed by a swimming pool than firearms. And more US citizens will die by automobile this year than the total US KIA in the vietnam war. (We need automobile control, not gun control!)
I realize that comparison somehow makes the situation in Iraq more tolerable, reasonable even, for you. But I find no comfort in thinking that reckless and drunk drivers happen here so what's the problem if we kill a few thousand innocent Iraqis while we occupy their country. Try as I can - it doesn't work. Maybe that kind of rationalization needs practice.
In almost all cases of accidental deaths here there is some form of compensation for the victims and their relatives and punishment for the perpetrators of the deaths. If any analogy is going to be claimed, as pvn wants to do, then compensation and punishment should follow in Iraq also. However the deaths in Iraq are gratuitous, and the perpetrators are supposed to be honored. I don't see any equivalence.
This response has been erased.
I recognize that just compensation and punishing does not follow in *all cases*, just in almost all cases. We are also talking about the gratuitious slaying of civilians in bombings, barrages, and stupid mistakes, which were most of the cases. I think the military euphamism is "collateral damage". How about some collateral compensation and punishment?
re#164: First of all they were not "gratuitous" but as you point out "collateral damage". THe military took great pain to strike targets in such a way as to mitigate civilian casualties and even spent a lot of money for the technology to do so. Part of the huge cost of the war is that smart bombs are so very much more expensive. I recall reading a story about some poor iraqi civilian bitching to the media about how his windows had been blown out of his house right across the street from a target building. In past wars the target would have been destroyed but he wouldn't have been alive to complain.
This response has been erased.
You have several choices: