|
Grex > Agora41 > #37: What can be done in the middle east? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 604 responses total. |
mdw
|
|
response 100 of 604:
| 
Apr 5 04:09 UTC 2002 |
I haven't heard any reason to suppose Sharon is a different person
today. My understanding is that he's deeply committed to somehow
removing as many Palestinians from near Israel as possible -- and no
matter how you swing this, this seems to somehow involve a lot of
killing and mass violence. As far as I can tell, Sharon is one of The
major reasons we are seeing the violence in the middle east today.
|
lk
|
|
response 101 of 604:
|
Apr 5 04:52 UTC 2002 |
Mike, that wasn't my point. The point is that it wasn't "genocide" and
certainly less attrocious than many of the massacres of the Lebanese
civil war that have long been forgotten.
Amongst the dead in Sabra and Shatilla in 1985 were *fighers* from
Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Libya and Algeria. According to the Lebanese
police, less than 8% of the dead were civilians. The attrocity was
that fighters who had surrendered or had been captured were executed.
In fact, as I stated, Shatilla itself was the target of another massacre
in 1985, three years after the massacre on Israel's watch. This time it
was Muslim Arabs, not Christian Arabs, who were doing the butchering.
One should hope that we never again see barbarity the likes of the Lebanese
(un) civil war. But to neglect 149,000+ victims and only and repeatedly
concentrate on a few hundred victims (while misrepresenting the circumstances)
is pure and simple political propaganda. An attempt to smear Israel and Sharon
not for something they did but for something they negligently failed to
anticipate and prevent.
The demonization of Sharon is another another attempt to draw a false
equivalence in the region. We might as well discuss if Churchill was
worse than hitler given the bombing of Dresden.
For a Lebanese opinion, see:
http://www.free-lebanon.com/LFPNews/Belgium/belgium.html
Ariel Sharon is no terrorist nor evil. He is not Yasser Arafat who
ordered the slaughter of the American diplomats in Khartoum, or the
shootings at Italy's Airport, or the Achile Lauro affair, to the
various bombing in Paris, and the assassination policies in London.
The Palestinian terrorist list is very long, ranging from ... to
Okamoto in Lod, to Carlos in Beirut and Damascus....
Sabra and Shatilla was instigated and perpetrated by Elias Hobeika,
a ruthless murderer working for Syrian Intelligence. Hobeika is
responsible for a long list of massacres and murders against the
Christians in Lebanon, the Muslims, the Druze and the Palestinians
included. Yet, he does not fear justice as he is under the protection
of his Syrian friends.The Kahane Report details his involvement.
[Hobeika was assassinated in Lebanon a few months ago.]
|
russ
|
|
response 102 of 604:
|
Apr 5 05:11 UTC 2002 |
Re #92: So you admit that the two sides use vastly different
standards of justice with their own? Thank you.
Re #97: Even the Sabra and Shatilla events count only as revenge
against particular enemies. If "genocide" was involved the number
of deaths would have been higher by hundreds of times.
Hamas wants genocide. The PLO charter calls for genocide. Israel
has never called for genocide, let alone perpetrated it.
|
russ
|
|
response 103 of 604:
|
Apr 5 12:28 UTC 2002 |
Re #100: So tell me, Marcus... who's responsible for Sharon
holding office today? He had next to no power until Arafat and
his homicidal minions discredited the moderates.
|
lk
|
|
response 104 of 604:
|
Apr 5 20:03 UTC 2002 |
Some of today's news (from Ha'aretz):
21:31 IDF: Explosives laboratory found in the home of Palestinian police
chief in Nablus
13:51 Lebanese minister: `No secret` Palestinians behind firing of missiles
along Israel-Lebanon border
11:47 IDF says seized weapons including 50 anti-tank grenades, 2 launchers;
9 bombs; 4 explosives belts; 1,300 rifles
09:17 Palestinian gunmen still holed up in Church of Nativity in Bethlehem;
holding 65-70 priests hostage
|
rcurl
|
|
response 105 of 604:
|
Apr 5 20:29 UTC 2002 |
Is there some distortion in those? I saw an interview with an Italian
journalist that had been in the church, and he said nothing about
priests being held hostage, and pictures of them showed them going
about their normal activities. The information I heard was that the
priests and others were treating the visitors as guests.
What was in that "Explosives laboratory"? I would expect a police chief to
have some weapons in his home, especially there.
(I admit I have become very sceptical of claims like these from
either side.)
|
mdw
|
|
response 106 of 604:
|
Apr 6 03:46 UTC 2002 |
As best I can tell, Sharon has had significant power & influence for a
long time, certainly over a decade. It's true, 10 years ago, he had the
rather unglamorous title of "Minister for Construction and Housing". At
the time, people probably thought he could do no harm there... He used
this position to promote a huge housing/construction drive, including
quite a bit of controversial and perhaps illegal housing on the west
bank. This process seems to have been accompanied by a certain amount
of carnage, and pissed off a whole bunch of palestinians. This all
happened *before* the current wave of trouble - many people credit this
as one of the big reasons why the peace talks broke down. Since Sharon
has openly opposed those peace talks, I don't think he's shedding any
tears.
So, er, no, I don't see how Sharon had "next to no power" before the
arab extremists, and I believe it would be more accurate to say he was
intrumental in creating the unrest that brought him to power. He
certainly didn't do it alone, but he is certainly part of the Israli
half of the equation of war.
|
richard
|
|
response 107 of 604:
|
Apr 6 03:48 UTC 2002 |
the thing is that even if Sharon gets voted out in the next election, his
replacement could well be Bibi Netanyahu, which would be going from bad
to worse. Netanyahu is ever further to the right than Sharon. What happened
to the moderate and liberal factions in Israel anyway? Are there only
hardliners that have any power there?
./
|
mdw
|
|
response 108 of 604:
|
Apr 6 04:17 UTC 2002 |
They've killed all the moderates.
|
mary
|
|
response 109 of 604:
|
Apr 6 12:01 UTC 2002 |
I don't think the United States should try to play a role in
presenting any ceasefire or treaty agreements. We have too long
supported Israel to even pretend to be a even-handed. If I were
an Arab I'd sure not trust us.
|
lk
|
|
response 110 of 604:
|
Apr 6 13:34 UTC 2002 |
Marcus, Ha'aretz is Israel's leftist newspaper and is generally critical
of the government (this is why Aaron loved to quote them). Comparing claims
from the free press in Israel with what is written in government controlled
Arab papers is like comparing the NY Times to a Taliban mouthpiece.
Where are the Israeli "moderates" (left)? Many have been greatly discouraged
over the events of the last 19 months: Arafat walked out on Clinton's
compromise, without even a counter-offer, and returned to violence and
terrorism as a political tool (PA ministers are on record saying that this
strategy was adopted even before Sharon announced his trip to the Temple
Mount -- as if that justifies violence and suicide bombings -- and Tanzim
chiefs have stated that they were ordered, by Arafat, to violence, even
before Sharon's visit. In fact, the violence began before the visit, but
it's such a great pretext that it is no wonder that, mimicking old Soviet
reports, "at exactly noon 'spontaneous' demonstrations broke out across the
territories...."). In March alone, as many Isareli civilians were murdered
(proportionate to the population) as in 3 WTC attacks.
The real question should be: where are the Arab moderates? (fearing for
their safety in Hezbollah's back yard, Egypt & Jordan didn't even attend
the Arab League summit in Beirut and the Saudis left early, ostensibly
because a member of their delegation was sick.)
The demonization of Sharon continues: As housing minister he built... houses!
Stop the presses! Yes, some of those were in the outskirts of Jerusalem, areas
which Israel had annexed (and, it should be noted, areas that cannot be
considered "occupied" or "Arab land" since the 1947 partition allocated them
to the "international city" of Jerusalem (which, 10 years later, would have
voted upon its final status. Given that 75% of the population was Jewish,
it's a good bet that it would have voted to join the State of Israel.) In
1948 these areas were illegally seized by Trans-Jordan and the Jews living
there were ethnically cleansed.) Some of the houses Sharon built as housing
minister may have been in the disputed territories -- but the "settlements"
began in the late 1960s under the Labor party (when survivors of the 1948
war and their descendents asked to return to their villages from which they
had been forced out in the Arab invasion).
Nor is Sharon against the peace process. He has spoken of a Palestinian Arab
state in the territories in concordance with a peace settlement (note, also,
that he was in charge of dismantling settlements in the Sinai when it was
given to Egypt in the last 1970s).
BTW, in all the pictures coming from the areas of IDF's operations, we've
seen pictures of nice houses -- but not a single tent....
15:05 UN locates four Katyusha rockets aimed at Israel 3 kilometers north
of Lebanese border fence
14:29 IDF claims Palestinians deliberately placed an explosive device in
Bethlehem main water pipe
12:57 General Security Services apprehend two Palestinians suspected of
murder of Minister Rehavam Ze`evi
10:14 IDF: Four high-ranking PA officials from Bethlehem among armed
Palestinians in Church of the Nativity
10:04 Saeb Erekat: if Powell does not meet with PA`s Yasser Arafat;
Arabs will boycott secretary of state
|
klg
|
|
response 111 of 604:
|
Apr 6 15:46 UTC 2002 |
re: mdw "My understanding is that he's deeply committed to somehow removing
as many Palestinians from near Israel as possible." And what would be the
source of this "understanding?" And are you also of the "understanding" of
the Lebanese proposal that the establishment of a Palestinian state would
enable them to deport the Palestinians living within their borders and of the
"understanding" that the Saudis have already deported 300,000 who had been
living there?
So please explain to us how you come to the conclusion that "Sharon is one
of The major reasons we are seeing the violence in the middle east" rather
that the Arab states?
re curlie "What was in that "Explosives laboratory"? I would expect a police
chief to have some weapons in his home" So I guess that it would be just
hunky dory with you if the chief of police in AA if he was cooking up bombs
in his basement.
re: #106 (mdw): As best I can tell, Sharon has had significant power &
influence for a long time, certainly over a decade." In case you hadn't
heard, Israel is a democracy, and its leaders are in power due the fact they
have the consent of those being governed. Perhaps, just perhaps, if more
Israelis had been realistic during the past decade and had been willing to
see Arafat for what he actually is - rather than what they'd like him to be
- a real solution could have been achieved instead of wasting time over the
fairy tales that have culminated in the present situation. And re: "He used
this position to promote a huge housing/construction drive." Just who do you
think it was who oversaw the dissolution of settlements in the Sinai as a
condition for the Israeli-Egyptian treaty?
re wally: "What happened to the moderate and liberal factions in Israel
anyway?" Pay attention. Your boy Arafat made them realize what their true
intentions are.
re mary: "We have too long supported Israel to even pretend to be a
even-handed. If I were an Arab I'd sure not trust us." Wow. The US is
showing favor to a democratic government rather than to a despot. How unfair!
So please bless us with your insights as to why the arabs are always begging
the US to become more involved if our government is always so biased and
wrong.
|
mary
|
|
response 112 of 604:
|
Apr 6 16:33 UTC 2002 |
The Arabs are begging us to be more open to their situation.
I suspect the Palestinians would love to be able to have democratic
control and vote the tanks off their streets. The fact that Israel is
democratic justifies squat. I suspect much of our support for Israel is
generated by *our needs*. And racism plays a part.
|
klg
|
|
response 113 of 604:
|
Apr 6 18:10 UTC 2002 |
Right. Their "situation" of sending bombers to kill families
in restaurants.
Racism??? Where have you been the past 6 months. People in the US
have been bending over backwards to avoid offending the feelings
of Arabs. And yet the American people still back Israel by a
factor of 5 to 1. You think the US "needs" Israel?? For what,
may I ask. What we have is the natural bond of democratic and
freedom-loving peoples facing totalitarian despots out to destroy
us.
|
oval
|
|
response 114 of 604:
|
Apr 6 22:35 UTC 2002 |
the US needs Israel because they need a strong political ally in the middle
east - one that also has a strong military as well. and i find it hard to
believe that the same person who referred to all palestinians as "barbarian"
would deny that any racism is involved.
it is quite arrogant to claim that our wonderful democracy is justified in
oblterating countries in that region because of their 'totalitarian' ways.
that, my dear is - as jazz put it- pure irony. i would not choose to live in
say, Iran, but just because i would not want to wear those garments and walk
behind a man, i think their punishments for crimes are too harsh, and because
the US is alsways stirring up trouble over there. that being said, i also
don;t understand why people who sell marijuana spend more time in jail than
priests who rape kids.
it's an oil game, and an attempt aat spreading our 'wonderful democratic
capitalist system' worldwide so that every single little country is dependant
upon our economy. totalitarianism?
|
lk
|
|
response 115 of 604:
|
Apr 6 23:01 UTC 2002 |
Excerpts from http://detnews.com/2002/editorial/0202/10/a13-412235.htm
Foreign Policy
Mideast ponders life after Arafat
Palestinians signal leader is barrier to peace
Sunday, February 10, 2002
By Shikha Dalmia / The Detroit News
Until recently, a majority of Israelis rallied around Arafat for what Newsweek
writer Fareed Zakaria calls the "fear of the alternative." He was regarded as
the only moderate politician with enough stature to convince Palestinians to
make the painful compromises necessary for obtaining their long-desired state.
THE INTIFADA IS AS MUCH A RESULT OF PENT-UP FRUSTRATION AGAINST ARAFAT'S
MISRULE and corruption as against Israel.
Palestinians have little confidence that Arafat would cut the right deal --
because he's already burned them once. After Israel returned parts of the
West Bank and Gaza to Arafat following the 1993 Oslo accords, Palestinians
hoped they would finally have a free state with a flourishing economy. But
Arafat has created instead a chaotic and authoritarian entity that is fast
slipping into an economic abyss.
Corruption reaches the highest ranks of the Palestinian Authority, whose
members are in cahoots with Arafat's cronies in the al-Fatah, the political
organization that Arafat founded. They are all mostly outsiders who
accompanied Arafat when he returned from exile in Tunisia.
Al-Fatah and PA functionaries run the country like their private fiefdom. They
have enriched themselves on the steady stream of development dollars that the
international community keeps releasing into the Palestinian economy.
Meanwhile, the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza have seen their LIVING
STANDARDS PLUMMET SINCE ISRAEL'S PARTIAL WITHDRAWAL from their territories.
In addition, the rule of law is nonexistent. Courts barely function, revenge
killings by rival clans are common and Arafat thwarted full democracy by
refusing to hold elections again.
Short of praying for Arafat's early demise, both Israelis and Palestinians
will need a good measure of Arafat's tenacity if they are ever going to get
rid of him.
|
mdw
|
|
response 116 of 604:
|
Apr 6 23:52 UTC 2002 |
Sharon has given many interviews--while his views have no doubt changed
with time, and likely also change with who he thinks he's talking to; I
think there can be no doubt but that he would like to relocate many
palestinians. This appears to be commonly spoken of as Sharon's plan.
I found this to be interesting reading:
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/may01/shusteff1.htm
this appears to have been written by someone who is probably even more
hawkish (in some ways) than Sharon -- and he's presumably also
representative of some significant fraction of Israeli people who don't
appear to have any real interest in getting along with the Palestinians.
He speaks openly of an "oath of loyalty", says Israeli has no reason to
work to support a stable state for the Palestinians, and expresses the
wish that they should just all move to Jordan. While it is true
Palestinians make up a majority of the population in Jordan today,
apparently that was not always true. I find it hard to believe that the
forced relocation of the remaining Palestinians would not destabilize
the existing regime in Jordan, and lead to a situation much like what we
have today in Lebanon.
Presumably
http://www.liesexposed.net/nfp/issue0111/pal.htm
was written by "the other side". It has some terrible things to say
about Zibri - don't know if those are true are not. It goes on to say
that Sharon has called "all palestinians" "terrorists" - I can't find an
original source for that but it does tend to suggest that at the very
least, Sharon has a huge PR image problem in the Arab world. If he did
say that, it's difficult to see how he thinks that can be reconciled
with other statements he's made that Jews can live in peace with Arabs.
When I said "they killed all the moderates" I wasn't speaking in terms
of the recent wave of violence. I was thinking more of Sadat, who was
killed in 1981 by militant Arabs, and Rabin, killed in 1995 by a
militant Jew. Clearly, there are people on both sides of the problem
who do not want peace, and are willing to kill moderates on their own
side in order to prevent peace.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 117 of 604:
|
Apr 7 03:49 UTC 2002 |
Re klgoof: naturally quoting out of context.
|
klg
|
|
response 118 of 604:
|
Apr 7 14:24 UTC 2002 |
poopy:sez "i find it hard to believe that the same person who referred to
all palestinians as "barbarian" would deny that any racism is involved."
I say, check your statement.
and: "our wonderful democracy is justified in oblterating (sic) countries"
Such as??
poopy sez :" an attempt aat (sic) spreading our 'wonderful democratic
capitalist system'" Vote the despot party! Support the subjugation of your
country's own citizens! Poverty for all! Nobel peace prizes for killers of
women and babies!
|
russ
|
|
response 119 of 604:
|
Apr 7 14:45 UTC 2002 |
Re #114: If the USA was after alliance for alliance's sake, the
obvious nation to support would be Saudi Arabia or Kuwait for
the sake of the oil. The support of Israel has cost us plenty
(think of the oil price shocks) and paid back relatively little
as far as cash is concerned. On the other hand, when you recall
the Holocaust and who was on which side of that, it's very hard
to see how the USA could be allied with the historical sympathizers
of the Axis and against their most conspicuous victims.
|
klg
|
|
response 120 of 604:
|
Apr 7 15:55 UTC 2002 |
true
|
lk
|
|
response 121 of 604:
|
Apr 7 17:14 UTC 2002 |
mdw, re#116:
> Sharon has a huge PR image problem in the Arab world.
You seem to be indicating that he has a PR problem in the west, too, even if
for no good reason.
But how seriously should we take your pro-Arab source that writes:
| Of course, George Bush has taken Sharon's position, condemning the
| assassination of the antichrist Jew as a "despicable act." Bush's
| Jewish sidekick, Ari Fleischer
[The "antichrist Jew" referred to Israel's tourism minister who was
assassinated by the PFLP. Zeevi was an advocate of a population "transfer"
but had just resigned from Sharon's government to protest its centralism.]
Yet a more sober statement from that article contradicts your premise:
| Ariel Sharon even declared "an all-out war to the finish against the
| terrorists, their helpers and those who sent them."
Sharon has not stated that every Palestinian Arab is a terrorist, and
certainly he is not conducting operations as if they are.
All of which makes your following words ring very hollow:
> I think there can be no doubt but that he would like to relocate many
> palestinians. This appears to be commonly spoken of as Sharon's plan.
In reading the Israeli press on a daily basis, as well as the NY Times, and
listening to ABC and CNN and channel flipping between channels, I've NEVER
heard any such reference to the "Sharon plan". I don't suppose you have a
credible source for the "Sharon plan"?
Perhaps you should concentrate more on what Sharon has written?
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/dec00/sharon.htm
I am for lasting peace. All of us, we are committed to peace, and
all of us in Israel understand that peace is almost as painful as
war, because very large-scale compromises must be done....
We need peace, we want peace - but we are always asked this question:
What are you ready to give for peace? The time has arrived that the
Palestinians - or any other Arab country - should be asked this
question: What, gentlemen, because peace is important for you not
less than for us, what are you willing to do for peace?
> some significant fraction of Israeli people who don't appear to have any
> real interest in getting along with the Palestinians.
While there is such a fraction, I disagree that it is significant. Barak's
initial election (over Netanyahu) and his support as long as the peace process
moved forward and terrorism was in check is ample proof of this.
What is true is that, today, given the realities of the last 21 months (since
Camp David), many Israelis are skeptical of Arafat's intentions -- and
justifiably so. After 8 years of negotiations, even if at times bumpy, Arafat
walked out on the paradigm of compromise and returned to violence and
terrorism (despite his protestations that he "can't" stop the terrorists, we
now know that he has continued to fund them and provide weapons -- can anyone
explain the huge cache of weapons, including mortar launchers, found within
Arafat's compound?)
In March alone, on a per capita basis, Israel suffered the equivalent of 3
WTC attacks. So it's not surprising that more Israelis are now *voicing*
support for "transfer", but these are therapeutic words with no action behind
them.
Even Rabbi Kahane (the modern day originator of the "transfer" plan) could
manage only 1 seat in Israel's 120 member parliament -- before, that is,
his party was outlawed as racist.
|
oval
|
|
response 122 of 604:
|
Apr 7 22:18 UTC 2002 |
apologies klg .. twas russ who said that.
|
lk
|
|
response 123 of 604:
|
Apr 8 05:33 UTC 2002 |
The following is from AP reports last week:
LEADERS INCITE MANY ARAB PROTESTS
By Donna Bryson
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) The crowds are large and their chants fiery, but
Arab protests - such as those against Israel's pressure on Yasser
Arafat are often used and even choreographed by the region's
governments to send messages abroad and keep anger over domestic
problems in check.
Then these very same Arab leaders turn and excuse their actions on the
basis of not being able to control the "Arab street"....
The AP also reported:
``Is it his (Sharon's) homeland or ours?'' Arafat said in an interview
Tuesday night with the Arab satellite TV station Al Jazeera.
Good question: Sharon was born in Israel (then ruled under the British
Mandate). Arafat was born in Egypt!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 124 of 604:
|
Apr 8 05:37 UTC 2002 |
LEADERS IGNITE ISRAELI MILITARY....and round and round they go.
|