response 123 of 176:

Dec 6 01:41 UTC 2003

"Are you suggesting that all the Palestinian Arabs are against peace and
 will remain intractable even after Arafat dies?"

Sometimes that seems to be your position, at other times you seem to be saying
that Arafat is solely responsible for the mess.  Of course, it's quite hard
to pin you down on anything, since you'd rather just post stories about
Palestinian attacks while ignoring anything bad from Israel.

Hey, this is good opportunity to (again) bug you to comment on the story about
the former Israeli intelligence people being sharply critical of the current
Israeli policies.  But I suppose you'll want to ignore that and beat some
already-dead horse...

response 125 of 176:

Dec 6 06:17 UTC 2003

There are a lot of people in Israeli (and other intelligence services) who
disagree.  All this proves is that Israel is a democracy with a free press.
(And that whenever you have 2 Jews you're likely to have 3 opinions.)

After decades of propaganda incited by Arab leaders, does anyone expect
the populace to be moderate? Recall for example that the 1929 Hebron
Massacre, which destroyed the ancient Jewish population of Judaism's
second holiest city, was instigated by the Mufti passing out falsified
pictures of Jews destroying Al Aqsa. If only there was CNN... but even
that might not help. Today the PA TV shows spliced pictures of Israeli
snipers aiming at and shooting Mohammed Al Dura (the 12-year old intifada
poster boy who in all likelihood was shot by Arab gunmen, perhaps even
intentionally in an attempt to frame Israel). This is followed by staged
appeals by Mohammed for other children to put away their toys, pick up
weapons and become martyrs.

And it gets even more confusing. Whereas the Arab masses celebrated the
9/11 attacks on the US, they believe that the attack was carried out by
Jews and Israel.

And you think my position is paradoxical?

It's not. The factual reality is that the majority of Palestinian Arabs
support even suicide bombings of innocent civilians. They say that once
peace is achieved with Israel the battle should continue. Where do they
get these ideas? From their "leadership".  Which in turn feigns that it
can't make peace because the "street" wouldn't permit it -- even as it
continues to incite the people.

So where does this cycle end? It has to come from the top, from the person
who controls the guns (or the vast majority of them).  Educators such as
Sari Nusseibah have to walk on egg-shells and whisper their ideas lest they
be labeled "collaborators" and find themselves killed by Arab death squads.
(This isn't a new phenomenon. I remember moderate voices within the PLO
being executed by the mainstream in the 1970s and 80s. I wouldn't be
surprised if this was also true in the 1930s and 40s.)

Unfortunately the man who controls the guns (and refuses to yield them
even to his own prime minister) is Arafat. He is the leader who has the
clout to come out and say: "Enough. We must find a solution that both
sides can live with".  And here-in lies the key mistake of Oslo.

Seven years were squandered with Arafat talking peace in English yet
sending an entirely different message in Arabic: a message of never
compromising, of achieving total victory, of a million martyrs marching
on Jerusalem, that the road to Jerusalem runs through Haifa....

Then at Camp David he had the audacity to tell President Clinton that
making peace would be signing his own death warrant (because if one of
his own didn't assassinate him, one of the even more extreme terrorist
groups -- which he allowed to run rampant -- would do so.

In a tyranical dictatorship without a free press you can't really have
a grass-roots movement. First it's difficult to find people who haven't
bought the lies broadcast by the media -- and those who know better also
know how dangerous it is to stick out their necks.  (Even those who
complained about children being bussed to violent riots where they were
likely to get hurt or killed were rebuked and threatened into silence.)

Why do you think that Abu Mazen resigned? Sure he was frustrated, but
he was also scared for his life and he wanted out while he still could.

The sad reality is that the only leader with the clout to make peace is
Arafat. Yet he refuses to do so. Do you think he's driving a hard bargain
while thousands of people die or do you think he's not interested in peace?
Do you think he's holding out for 98% or even 99% of the territories instead
of having established a state on 97% 3 years ago? Or does he want much more
than 100% of the disputed territories -- including Haifa and all of Israel?!

Arafat is 74 and not in the greatest of health. If he doesn't step up to
the plate, and there's no sign that he will, things will get worse. What
do you think will happen when he dies (of natural causes) if the status quo
remains more-or-less as is?

Do you think the dream of destroying Israel ("throwing the Jews into the sea")
will die with him and that a new leader will emerge who will accept peace and
compromise and establish a democratic Arab state in the territories?

Or do you think that there will be a large power vacuum that will cause a
civil war between the factions that aren't powerful enough to challenge
Fatah so long as Arafat is alive?

response 127 of 176:

Dec 6 15:30 UTC 2003

That's quite a stretch... professional opinions become proof of a free press,
never mind that the military seems to be having unprecented problems with
internal dissent.

response 129 of 176:

Dec 6 20:49 UTC 2003

Back to the fundamentals, I see.  Leeron, as usual I'm not going to fall for
the "you have to argue *my* points and only *my* points technique".  

response 131 of 176:

Dec 7 07:06 UTC 2003

I like how your analogy about the curtain made absolutely no sense.

response 133 of 176:

Dec 7 17:30 UTC 2003

Re #132:  Simple, Scott?  (I know what's simple, and it isn't
Leeron's stated view of things...)  Leeron presents a nuanced
picture of the conflict, including international issues.  In
contrast you only seem to be able to say "Israel BAD".

NPR this morning noted (without analysis or comment) that statements
by Hamas and Islamic Jihad declared that the two murder groups would
stop suicide attacks against targets in Israel.  NPR also noted that
there had been no successful suicide attacks in the last two months.
Are we supposed to believe that they have finally seen the light, or
is it more reasonable to conclude that they have just been weakened
too much to carry out attacks and need a convenient excuse?  Anyone
want to take bets on what they'll do if they are given a period of
relief in which to regroup?

For a very sobering and cogent analysis of why the USA is attacked by
Al Qaeda, Israel is attacked by the various Islamic terror groups and
why their parlance refers to Israel and the USA as the Little Satan
and Great Satan respectively, I suggest this eye-opener:

http://www.gbgm-umc.org/trinityumctn/WhyAttacked.htm

A slightly editted quote:

        A culture's world view operates far, far below the
        conscious level of its citizens, but it forms the
        foundation of a culture's structures of common life and
        community. Threats or challenges to world views evoke
        very strong resistance from individuals. When persons
        are able to vocalize the feelings of threat of their
        people, they easily gain a following. (In Germany after
        the Weimar Republic, Adolf Hitler vocalized quite
        fluently what the great majority of Germans were
        feeling.)
        ...
        The primary motivation of the Taliban, bin Laden and Al
        Qaeda springs from their extreme religious
        fundamentalism. This has been pointed out by numerous
        Arab/Muslim commentators for years. They see western
        culture as such an extreme threat that they are willing
        to commit suicide to turn it back.
        ...
        The threat that the West (the USA being the foremost
        western nation) presents to the Taliban and their
        religious ilk is the West's world view, scientific
        epistemology. They perceive our scientific-technological
        world view as an overwhelming threat not merely to their
        way of life, but as an actual affront to Allah, and
        indeed, reality itself.

It appears that this was written some two years ago, but the astute
reader will note that it explains why Al Qaeda has found it good and
righteous to murder dozens in Baghdad, Istanbul and Riyadh as well
as Americans and Jews wherever they are.  The fundamentalists view
western thought as inherently corrupting and evil, and westernized
Muslims are as much or more a danger to their faith as Americans.

The fundies have targeted all who accept modern modes of thought for
death.  They've set the rules of the conflict:  they will not stop
until they are dead or otherwise incapacitated.  People who argue
that we should not do our best to incapacitate them argue for suicide.

response 135 of 176:

Dec 7 18:26 UTC 2003

Russ, are you saying that we should "do our best to incapacitate" (what the
heck does that mean, bombing?) people based on their religion?

Got a plan for not killing the people who aren't a threat?

Got a plan for what will happen if "we" target a religion for our next war?

response 137 of 176:

Dec 7 19:15 UTC 2003

13:26   Qureia: That Palestinian dialogue took place in itself is a success...
        message to world we are united behind our cause

Except they failed to even agree to a cease-fire, let alone to peace.
What is this "cause"?

15:10   1,200 Palestinians, dozens masked and armed, demonstrate in Rafah
        refugee camp in Gaza against Geneva Accord

15:35   Hamas, other Palestinian factions say truce terms should not
        authorize Qureia to hold talks with Israel

This confirms that this is a "Muslim hudna". A truce not to advance peace
but to allow the terrorists to rebuild their infrastructure and to renew
their murderous attacks when they are ready.

16:37   Senior Hamas official: Hamas and four other factions reject Egypt`s
        proposal for comprehensive cease-fire with Israel

19:23   Qureia leaves cease-fire talks in Cairo after it becomes clear no
        agreement on final statement to be reached now

19:41   Palestinian source: Final statement from Cairo talks will not mention
        halt to attacks on civilians or empowering PM Qureia

response 139 of 176:

Dec 7 20:49 UTC 2003

Gads... Leeron, you're still making an issue out of my sources, when you've
also claimed you don't denigrate sources?  How long ago was that, and how many
other points have you ducked in the meantime?

Ah yes, it's time for another convenient Leeron Memory Lapse, where he can
somehow keep track of the entire history of the argument and yet forget each
and every occasion where he was proved wrong?  Of course, by his rules if I
wanted to argue "fairly" I'd be happy to waste my time dredging up those
arguments yet again, only to have him jump off to some other position for me
to "prove".


P.S.  Russ:  You and Leeron both basically agree on the same thing:  That the
entire fault rests with Arabs.  

response 141 of 176:

Dec 8 00:31 UTC 2003

Russ fat.

response 143 of 176:

Dec 8 00:57 UTC 2003

Russ fat.

response 145 of 176:

Dec 8 04:41 UTC 2003

AHAHAA< OR< MORE APTLY AROUND LEERON< WHEN EEVR WILL YOU LEARN NOT TO TAKE
IT IN THE BUTT?!

response 147 of 176:

Dec 8 14:21 UTC 2003

Leeron, I'm well aware you believe that you're arguing to a bigger audience
of unknown web surfers.  I suppose that's why you find it worthwhile to spend
great amounts of time on this thread.