response 126 of 173:

Jun 2 01:44 UTC 2002

Not behind the pyramid with the camel, the six pointed star is the shape 
formed by the thirteen stars above the head of the eagle on the back of 
the bill.

response 128 of 173:

Jun 2 07:22 UTC 2002

klg, Halkin does an excellent job in presenting both sides and the
respective "asymmetric" solutions. For example, is it fair if the
Jews get to return to Judea, Samaria and Gaza but Arabs don't get to
return to Israel? Or is it fair that Arabs get to stay in Israel but
Jews can't remain in a Palestinian Arab state-to-be?  But he forgets
one thing that impacts the symmetry: over the years Israel has allowed
about 130,000 Arabs (most under the guise of family reunification)
into Israel. So even without including their offspring, there would be
symmetry if that many "settlers" were to remain in the territories.

Similarly, there is evidence (entry vs. exit numbers) that tens of
thousands of Arabs have entered the disputed territories in recent years,
overstaying their tourist or work visas. (Odd, isn't it, that they choose
to sneak into an area under a "brutal occupation", eh?)  So again there
is symmetry.

response 130 of 173:

Jun 2 16:08 UTC 2002

If "Palestine" even exits.

response 132 of 173:

Jun 4 00:35 UTC 2002

In response #1, I provided the American version of Camp David and Taba
as presented by Dennis Ross, the US special Ambassador. Now, former
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak speaks out.  Read all about it here:

        http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15501

response 134 of 173:

Jun 4 19:09 UTC 2002

Except that it wasn't a "take it or leave it" offer (as has been
stated by top PA negotiators). It became such only because the
Palestinian Arabs refused to make a counter-offer and simply
rejected each and every American and Israeli proposal.

Barak has previously spoken about lying vis-a-vis the political process.
While this is not stated in this article, I think what Barak was alluding
to is that Arafat lies in the west, even though what he says may be
recognized as lies back home, his political clout increases because he is
standing up to the west (even if only by lying).

response 136 of 173:

Jun 5 14:04 UTC 2002

I disagree on two main points. The Palestinian Arabs were not presented
with a "take it or leave it" plan. There were negotiations and discussions.
According to a London-based Arab paper, there were about 2-dozen proposals
on Jerusalem itself. The take-it-or-leave-it plan was Arafat's in that he
showed no flexibility to relinquish or compromise on *any* of his demands.
Rather than Barak taking advantage, as you seem to realize it was Arafat
who was taking advantage of the situation.

Bill, you want a Nobel peace prize and a seat at the pantheon of great
peacemakers? Then you must pressure Israel to give me everything I want.

Ehud, you want to get re-elected? Then you must appease all my demands.

If you think Arafat's in a better position today than he was 24-months
ago, then you are not paying attention to the news.

First, his popularity rankings AMONGST THE PALESTINIAN ARABS are DOWN.
Much of the pressure for REFORM is INTERNAL. (Arafat demonstrated just
how confused he is earlier this week when he thought that replacing those
in his quasi-government that supported terrorists with hamas terrorists
would be reform. Thankfully Hamas declined to join his government.)

In the international arena, Arafat isn't trotting around the globe visiting
his friends. No one wants to be seen hugging him. Sure, you could say that
this is so because Israel has threatened that if he left the country they
may not let him return, but could Israel have made such a statement, let
alone carried it out, 2 years ago?  No way.

Arafat is at least as weak as he was following the Gulf War (when he sided
with his good friend Saddam) -- a weakness that helped open the door to the
Madrid peace conference.

response 138 of 173:

Jun 7 04:59 UTC 2002

And there are a lot of israelis (now more than ever perhaps)
who believe the same thing - it is not in their best interest
to have a PLA state sharing a common border.  What Mossad 
needs to do is a 'false flag' op and take out Arafat using
a hardline hamas patsy.  No matter who steps forward it probably
won't be any worse.  What Israel also needs to realize is that
the original idea of land for peace is a good one.  It needs to
withdraw from the entirety of the west bank and gaza, let the
nascient palastinian state allow in whomever it wants. And
finally and most importantly, do business with them.  Good
business makes good friends - economic ties are the most reliable.
If the palastinians grow the chickens for the israeli soup and
the israelis sell the computers to the palastinian chicken farmers
then boths sides have a monetary reason to not upset the system -
and if nothing else in common both the arabs and israelis are
consumate businessmen.  The question of Jerusalem needs to be
ignored for right now, it is irrelevent to the majority of either
parties.  

response 140 of 173:

Jun 8 01:57 UTC 2002

re bdh's recipe for settlement:  " It needs to
 withdraw from the entirety of the west bank and gaza, let the
 nascient palastinian state allow in whomever it wants. And
 finally and most importantly, do business with them."  Sounds like the 
same, failed policy that was to create a peace with Egypt.  Instead,
the state-sponsored Egyptian press is one of most virulent anti-
Semitic one in the world.  bdh proposes that Israel (1) have
what are essentially indefensible borders (6 - 8 miles at its narrowiest. 
How long would it take to walk across it, let alone drive a tank?)
and (2) have its new neighbor become the staging ground for every
Arab anti-Israel terrorist group known to man.

As Eric Hoffer said, "Everyone expects the Jews to be the
only real Christians in this world."

response 142 of 173:

Jun 8 12:37 UTC 2002

nascent, Lebensraum.

response 144 of 173:

Jun 8 15:56 UTC 2002

For more on the Egyptian front, see this article by Joshua Hammer

Cairo Dispatch: Tie Breaker
18 Feb 2002
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020218&s=hammer021802

response 146 of 173:

Jun 12 19:11 UTC 2002

Golda Meir's statement is terribly racist. 
I am sure that while there are some who encourage their children to be 
martyrs, it isnt always the case. And you know what, there are people 
who say the same thing about Israeli settlers. 


Suicide Bombers Vs. Suicide Settlers

URL: http://www.theglobalist.com/nor/richter/2002/06-06-02.shtml
Copyright (c) 2002 by TransAtlantic Futures, Inc.

Are Israeli settlers more of a threat to the peace process than 
Palestinian suicide bombers?

Palestinian extremists and their hatred of Israel are very loud and 
easy to spot. Witness all the "Death to Israel, Death to America" 
rallies, suicide bombings, etc. On the other hand, Israeli extremists 
and their hatred of Arabs are more subtle. And they are much more 
effective.



Rational extremism You see, Israeli extremists are just as fanatical 
about their cause as are Palestinian suicide bombers. But they 
understand that in order to maintain the proverbial "moral high 
ground," they must refrain from retaliatory killings.

While they are as affected by Palestinian violence as other Israelis, 
they also recognize the benefits of Palestinian attacks on civilians. 
For every Israeli killed by a Palestinian, international support for 
the state of Israel is strengthened.

Here's where Israeli rationality begins to undermine Palestinian 
passion: If Israeli extremists can provoke Palestinians into violence 
and killing without committing such acts themselves - so their 
rationale goes - the Israeli government and the international community 
will support their cause..


The means to an end Coincidentally, the cause of Israeli extremists and 
the means to achieve it go hand in hand. Radical Israelis originally 
sought a "Greater Israel" that included the West Bank and Gaza Strip - 
and beyond that.

Even today, they continue to fight to include as much of the West Bank 
and Gaza Strip as possible for the state of Israel. That leads them to 
the incredible position of opposing a security fence on the "green 
line" - the June 4, 1967 border. The existence of such a fence, the 
radicals believe, would concede most of the West Bank and Gaza to the 
Palestinians.

But settlements are more than just a means of grabbing territory. They 
are also a means of provoking Palestinians to violence - and gaining
international support.


Close neighbors If you don't think Israeli settlements are being used to
provoke Palestinians, think again. In the West Bank city of Hebron, 
around 500 Israeli settlers live amongst nearly 150,000 Palestinians.

While many other settlers choose barren West Bank hilltops - which are 
more easily defended - Hebron settlers go about their daily lives right 
under the noses of their Palestinian neighbors.

Such boldness is the virtual equivalent of suicide - and does, in fact, 
wind up getting many of these settlers killed.

In April 2001, for example, a ten-month-old Jewish girl was killed in an
attack near the settlements in Hebron. The settlers in Hebron then 
called on the Israeli government to allow more settlers into the city 
as a means of avenging the death.

But even Israelis asked whether the parents of this baby girl were not 
at least irresponsible for raising their child in what is, in effect, a 
war zone. Yet, to criticize such settlers when Palestinian extremists 
are literally killing babies in these settlements is near impossible 
for the Israeli government.


Who are the martyrs? If a martyr is someone who dies to actually serve 
a cause, Israeli settlers have created far more martyrs than the 
Palestinian suicide bombers.

When an Israeli settler dies at the hand of a Palestinian, the Israeli 
government moves to support settlements - and international opinion 
turns against the Palestinians.

When a Palestinian suicide bomber blows him- or herself up, the case 
for any type of Palestinian state is severely damaged. Ultimately, 
Palestinian suicide bombers serve no cause by their deaths - and 
therefore make very poor martyrs.


Losing their cool But sometimes even Israeli extremists fall victim to
passion and commit acts of violence. And just like Palestinian suicide
bombers, they too fall out of favor with both the international 
community and the Israeli government.

In 1994, for example, Baruch Goldstein, a Brooklyn-born Israeli 
physician shot and killed 29 Palestinians praying in the Abraham Mosque 
in Hebron before he was overpowered and killed.

In the aftermath of the massacre, U.S. President Bill Clinton called for
increased efforts in peace negotiations - undermining Mr. Goldstein's 
aim of keeping the West Bank for Israel.


Yigal who? But nothing can compare to the assassination of Israeli Prime
Minister Yitzak Rabin. On November 4, 1995, an Israeli law student with
connections to an Israeli extremist group shot and killed Rabin at a 
peace rally in King's Square (now Rabin Square) in Tel Aviv.

While Mr. Rabin's assassination was a major blow to the highly-
successful peace efforts of the early 1990s, it ruined any credibility 
that Israeli extremists might have had in the mind of the Israeli 
public for quite some time.

In fact, when a memorial for Yitzak Rabin was constructed, the designers
refused to put the name of Rabin's assassin (Yigal Amir) on the 
inscription - referring to him only as "a Jew who wore a kippa."


The Palestinians blow it However, continued bus bombings in Tel Aviv and
other acts of violence resurrected the power of extremist views toward 
the Palestinians. Then the suicide bombings of the second intifada 
killed any remaining popular Israeli support for the peace process.

These Palestinian bombers - like their Israeli cousins - wanted to stop 
the peace process. They did not want to give up the idea of a "Greater
Palestine."

What they did not realize then - and have yet to realize now - is that 
to "get rid" of Israel requires international support. As hopeless as
such a cause may be, Palestinian extremists do even further damage to 
their aim by blowing things up.


Machiavelli vs. peace What does this mean for the proponents of genuine
peace between Israel and the Palestinians? Perhaps their greatest
adversaries are not the suicide bombers - at least as far as political
strategy is concerned. The suicide settlers have been much more 
successful with manipulating public opinion in their favor.

After all, the strategy of Israeli extremists uses perfect Machiavellian
logic: Provoking Palestinians to violence without committing any 
themselves are the political means to keeping the occupied territories 
in the end.

Suicide bombings, on the other hand, lack such political logic. Each 
bombing pushes off the day of Palestinian independence. Their cause 
certainly does not justify - nor is it served by - their means. The 
bombers' attacks are simply a means to their own end.

Thursday, June 06, 2002

response 148 of 173:

Jun 13 05:49 UTC 2002

Lynne:

> Golda Meir's statement is terribly racist.
> I am sure that while there are some who encourage their children to be
> martyrs, it isnt always the case.

It's not the least bit racist. It's a statement based on stated policy.
At the time Golda made her statement, Anwar Sadat was proclaiming that
he was willing to sacrifice 1,000,000 Egyptian sons to destroy Israel.

You are right that it isn't always the case, but on a societal level it
is true. Early in the intifadah, when some concerned parents raised their
voices in concern to children participating in violent riots, the government
paper wrote that such thoughts constitute a "fifth column" and that people
who make such statements should be dealt with like "collaborators".
"Public service" commercials on PA TV implore youngsters to put
down their toys and pick up arms, to join the fight and to become martyrs.
Mrs. Arafat has stated she wished she had a son who could become a martyr
(but didn't offer the daughter she does have).

As for your article, it's a very poorly written piece with little to say
other than a peculiar desire to make a false equivalence between people
who go out and blow-up innocents to those who choose to farm what was
Jewish land prior to the 1948 Arab invasion.  As if their choosing to
live on the other side of an armistice line is a threat to peace (but
the Arabs living on the Israeli side are not).  As if "suicide bombers"
have anything in common with "suicide settlers".

> Israeli extremists are just as fanatical about their cause as are
> Palestinian suicide bombers.

Except for:

1. They don't go around murdering innocents.

2. They don't run the government but form a small voice in a democratic
society.

3. Most of the "settlers" are not such fanatical extremists.

> If Israeli extremists can provoke Palestinians into violence
> and killing without committing such acts themselves - so their
> rationale goes - the Israeli government and the international
> community will support their cause.. 

No supporting information? Quotes by which we can see that this is really
"their rational"?  And just what is it that the people of Netanya, the teens
dancing at a Tel Aviv disco, the families dining at a Jerusalem Sbarro, the
people riding on a Haifa bus -- and many others -- are doing to "provoke"
violence?

Ironically, this is the same paranoid argument that some expressed on the
Nightline forum. When it finally became clear even to the greatest terrorist
apologists that continuing Hamas attacks (the Rishon Letzion bombings) were
harming the Palestinian cause, they invented a conspiracy between Sharon and
Hamas.  Then the PFLP and Fatah's Al Aqsa Brigades continued their attacks,
too. They never could tell me if Sharon was conspiring with all Palestinians.

So no: the problem is that Israel's mere existence is a "provocation" for the
Arab terrorists. While the western apologists go fishing for one excuse or
another, the terrorists don't need them.

The ignorance of the writer is easily discernable in the discussion of Hebron:

> In the West Bank city of Hebron, around 500 Israeli settlers live
> amongst nearly 150,000 Palestinians. While many other settlers choose
> barren West Bank hilltops - which are more easily defended - Hebron
> settlers go about their daily lives right under the noses of their
> Palestinian neighbors.

E-Gads. Just think of the audacity of the Arabs in Ann Arbor, living right
under our own noses! Never mind that Hebron is Judaism's second holiest city
-- or these Jews are living in what was, until the 1929 massacre, the Jewish
quarter.

Ironically, in order to condemn the Jews of Hebron as awful extremists, the
author seemingly slips and concedes that most "settlers" live on what were
"barren... hilltops".

But then the article gets downright distasteful: After discussing the murder
of a 10-month old girl (intentionally shot by an Arab sniper as she slept in
her crib), the author says that it's difficult for the Israel government to
criticize the settlers when, literally, their babies are being murdered.  It's
not just that babies are also being murdered inside Israel proper, but that
the author then equates murder with suicide:

> Who are the martyrs? If a martyr is someone who dies to actually serve
> a cause, Israeli settlers have created far more martyrs than the
> Palestinian suicide bombers. ...The suicide settlers....

I wasn't aware that cold-blooded murder of innocents constitutes martyrdom.
Israelis certainly don't view them as such.  Yet Arab murderer-martyrs
have their photos proudly displayed all over town.

Thank you, Lynne, for sharing with us perhaps the most revolting appeal to
false equivalence that I have yet seen.

> sometimes even Israeli extremists fall victim to  passion and commit
> acts of violence. And just like Palestinian suicide  bombers, they
> too fall out of favor with both the international community and the
> Israeli government.

And therein is the biggest difference of all: The Israeli government does its
best to prevent its extremists from carrying out acts of violence.  Yet the
Palestinian Authority at best turns a blind eye and at worst aids (or IS) the
terrorist extremists.  While the article talks about Israeli extremists'
struggle for credibility within Israel, it fails to mention that the Arab
terrorists enjoy the support of the vast majority of the populace (including
65-85% support of suicide bombings).

> the suicide bombings of the second intifada killed any remaining
> popular Israeli support for the peace process.

Not true: the majority of Israelis *still* support the idea of an Arab state
in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.  The numbers are declining, as they should be:
if Arafat or the PA government can't control its populace they have no
business being rewarded with a state.  Would you want to live next door (5-10
miles away) from a state run by Arafat and his thugs?

But still there is another important distinction. The declining support isn't
for peace (or even just a process). It's a decline in the belief that the
Arab side truly wants peace rather than the destruction of Israel. It's the
realization that no matter how much you may want peace, and no matter how much
Barak was willing to compromise at Camp David and Taba, you can't make peace
with someone who is unwilling to compromise and whose goal is your destruction.
support for peace (or even just a peace process) in Israel. It's the