|
Grex > Agora41 > #37: What can be done in the middle east? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 604 responses total. |
other
|
|
response 275 of 604:
| 
Apr 20 04:18 UTC 2002 |
Keep in mind, this is not so much a consciously formulated opinion as the
bubbling up of impressions through a sludge of data amassed over a long
time.
|
russ
|
|
response 276 of 604:
|
Apr 20 14:10 UTC 2002 |
Out of 30 fighters, only 4 escaped and at least one of those was
seriously maimed. "Decimating" is when 1/10 are casualties; 9/10
casualties is devastation. I'd call that a successful campaign, no?
Of course, all of the damage from the invasion would have been
prevented had the PA's "police" simply arrested the Islamic Jihad
and Hamas gunmen and bomb-makers. Responsibility for the military
action rests completely with the Palestinian Authority and Arafat.
|
lk
|
|
response 277 of 604:
|
Apr 20 19:12 UTC 2002 |
Just in case the Al Ahram article was too long, here is an abstract:
Al Ahram interviewed a terrorist who managed to escape from Jenin, and he
presents a different picture of what happend in the camp. One of fierce battle
and confirmation of Israel's "story", that many buildings (50 in an area the
size of a football field) were booby-trapped. That a substantial amount of
the damage was thus self-inflicted in an effort to kill Israeli soldiers
(and not destruction caused by Israel in an effort to weed out terrorists
let alone kill innocent civilians).
For the full story and gruesome details:
http://web1.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2002/582/6inv2.htm
|
aaron
|
|
response 278 of 604:
|
Apr 21 15:25 UTC 2002 |
re #272: If Leeron, an atheist sitting in the United States, can hold his
bizarre views, and be unable to comment on the subject with any
degree of objectivity, the fact that somebody in Israel might
rant from time to time is hardly surprising.
re #273: Leeron, as usual, you miss the point. You argue that Israeli
"extremists" are the exception - even as they are given Knesset
seats and cabinet posts, and call for ethnic cleansing of the
occupied territories, without a word of censure. Yet you pretend
that all Palestinians are evil terrorists who must be exterminated
or ethnically cleansed, because a small percentage are the moral
equivalent of Israel's extremists - the people Amos Oz calls
"Hezbollah in a skullcap".
The point is that you are a bigot, blinded by your hatred.
re #274: Actually, the present confict is perpetuated primarily by Israel's
illegal settlements in the occupied territories. Numerous
observers, including U.S. administrations, have called them the
most significant impediment to peace. Colin Powell recently
observed them to be destructive to peace. With all due respect
for your admission that you do not know the background to the
conflict, you should attempt to learn more about it.
re #277: I think most people, Leeron, caught your inane propagandizing
the first time around. So you are arguing that the Palestinians
should have rolled over and played dead, rather than resisting?
Are you serious?
|
aaron
|
|
response 279 of 604:
|
Apr 21 15:33 UTC 2002 |
Other - here's a ten-year-old map from the UN. A significant number of
new settlements have since been added - including the 32 new settlements
stared in the past year by Ariel Sharon. Perhaps you can see why this
type of activity caused Bush to briefly tie U.S. loan guarantees to a
cessation of new settlement activity, or why the Mitchell Plan connected a
settlement freeze with progress toward a peaceful resolution:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpal/maps/M3639.gif
You should also be aware that a leading pioneer of this illegal settlement
was none other than then Housing Minister Ariel Sharon, who has a strong
support base among settlers, and who has vocally expressed regret that
Israel's peace deal with Egypt required that it shutter its illegal
settlements in the Sinai.
|
lk
|
|
response 280 of 604:
|
Apr 21 20:16 UTC 2002 |
Isn't it odd that Aaron spends more time attacking me than my arguments?
> Actually, the present confict is perpetuated primarily by Israel's
> illegal settlements in the occupied territories.
Israel agreed at Camp David to dismantle the majority of these settlements,
as it did with settlements in Sinai when it was given to Egypt (and, you
should mention, the person responsible for dismantling those settlements
was none other than Ariel Sharon).
I don't know that we need to rehash your usage of "illegal" and "occupied",
so I'll just remind other readers that according to the definition of
occupied territory in the Fourth Geneva Conventions (Article 2) the
disputed territories that are legally administered by Israel do not
constitute "occupied" territories. And if the settlements were illegal,
I'd expect Arab states to pursue this matter in accordance with Article
149 of the Conventions (which describes how to settle disputes) or in
the International Court of Justice (which exists precisely for such cases).
Instead we see an end run of the LEGAL system with POLITICAL maneuvering.
(As you know, the reason this is not taken before the Court is because it
is too risky; the Arab states cannot afford a judgment favoring Israel.
No judgment serves their purpose as well as a judgment against Israel
whereas a judgment favoring Israel would undermine their political efforts.)
The Mitchell plan does call for a freeze on settlements, but not until the
3rd stage. The first stage is an IMMEDIATE and UNCONDITIONAL CEASE FIRE,
something Arafat first committed to in the October 2000 Sharem Agreement
but which he never implemented. The vehicle to implementing the Mitchell
Plan was the Tenet Agreement -- which Arafat grudgingly signed but refused
to implement. Most recently, Arafat indicated that he would agree to Zinni's
bridging proposals, but after Israel agreed Arafat introduced new conditions
just prior to the Passover massacre. It was Arafat who scuttled Zinni's,
mission -- and for the 3rd time.
|
lk
|
|
response 281 of 604:
|
Apr 21 20:35 UTC 2002 |
Other, I think the key question raised by what you say is your mention of
"Palestinian malcontent". It's all too easy to fault Israel for all the
ills of the PA. It's not a new concept. Trouble in Syria or Iraq? Guess
who is to blame? Israel.
But if you look inside the PA, a different story emerges. You can read
all about it in an article that appeared in the Detroit News, which I
believe was written by an Arab American journalist.
http://detnews.com/2002/editorial/0202/10/a13-412235.htm
Similarly it is all too convenient to blame Arab terrorism on the "brutal"
Israeli "occupation". Except that doesn't explain the terrorism that came
before 1967, or the rash of terrorism (including suicide murderers) which
began in 1994 -- in response to the peace process, at a time of hope.
What is ironic is that while sympathizers and apologists in the West keep
finding new excuses, rationalizations and justifications for Arab terrorism,
the reasons stated by the terrorists have not changed:
They attack Israel because it exists and because they want to destroy it.
They don't want to compromise; they want peace WITHOUT Israel.
You can read it in the PLO Covenant (which has not been amended as required),
in the Hamas Covenant (which no one expected to be modified), and you can hear
it in speeches of PA officials, from the Mufti of Jerusalem (calling for Jews
everywhere to be killed, a condition for Islamic armageddon and redemption)
to "moderate" Feisal Husseini who compared the Oslo peace process to the
Trojan Horse, designed to get Arab fighters into the territories.
You can treat me as a "fanatic" (just because I am outspoken? Certainly
my views are not extremist or fanatical), and you can pretend that what I
say is no more truthful than what PLO representatives state in English.
It's not like we can challenge their sound-bites, but everything I state
can be challenged on Grex and we can also evaluate what is known.
Jenin is a perfect case. One false anti-Israel accusation is replaced
with another. Massacre? No. Massive destruction? Self imposed. Just a
few days ago many around the world were scoffing at Israel's "story"
of booby-traps. Yet hubris on the part of one of the Islamic Jihad
fighters has allowed the truth to slip out (it has also been independently
confirmed that most of the dead were fighters and that at least 2 bodies
were found laced with explosive belts.)
The NY Times (I think that's where I saw it) reported that Israel also
captured 10 suicide bombers -- who had already taped their final message.
Israel's siege of Jenin trapped them and they were unable to complete their
murderous missions. Then they were captured, probably saving hundreds of
innocent Israeli civilian lives and preventing maybe a thousand injuries.
If you watched Nightline Friday night, you may have heard another twist.
Contrary to Aaron's allegations, the ICRC was allowed to enter the camps on
the condition that Israel be allowed to inspect the ambulances leaving the
camp -- as is its right under the Geneva Conventions (Israel had already
apprehended 2 terrorists, unwounded, who were being smuggled out in a
Palestinian Red Crescent ambulance.)
Much has already been said about Israel risking the lives of its own troops
in hand-to-hand combat in order to minimize civilian casualties. Prior to
Nightline I had not heard that after being surprised by booby-traps and the
extensive destruction, Israel sent in its own rescue teams (the same teams
that were sent to the embassies that were blown up in Africa and which are
rushed to earthquake scenes around the world).
Americans tend to view the Palestinian Arabs as the underdog, and there is
a tendency to back the underdog. I can understand that, but I cannot fathom
the willingness to cling to one lie that replaces another, and after a
string of lies has been exposed to evoke false equivalences and vacuous
claims that we can't really know the truth.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 282 of 604:
|
Apr 22 05:45 UTC 2002 |
I agree with the editorials that say Israel has only made the situation
worse and likely to escalate retaliatory bombings. They killed a lot of
alleged Palestinian terrorists, but I have no doubt that they have barely
dented the supply. Their country is in the middle of a vast sea of
potential anti-Israel terrorists extending for hundreds of miles. All they
did was hit at a few convenient nearby ones, but also wrecked immense
damage on innocent civilian infrastructure and people. They have gained
nothing and lost much favor in the democratic world (but apparently they
don't care because they DID get some eyes in exchange for a few of their
own eyes).
|
lk
|
|
response 283 of 604:
|
Apr 22 07:18 UTC 2002 |
Except that the group that "wrecked immense damage" were the terrorists
who booby-trapped an entire neighborhood and blew it up. A suicide village,
if you will.
Would you have preferred Israel do nothing while dozens of suicide bombers
made their way to murder Israeli civilians?
Of course with the blow dealt to the terrorist infrastructure (bomb factories
destroyed, weapons seized, leaders arrested, fighters arrested or killed),
and with Arafat's surge of popularity -- maybe Arafat will now LEAD his
people toward peace?
|
scott
|
|
response 284 of 604:
|
Apr 22 13:03 UTC 2002 |
Leeron, you're making *way* too much of the boobytraps. The Israelis used
bulldozers to "shave" off the fronts of buildings, sent bombs into other
buildings, and ran tanks through everything.
If the Palestinians could get enough explosives to do that much damage, they'd
be able to get much better weapons through the same channels.
|
gull
|
|
response 285 of 604:
|
Apr 22 13:50 UTC 2002 |
Any booby-traps probably would have been anti-personnel bombs, not ones
designed to reduce entire blocks of buildings to the piles of concrete
rubble we're seeing in the news photos.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 286 of 604:
|
Apr 22 19:38 UTC 2002 |
I would have preferred Israel not to have conducted a military invasion
that killed civilians and destroyed buildings and utilities. They could
been more effective at slowing attacks by tighter sealing of their
borders - and withdrawing the settlements in the occupied territory.
I doubt that the "terrorist infrastructure" has been much damaged and
certainly not for long. The military action was a great recruitment
advertisement for more terrorists and their infrastructure.
|
lk
|
|
response 287 of 604:
|
Apr 22 23:05 UTC 2002 |
Scott, David, have you even bothered to read the descriptions of the
bomb-maker, interviewed by an Arab paper, who contradicts your assertions?
Soldiers were drawn into buildings that were then demolished. Cars and
dumpsters were rigged with explosives intended to destroy tanks.
The fighters hoped to disable the Israeli army's tanks with much
more powerful bombs placed inside rubbish bins on the street. More
explosives were hidden inside the cars of Jenin's most wanted men.
Elsewhere I've read that some bombs were the equivalent of 100s of KGs.
Again, why do you think it is that many residents (true citizens)
cooperated with the IDF? Perhaps, once they weren't threatened by the
terrorists, they decided they weren't all that hip about having their
houses blown up for the sake of, maybe, killing a few soldiers?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 288 of 604:
|
Apr 22 23:33 UTC 2002 |
It is best for citizens to cooperate with an invading army (at the risk
of being killed by your own partisans). So, some do and some don't, both
for the sake of self preservation.
|
scott
|
|
response 289 of 604:
|
Apr 23 00:00 UTC 2002 |
Well, Leeron, since Arab sources are always (according to you) biased, why
should I trust an Arab paper?
Or perhaps is it the case that papers are only "biased" when they don't agree
with your opinions?
|
lk
|
|
response 290 of 604:
|
Apr 23 14:38 UTC 2002 |
Rane, I meant to say "civilians", not "citizens", but you might have made
the same point. Perhaps it is generally true, but in this case I think the
motivation may have been to save their houses from bombs planted by
terrorists hoping to kill soldiers. I think you also need to weigh the
extent. Sure, "traitors" are everywhere and can also be found, but what
does it mean when a significant percentage of the population are
"collaborators"? In the first intifadah, we now know, half of all Arab
deaths were Arabs murdered by Arab death squads. And in the second
intifadah we continue to see rampant executions and public lynchings.
Is this truly run-of-the-mill, what you'd expect?
Or perhaps these "collaborators" are simply those who thing that more
can be achieved, without violence and terrorism, at the negotiating table?
Scott, where have I ever said that Arab sources are always biased?
When you quoted propaganda from electricintifadah.com, I refuted it
point-by-point. When a source is repeatedly demonstrated to be wrong,
then I think one is justified in questioning something that it claims
which cannot be corroborated elsewhere. But no where did I make the
claim you stated.
So why don't you tell us why you are willing to ignore the events as
related by a terrorist bomber interviewed by an Arab magazine?
How about you, David: why are you willing to suggest that the booby-traps
were small anti-personnel bombs when the interview indicates the opposite,
that these were powerful explosives intended to incapacitate tanks?
|
gull
|
|
response 291 of 604:
|
Apr 23 15:40 UTC 2002 |
Because the photos suggest Oklahoma City style destruction, and you
can't do that with explosives you could inconspicuously place in an
apartment. Saying that all of the destruction was by Palestinian booby
traps, and the Israeli tanks, rockets, and bulldozers did nothing, is
really reaching, and you know it.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 292 of 604:
|
Apr 23 16:48 UTC 2002 |
oklahoma style? what...was there a "WhataBurger" or a "Sonic Burger"
in the background?!
|
klg
|
|
response 293 of 604:
|
Apr 23 23:55 UTC 2002 |
re: "#291 (gull) Because the photos suggest Oklahoma City style destruction,
and you can't do that with explosives you could inconspicuously place in an
apartment." So, I guess, you are claiming that the structures were all built
to code? How heartening.
|
scott
|
|
response 294 of 604:
|
Apr 24 01:24 UTC 2002 |
Oh puh-leaze, klg. "Those Arabs; not only do they lie about blowing up their
own housing, but they're such morons they couldn't even build them right to
begin with."
|
russ
|
|
response 295 of 604:
|
Apr 24 05:28 UTC 2002 |
I find it interesting that the various militias claim to have been
using sections of water main as improvised bombs, yet somehow the
clueless left blames Israel for the lack of water in Jenin. Exactly
where do these people think water main comes from, and what do they
expect as a result of cutting it free to use it for bombs?
(This is NOT rocket science.)
Carrie, I have a question for you in particular. On page A13 of
today's (4/23/2002) New York Times, there is a picture of a commander
in the Al-Aqsa Brigades, bearing a rifle. This rifle is obviously
a US-built M-16 to the eye, and is described as an "American made
carbine" in the article.
These rifles were provided to Arafat's Palestinian Authority for
use by their *police forces*. Simple question: Do you have any
doubt that Arafat is arming terrorists? Yes or no.
|
mdw
|
|
response 296 of 604:
|
Apr 24 07:42 UTC 2002 |
Seems to me that having american arms isn't proof of much of anything,
except perhaps that one could with some justice blame american arms
merchants for the current conflict. It's certainly feasible enough for
any arab who wants american arms to go steal them from whomever has a
bunch. I have no doubt but that the Israelies are also using american
arms, and that those arms have at times been used for illegal purposes.
Unless we want to impose an arms embargo on the region (and it seems far
too late for such an embargo to have any good effect), I think we're
stuck concluding that whatever bad stuff happens in the middle-east is
happening to the profit of someone here in the states.
I have heard it claimed that Arafat has been sponsoring a terrorist
organization to co-opt anyone else trying to organize such a thing and
splintering his support. I don't know how much truth there is in that
claim, but there is evidently quite a lot of grass-roots support for
terrorism amongst present-day palestinians, and it does seem reasonable
to suppose that if Arafat weren't doing so, somebody else would. The
interesting question is how much is Arafat in control of the situation,
and how much of the situation is in control of Arafat. Or perhaps, to
phrase it another way, how much room does Arafat really have to promote
peace, and how interested is he in exploiting such room?
Here in the US, when the settlers were moving west, there were an awful
lot of Indian tribes, who tried all sorts of different responses to the
settlers. This ranged from trying to become as western as possible up
to and including a printing press and newspaper (Cherokee), to well
organized armed warfare in the middle of nowhere (Sioux). There were
many honest attempts made to make peace treaties that were fair and
equitable to all, for all time. We all know what happened to the
Indians in the end.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 297 of 604:
|
Apr 24 10:53 UTC 2002 |
i want mississippi back...oh wait..i also want
the isle of barra back...
|
lk
|
|
response 298 of 604:
|
Apr 24 11:23 UTC 2002 |
Scott: didn't you claim Palestinians have to live in tents because Israel
wouldn't grant them building permits -- yet now you are assuring us that
these buildings were well built?
David, re#291:
> Saying that all of the destruction was by Palestinian booby traps, and
> the Israeli tanks, rockets, and bulldozers did nothing, is really reaching,
> and you know it.
Yup, and I said nothing of the sort. I believe my words were that much of
the destruction was self-inflicted.
> Oklahoma City style destruction
The Murrah Federal Building was what, 10 floors? Do you really want to
argue that it's construction was no different than 2 story flats?
|
scott
|
|
response 299 of 604:
|
Apr 24 12:56 UTC 2002 |
Re 298: If you believe gross over-exaggerations of what I've said, then yes.
|