response 75 of 604:

Apr 3 22:42 UTC 2002

They should stop making the violence an excuse, and get back to the
negotiating  table and only negotiate on the terms of a  settlement,
not bringing in anything concerning the current violence and incursions.
If they reach a settlement all the other stuff stops (in principle - at
least if the settlement includes a pan-Arabic agreement). 

response 77 of 604:

Apr 3 22:52 UTC 2002

  re #72:

  > Re #66: that goal, "to flourish as a democratic society amongst the
  > nations of the world, and at peace with its non-democratic neighbors
  > that have waged 54 years of war against it" seems also to be the goal
  > of Palestinian statemen, apart from the militants.

  I've never seen any convincing evidence that Arafat and the other 
  Palestinian leaders desire to establish a democratic society.
  I think it's highly questionable, too, whether they honestly wish
  to live in peace with their neighbors, but even giving them the
  benefit of the doubt on that score it's ludicrous to suggest that
  the Palestinian leadership wants to create an Israel-like (but Arab)
  democracy in their territories.

response 79 of 604:

Apr 4 00:17 UTC 2002

Thank you, Russ.  You restated my position perfectly.

response 81 of 604:

Apr 4 00:26 UTC 2002

If BOTH Israel and Palestine (the nation), and all the other countries
in the regional, formed a regional alliance, they could smother all of
the terrorist groups. 

response 83 of 604:

Apr 4 02:19 UTC 2002

re: "#54 of 82: by Rane Curl (rcurl) on Wed, Apr  3, 2002 (00:07):   By
surrendering to a reasonable settlement (such as the Saudi  proposal)"  How
can you call it "reasonable?"  Are you privy to the details that none of us
know?

   and re:  "History isn't going to treat Israeli very well  for the course
of action it is following, if it continues. Israel is  accomplishing *nothing*
by invading the PA lands, except to heighten  animosities."  Are you
clairvoyant now??  And isn't that what you were saying about the US action
in Afghanistan??

re:  "Re #52: As I'm sure you're aware, a full-scale oil embargo is extremely
unlikely.  For one thing, it would collapse Saudi Arabia's economy and 
probably result in the government there being overthrown."  I think you are
correct.  Wouldn't that be great if it happened?

re:  "What has been stated is that Arab terrorists,  in conjunction with the
governing authority, have perpetrated barbaric acts."  And those who celebrate
those barbarisms should be thought of as uncivilized (or barbaric), too.

re:  "#73 (rlejeune)  If invading the PA lands is destroying the terrorist
infrastructure, they seemto be doing a lousy job of it, as violence on both
sides seem more intense now than they ever were."  So you think there can be
a non-violent war??   What a novel idea!

re:  "#81  If BOTH Israel and Palestine (the nation), and all the other
countries  in the regional, formed a regional alliance, they could smother
all of  the terrorist groups."  What's that supposed to mean.  The only
country that wants to eliminate the terrorists is Israel.  The others want
to more.

response 85 of 604:

Apr 4 04:13 UTC 2002

Re #57:  If the bombings continue, Sharon may be ousted... by
Netanyahu.  And Israel uses courts and jails to render verdicts
and exact punishments against "collaborators", not mobs and guns.

Re #58:  So you think that cold-blooded murder is part of the
Palestinian psyche and not just the part that currently has freedom
of action?  At first blush it looks like you have depressingly low
expectations for them, so do clarify if you meant something else.
And while you're at it, explain how Israel could possibly trust that
group enough to be able to sign a peace treaty with it.  Is peace
possible while they are in control?

I'm naming people according to what they do, and do not do.  I do
not see Israelis bombing mosques and Ramadan services, nor do I
hear their leaders calling for such action.  I do see Palestinians
bombing Seders, and their leaders calling for action to continue.
Funny reasoning you use, calling my appraisal "hatred" because I
despise the latter and the people who support it.  Your words sure
do sound like support, Scott:  praising with very faint damns.

I see you're not willing to address the point I made in #46, that
you're using a double standard to judge the conduct of the two
sides.  You confirmed it in #58.  Keep digging that hole...

Re #77:  EXCELLENT note on Arab "leadership".  Without Israel to
define what they are against, they wouldn't have a program would they?

response 87 of 604:

Apr 4 05:10 UTC 2002

SCOTT, re#70, your quote is accurate, but why is it that it doesn't show me
saying that all Palestinian Arabs are barbaric?  D'oh! Because I didn't say
that.

OK, so now I saw #76:

> I'd not bothered to check the quote and  therefore got the context wrong.
> BFD.  Leeron is still trying to demonize people as a society, something he
> claimed not to do.

Hmm, Scott provides an incorrect quote, admits it, and still thinks he
"scored points".  It's just another of Scott's red herrings, precisely
because he doesn't want to address the issues.


DAVID, re#71, you're right about this crowd's perception of Bush, but note
my parenthetical remark that the same holds true of many (most?) Americans.


RANE, re#72:

> [peace] seems also to be the goal of Palestinian statemen, apart from the
militants.

In English, perhaps. But can you explain the following:

1. The failure to amend the PLO Covenant, calling for Israel's destruction?

2. The PNC's "Two-Phased" plan for the destruction of Israel (get what you
can by feigning peace and then fight for the rest)

3. Arafat's comparisons of Oslo to the Treaty of Kharesh?

4. Faisal Husseini's (a "moderate") statement that the Oslo process was a
"Trojan horse" designed to get Arab fighters into the territories?

Sorry, but there doesn't seem to be a difference between the "statemen" and
the "militants".

> What *particular* goal, in terms of a settlement, will Israel accept?

I can say with certainty what Barak and Israel put on the table at Camp David
and Taba: an independent (and contiguous) Palestinian Arab state on 96+3% of
the territories, with sovereignty over eastern Jerusalem, shared sovereignty
over the Temple Mount, compensation for "refugees" or "return" to the nascent
Arab state.

If peace with Israel was Arafat's goal, why was his counter-offer violence
and terrorism?


RUSS in #78:

> Any legitimate government in the West Bank must fight Hamas.

This is exactly right; if the peace process came to fruition, Arafat would
have to battle Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, etc.. By refusing to do so
first, he is putting the cart in front of the horse and the peace process
cannot move forward. It also makes people legitimately question Arafat's own
motives.

> the people  the West Bank and Gaza should be settled in permanent homes.

Where do you think they're living now? The mud hovels in which they lived when
under illegal Transjordanian rule (still visible south of Jericho) have long
since turned into permanent structures. Here's a description of (admittedly,
a wealthy part of) Ramallah:

http://home.pacbell.net/dunton/HL810.html 

"I think I've seen more Peugeots in Ramallah than in San Jose. Some of the
houses were modest like Adel's but some of them were enormous."

> If there are 6 million in the WB and Gaza

It's only about 3-4 million.


RANE in #81:

> If BOTH Israel and Palestine (the nation), and all the other countries
> in the regional, formed a regional alliance, they could smother all of
> the terrorist groups.

If those "other" countries stopped funding and supporting the terrorists,
well, it there wouldn't be anything left to smother. Your elves and fairies,
MIKE, are what it would take to make those countries oppose the terrorists.
(:

RICHARD, re#86, are you now quoting electronicintifadah.com?

> Occupied Palestinian Territories

Well, since "occupied" can only apply to the territory of states (see Article
2 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions), if these lands are "occupied" then they
are "occupied Jordanian/Egyptian territory." Yet Egypt and Jordan took control
of them illegally and have since renounced their claims to this territory.

The Camp David proposal was not presented by Israel but by Clinton. I've
previously quoted US Ambassador Dennis Ross explaining that it was a
compromise based on the needs, not wants, of both sides -- what could be
achieved (I'll dig up the quote in the next day or two).

Israel didn't pretend, it accepted it. Barak then even offered more at Taba
(96+3%, see item 101 in the Fall Agora cf). Nor is it true that the Clinton
compromise created "cantons"; Israeli settlements would have been dismantled
and the nascent state would have been on a CONTIGUOUS area in the WB and in
Gaza. See:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020325/map.html#

(See Camp David map in the lower right. Note that the dark areas represent
what the PA already controls while the light brown represent additional areas
that would have been included in the Palestinian Arab state that was
envisioned.)

response 89 of 604:

Apr 4 09:31 UTC 2002

You want Arafat to get a trial? Then let's ask Israel to extradite him
to the US and try him for the murder of American diplomats and citizens.

What Zinni wants to know is if Arafat is willing to accept his bridging
proposals from last week. Israel accepted them at the time, but then
Arafat issued new demands amidst a new wave of suicide bombings.

Zinni will meet with Sharon and Peres today to discuss this.

I suspect that if Arafat is willing to call for a ceasefire in Arabic,
ordering a halt to suicide bombings and all other attacks, both in the
disputed territories and in Israel proper.

Alternatively he might be given to resume negotiations under fire
(which is, ostensibly, what he wanted earlier -- when he thought that
meant that Israel would cease while the Arabs would fire).

I wonder how many of the Grexers who as recently as a few days ago insisted
that Israel should negotiate under fire -- when it was the suicide bombers
who were on the offensive and Israel on the defensive -- will now demonstrate
their hypocrisy and demand that the Israeli counter-offensive must end
before negotiations can resume.

08:23   CIA examining document said to show Arafat, PA funding terrorist
        activities 

09:26   Senior IDF officer: bomb factory discovered in Palestinian town of
        Salfit near Ariel 

08:45   Powell open to traveling to Middle East

response 91 of 604:

Apr 4 10:07 UTC 2002

Leeron, is Arafat worse than Sharon?   Sharon should not be back in 
power in the first place.  His irrational hatred of Palestinians in 
general and Arafat in particular is well documented.  The following is 
from www.hrw.org, the Human Rights Watch organization page, which just 
last year urged a criminal investigation into Sharon's role in the 1982 
massacres at Sabra and Shatilla:

"Details of the massacre: The massacre at the Sabra and Shatilla 
refugee camps occurred between September 16 and 18, 1982, after Israel 
Defense Forces (“IDF”) then occupying Beirut and under Ariel Sharon´s 
overall command as Israeli Defense Minister permitted members of the 
Phalange militia into the camps. The precise civilian death toll most 
likely will never be known. Israeli military intelligence estimated 
that between 700 and 800 people were killed in Sabra and Shatilla 
during the sixty-two-hour rampage, while Palestinian and other sources 
have claimed that the dead numbered up to several thousand. The victims 
included infants, children, women (including pregnant women), and the 
elderly, some of whom were mutilated or disemboweled before or after 
they were killed. Journalists who arrived on the scene immediately 
after the massacre also saw evidence of the summary execution of young 
men. To cite only one contemporaneous account, that of Thomas Friedman 
of the New York Times: “[M]ostly I saw groups of young men in their 
twenties and thirties who had been lined up against walls, tied by 
their hands and feet, and then mowed down gangland-style with 
fusillades of machine-gun fire.”

By all accounts, the perpetrators of this indiscriminate slaughter were 
members of the Phalange (or Kata´eb, in Arabic) militia, a Lebanese 
force that was armed by and closely allied to Israel since the outbreak 
of Lebanon´s civil war in 1975. It must be noted, however, that the 
killings were carried out in an area under IDF control. An IDF forward 
command post was situated on the roof of a multi-story building located 
some 200 meters southwest of the Shatilla camp.

Findings of the Kahan Commission:

In February 1983, the three-member Israeli official independent 
commission of inquiry charged with investigating the events known as 
the Kahan Commission named former Defense Minister Sharon as one of the 
individuals who "bears personal responsibility" for the Sabra and 
Shatilla massacre.

Former Defense Minister Sharon´s decision to allow the Phalange into 
the camps: The Kahan Commission report detailed the direct role of 
former Defense Minister Sharon in allowing the Phalangists into the 
Sabra and Shatilla camps. For instance, then-Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. 
Rafael Eitan testified that the entry of the Phalangists into the 
refugee camps was agreed upon between former Defense Minister Sharon 
and himself. Thereafter, former Defense Minister Sharon went to 
Phalangist headquarters and met with, among others, a number of 
Phalangist commanders. A document issued by former Defense Minister 
Sharon´s office containing “The Defense Minister´s Summary of 15 
September 1982” states: “For the operation in the camps the Phalangists 
should be sent in.” That document also stated that “the I.D.F. shall 
command the forces in the area.”

Former Defense Minister Sharon´s disregard of the consequences of that 
decision: As to former Defense Minister Sharon´s testimony that “no one 
had imagined the Phalangists would carry out a massacre in the camps,” 
the Kahan Commission concluded that “it is impossible to justify 
[Sharon´s] disregard of the danger of a massacre” because “no prophetic 
powers were required to know that a concrete danger of acts of 
slaughter existed when the Phalangists were moved into the camps 
without the I.D.F.´s being with them.” In fact, the Commission 
found: “In our view, everyone who had anything to do with events in 
Lebanon should have felt apprehension about a massacre in the camps, if 
armed Phalangist forces were to be moved into them without the I.D.F. 
exercising concrete and effective supervision and scrutiny of them…. To 
this backdrop of the Phalangists´ [enmity] toward the Palestinians [in 
the camps] were added the profound shock [of Bashir Jemayel´s recent 
death]….”

The Kahan Commission further found that:

If in fact the Defense Minister, when he decided that the Phalangists 
would enter the camps without the I.D.F. taking part in the operation, 
did not think that that decision could bring about the very disaster 
that in fact occurred, the only possible explanation for this is that 
he disregarded any apprehensions about what was to be expected because 
the advantages . . . to be gained from the Phalangists´ entry into the 
camps distracted him from the proper consideration in this instance.

The Commission explained that “if the decision were taken with the 
awareness that the risk of harm to the inhabitants existed, the 
obligation existed to adopt measures which would ensure effective and 
ongoing supervision by the I.D.F. over the actions of the Phalangists 
at the site, in such a manner as to prevent the danger or at least 
reduce it considerably. The Defense Minister issued no order regarding 
the adoption of such measures.”

The Commission concluded: “In our view, the Minister of Defense made a 
grave mistake when he ignored the danger of acts of revenge and 
bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population in the refugee 
camps.”

As its ultimate recommendation, the Kahan Commission recommended that 
Sharon be discharged from serving as Minister of Defense, and that, if 
necessary, the then-Prime Minister should consider removing him from 
office"

* * *


(You read that and you wonder why Sharon got elected again, and you can 
see clearly why the Palestinians distrust him.  There can't be peace so 
long as Sharon is prime minister, they will not believe he is sincere.  
The next elections in Israel cannot come soon enough in my opinion)

response 93 of 604:

Apr 4 16:13 UTC 2002

(Keep evading, Leeron.  That quote was cut&paste, and quite accurate.)

response 95 of 604:

Apr 4 18:21 UTC 2002

Scott, you yourself discredited your own quote. Again we see that you
(and oval) are more interested in personal attacks than in discussing issues.

Richard, Sabra & Shatilla were 20 years ago. It's a red herring.
Furthermore, your material really just serves to discombobulate the issue.

> the perpetrators of this indiscriminate slaughter were members of the
> Phalange militia, a Lebanese  force that was armed by and closely allied to
> Israel since the outbreak of Lebanon4s civil war in 1975.

This is patently false and is confusing the SLA (South Lebanon Army) with the
Phalange.

> Israeli military intelligence estimated that between 700 and 800 people were
> killed... while Palestinian and other sources have claimed that the dead
> numbered up to several thousand.

What other sources? The Lebanese Police figure was even lower than the Israeli
estimate.

In fact, 20% of those killed weren't even Palestinian Arabs but foreign
fighters (in today's climate they'd be called illegal combatants, just like
Al Qaida forces in Afghanistan).

It is Ironic that out of the 150,000 casualties of the Lebanese civil war,
thousands of whom were truly and outrightly massacred (e.g. 5,000 Christians
massacred by the PLO in Damour, thousands of Palestinians massacred in 1985
in the Shatilla and Bourj el Barajneh camps), these deaths are different.
Are the deaths of Arabs at the hands of other Arabs only important if somehow
Israel can be tarnished in the process?

> Journalists who arrived on the scene immediately after the massacre also
> saw evidence of the summary execution of young men.

Interesting that. Despite the rhetoric of the slaughter of women (even
pregnant ones), children and the elderly, journalists describe a picture of
young men being killed. Not that I'm justifying that, but according to the
Lebanese police, only about 40 civilians were killed. The picture often
painted, of an indiscriminate slaughter, is patently false. Surely if this
had gone on for 3 days the death toll would have been much much higher. In
fact, we'd be counting the survivors, if any.

Why did it take so long? Because there was a pitched battle going on,
ultimately won by the Phalange. Had they not executed the survivors (a
common practice in that war) on Israel's watch,  Sabra and Shatilla would
not be in our lexicon.

> the Kahan Commission named former Defense Minister Sharon as one of the
> individuals who "bears personal responsibility"

Yes, but not responsibility FOR the attack but responsibility for failing to
PREVENT it. There's a huge difference there.

So now let's go back and look at your original question:

> is Arafat worse than Sharon?

By orders of magnitude. Sharon has never ordered a civilian plane to
be hijacked. He has never ordered the murder of US diplomats and civilians.
He has not ordered the assassination of his own people and attempted to
pin the blame on his opponents.

You might as well ask if Bin Laden is worse than Lyndon Johnson given the My
Lai incident. 

Sharon made a mistake and he paid a price for it. If not for Arafat's on-going
support for terrorism, he'd never had ben ELECTED by the Israeli people.

response 97 of 604:

Apr 4 19:09 UTC 2002

VOTE GENOCIDE!!!!!

response 99 of 604:

Apr 4 22:39 UTC 2002

  re #95:
  >  Richard, Sabra & Shatilla were 20 years ago. It's a red herring.

  How's that work?  "Never Again" is the rule for some folks but when the
  targets are Lebanese there's a 20-year statute of limitations on genocide?

  Argue about Sharon's degree of culpability if you want, but don't pretend
  that accusations of connection to mass murder are irrelevant just because
  time has passed..