Cherie Blair, the wife of the UK prime minister, has apologised for any
offence caused by remarks she made about Palestinian suicide bombers. 
Speaking at a charity event in London, Mrs Blair said young Palestinians felt
they had "no hope" but to blow themselves up. 

Tony Blair leapt to the defence of his wife after the comments triggered
criticism from Israeli diplomats, prominent members of the Jewish community
in Britain and the Conservative Party. 

Later, Mrs Blair said she was "obviously sorry" if any offence had been taken
from the way her words had been interpreted. 

The timing of the remarks - hours after 19 Israelis died and over 40 were
injured in a suicide bomb attack on a bus in Jerusalem - was the main target
of critics. 


'Regrettable' 

Shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram said Mrs Blair had caused "massive
offence to the families of schoolchildren and others whose lives were brutally
and criminally ended this morning". 

The Israeli Embassy in London said it also regretted any public statements
that might be interpreted as expressing understanding for Palestinian
terrorism on the day of such an attack. 

No political grievance could justify "targeting of civilians for political
gain" or encouraging such "atrocities", the embassy added. 

Ned Temko, editor of the Jewish Chronicle newspaper, said Mrs Blair had risked
crossing the "dangerously narrow line" between suggesting there could be some
sort of rational explanation for targeting civilians in such attacks and
justifying them. 

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, spokesman for the Reform Synagogues of Great
Britain, said: "Whatever Cherie Blair may have meant, there can be no
justification for the massacre of non-combatants, such as children on their
way to school, by suicide bombers." 


A spokesman for Mrs Blair later said she would never condone suicide bombers
or say they had no choice. 

"If any offence has been taken from the interpretation of her comments, then
Mrs Blair is obviously sorry," he said. 

"None was intended and it goes without saying that she condemns the atrocity
today in the strongest possible terms along with all right minded people."


'Deepest sympathy' 

Earlier, Mr Blair was at pains to stress no offence was meant by his wife's
comments. 

Speaking after talks with Spanish Premier Jose Maria Aznar at Downing Street,
Mr Blair said: "First of all I hope that no-one misdescribes her sentiments,
or mine or anyone else's. 

"Everybody in this situation feels nothing but the deepest sympathy for the
people who have lost their lives in the latest terrorist attack." 

But, he went on, it was important to provide hope for the future through a
political process "and I am sure that is what Cherie was saying". 

Mrs Blair was with Queen Rania of Jordan to launch an internet appeal to
provide medical help and food for people caught up in the Middle East
violence. 

She told reporters: "As long as young people feel they have got no hope but
to blow themselves up you are never going to make progress." 

Political solution 

After listening to a presentation and meeting staff at the north London
offices of Medical Aid for Palestinians (Map), Queen Rania said: "Today's
events are a clear reminder that both sides of the conflict are suffering.
It is also clear that the suffering cannot continue. 

"The one sure way for hope for both peoples is to have a political solution
that will bring about the end of occupation for Palestinians and security for
Israelis and for the people of the region." 

Mrs Blair's spokesman underlined her support for those comments as Downing
Street tried to defuse the row. 

Since entering 10 Downing Street with her husband in 1997 she has campaigned
on a number of issues including breast cancer, employment rights and the
plight of women under the Taleban. 

A successful lawyer in her own right, Mrs Blair has so far attempted to avoid
any suggestion of playing a political role. 

Map - a British charity - helps Palestinians in refugee camps and other areas
where they say living standards have declined due to Israeli closures and
travel restrictions. 

69 responses total.

> it was important to provide hope for the future through a
> political process "and I am sure that is what Cherie was saying".

Ironic, but the terrorists oppose the peace process. Blowing up innocent
children is the expression of their hope -- not to live in peace with
Israel but their hope to kill as many Jews as possible and to destroy Israel.

I rarely agree with lk's comments, but I do this time. Although the 
lack of a Palestinian army has been said to be one of the causes of 
suicide bombings, it is obvious that these attacks have only hurt the 
prospects of a Palestinian state or freedom of oppresion of any sort. 
The violence on both sides seems counterproductive.  

The Free Press ran a diagram yesterday of the concrete prefab wall Israel is
putting up along some sections of the West Bank.  (Other sections will get
electric fences.)  It reminded me eerily of the Berlin Wall.

Laughing gas would probably work better. 

vmskid:

> the lack of a Palestinian army has been said to be one of the causes of
> suicide bombings

That's just another excuse. There is a 40,000 strong PA "police" force
that is an army in all but name (per capital, it's 4x the size of the
Detroit Police force). And then there are the dozens of official,
semmi-official and unofficial militias.

> freedom of oppresion

What oppression? Checkpoints that were the RESPONSE to voilence? Recall
that at the time the violence began, 98% of the Arab population of the
disputed territories was not living under Israeli "occupation" but under
the rule of the Palestinian Authority.

Also, that terrorism doesn't thrive in areas of "brutal occupation" but
in open and democratic societies.  Consider, for example, the case of
internal Syrian opposition in the town of Hama in the early 1980s. Assad
had no difficulty in bombarding the city and killing 20,000-60,000 people
(his own people!) in response to this "threat".  There were no repeats.

> The violence on both sides seems counterproductive.

Do you similarly equate the bombing of the WTC with American military
"violence" in Afghanistan meant to dismantle Al Qaida and the Taliban
government that harbored it?

David: The Berlin Wall was designed to keep people in.  Israel's wall,
like existing fences on the Lebanese border and in Gaza, are designed
to keep suicide bombers out.  In that sense it is no different than
city walls were in their period or China's Great Wall.

lk, regardless of how you defend the violence on either side, it does 
not seem to be working in promoting any sort of peace. You can say that 
the Israeli attacks are the result of Palestinain terror, and you may 
well be right. But rather than decreasing the frequency of the attacks, 
the opposite is occuring. In America's case against the Taleban, it is 
different because the American forces never had any question of their 
ability to utterly destroy thr Taleban if necessary, if Israel did the 
same to the Palestinians, there would be no more war there, since the 
Palestinains could be totally eliminated. 

Yes, oppression. Israel has been taking over palestinian lands for 
decades. If someone did the same to you, you would probably refer to it 
as such. And the "Palestinian Army" cannot compare to the IDF. But I do 
agree that it is an excuse. The Palestinian terrorists are not helping 
themselves or their cause by their actions. 

No, vm-skid [it's my parser and I'll parse as I want to (:], the difference
isn't the question of Israel's ability to destroy the PA (akin to the
Taliban). The issue is that just as Arafat is harboring (and aiding)
terrorists, many in the world are coddling Arafat and the PA (for many
reasons, some worse than others).  As you say, the PA Police/Army cannot
compare to the IDF, just as the Taliban army didn't compare to US forces.
Now imagine that the Taliban was a USSR client. Suddenly Afghanistan
wouldn't be so simple any more (it would be -- Afghanistan!).

>  Israel has been taking over palestinian lands for decades.

I think I've dealt with that cannard often enough.

Do you really consider the Jewish Quarters of Hebron or Jerusalem and
Gush Etzion or Kfar Darom to be Arab lands simply because Arab armies
illegally seized these lands in contravention of the 1947 UN compromise,
ethnically cleansed the entire Jewish population, and held the territory
for a scant 19 years?

> The Palestinian terrorists are not helping themselves or their cause
> by their actions.

No, they are helping *their cause*, it's just that *their cause* is not
what you imagine it to be.

Naturally, lk is privy to all sorts of things that we aren't. Advice to VMS:
Never argue with a bigot. 

What, pray tell is their cause? I suppose Israel's agenda is not as 
hidden as that of the Palestinians. getting themselves killed? It seems 
that they are the main ones that it is hurting, as every time it occurs 
the IDF craps on them again. 

Forcing people from their homes, whatever the pretext, is oppression. 
If some American Indians decided they wanted the land that you are on, 
you would think so as well. But maybe I will follow rlejeune's advice 
on this one. 

As per the PA being a pawn of others, one could say the same of Israel, 
no? Without U.S. support, they would be about as rich as the PA.

Strange that Randy (who was unable to provide substantive responses even
in items he entered on this subject) thinks he has won the day simply by
labeled me a "bigot" for having opinions that differ from his.

vmskid: Very few Arabs were forced from their homes. In 1948, most fled of
their own volition, never having seen an Israeli soldier.  Similarly,
virtually all post-1967 "settlements" are not built on "Arab land". 

I wasn't making the point that the PA is a pawn but that, unlike the
Taliban, it is being protected. Some do so because they still think
Arafat's a darling, others because they figure he's better than the
alternative.  Thus Arafat keeps getting "last chances", a paradigm that
precisely encourages him not to take any of these "chances".  The jury is
still out on the recent movement to reform the PA, but I'm skeptical that
as long as Arafat continues to sit on the fence (and allow terrorism
against Israel and death squads to strike at Arab "collaborators) there
will never be progress precisely because his approach to the problem
disenfranchises the Arab voices of peace and democracy.  If the world
sent Arafat a strong message that he either had to change or face a
regime change (like in Afghanistan), I think he'd get the message.
But token slaps on the wrist bundled with "understanding" won't cut it.

> It seems that [the Palestinian Arabs] are the main ones that [terrorism]
> is hurting, as every time it occurs the IDF craps on them again.

Tell that to the families of hundreds of (primarily Jewish) innocent
victims who are the target of the terrorists and to the thousands who
have been injured and maimed.

But this is a perfect test for anyone's model. How can you possibly
explain that suicide bombings began in 1994, shortly after the Oslo
Agreement was signed -- a time of hope for peace and prosperity?
Why is it that even now the terrorists continue their murderous
campaign which many see as shooting themselves in the foot? Are they
that dumb -- or is there a method behind this madness?

Do you accept that the reason the terrorists attack Israel is because
it exists -- that they oppose any peace treaty which recognizes the
Jewish state and peaceful co-existence (rather than that they think
that giving up 3% of the "west bank" was too much or that the terrorism
is the result of "oppression" and any last vestiges of "occupation"
resulting in a loss of hope)?

Re #5:
> David: The Berlin Wall was designed to keep people in.  Israel's wall,
> like existing fences on the Lebanese border and in Gaza, are designed
> to keep suicide bombers out.  In that sense it is no different than
> city walls were in their period or China's Great Wall.

I'm not quite sure what you're disagreeing with me about.  It seems like
that distinction depends entirely on which side of the wall you're on.

(Now I'm reminded of the joke about the mathematician who, asked to build a
pen for a flock of sheep, built a small circular fence around himself and
said, "I declare myself to be on the outside.")

hahahahahahaha!

You might have a point. But I don't think there can be any question 
that the Palestinian's have been the biggest losers so far. And I 
wasn't suggesting that the homicide attacks didn't harm Israelis, just 
that each time it occurs, it gives the IDF an excuse to come barging 
into their territory, which is supposedly what they don't want. It not 
only harms the Israelis, but the Palestinians are losers as well, since 
it seems to be encouraging the exact opposite of what they claim to 
want. I know that some Palestinians will oppose any sort of peace with 
Israel, but it is still hard to deny that as Israel has stepped up its 
military operations during the last year or so, the result has been 
increased attacks and not a decrease in them. And now that it has been 
started, they seem afraid to back down in case that seems to encourage 
the use of terror. 

The Israelis did use force to get many Palestinians off of the land 
that they wanted. That in itself was terror. Iam not saying that 
excuses the attacking of civilians, but I think rlejeune may have had a 
point. In all of your posts you seem to condone anything that Israel 
does for any reason, and condemn anything that the Palestinians do. It 
is difficult to escape the fact that all of your posts seem a bit 
biased. Again, if you had been forced from your home by someone wanting 
your land would you see things in the same light? After all, the 
indians have been here for 20, 000 years, the white guys just 500. 

Re #13:
> homicide attacks

I'm not a big fan of that term (and not just because George W. Bush came up
with it.) I think it's silly.  For one thing, it's not like anyone heard the
term "suicide bomber" and thought, "well, gee, these people must only be
killing themselves." For another, "homicide bomber" is a less specific term. 
The Unabomber was a homicide bomber, but he wasn't a suicide bomber.

True, but if they were *only* suicide bombers who didn't kill anyone else
besides themselves, nobody would care one way or the other. Homicide bombers
is more descriptive. 

they should have several terms:

homicide bomber: blows up other people but not himself. (like what we and
israel do)

homisuicide bomber: blows himself up plus takes out 1 or more people with him.

suicide bomber: only blows himself up.

I think it's less descriptive, because *most* bombings of any sort are
homicide bombings.  What's distinctive about these attacks is that the
attacker intends to die in the process.  Hence "suicide bombings".  If you
really wanted to be descriptive, I guess you'd use "murder-suicide
bombings".

Of all the major news sources I've seen, only Fox News has picked up the
term "homicide bomber".  I assume they've done it out of loyalty to the
President.

e: "#6 (vmskid) : Yes, oppression. Israel has been taking over palestinian
lands for decades. If someone did the same to you, you would probably refer
to it as such."

FYI. the Arabs did "take over" Jewish land for decades.  Perhaps we cannot
call it oppression because they killed all the Jews.  Maybe you'd feel better
if the Jews had been bombing the Arabs in retaliation?

re:  "Forcing people from their homes, whatever the pretext, is oppression."

So, you support the activity of the Jews to reclaim the homes in the disputed
terrortories from which they were forcibly evicted in 1948!  Bravo!!

lk:  "If the world sent Arafat a strong message that he either had to change
or face a regime change (like in Afghanistan), I think he'd get the message"

Only if the message were wrapped around a bomb.

David:

> It seems like that distinction depends entirely on which side of the
> wall you're on.

Not really. Your comparison of a wall designed to keep people OUT with
a wall designed to keep people in, is false. That you choose perhaps
the most "evil" of walls....

vmskid:

>  the result has been increased attacks and not a decrease in them.

First of all, that's not necessarily true.  The increases in the terror
attacks seems to coincide with peace overtures. Each of Zinnis 3 missions
were accompanied by attacks.  Likewise the release of the Mitchell Plan
was followed by the disco bombing.  We can't say for sure, but it may be
true that absent Israel's response against the terrorist infrastructure,
the violence could be worse.

Indeed, if you accept that the attacks are due to factions that oppose
the peace process and whose aim is the destruction of Israel as we know
it, then it follows that the attacks would continue regardless of what
Israel does to defend its civilians.  (Surely no one would argue that
the dismantling of the Taliban and portions of Al Qaida has caused an
increase in anti-US terrorism because now, unlike on 9/11, they are
really mad at us.

> homicide bombers

I think "suicide murderers" is actually the term Bush was looking for.
This then includes the dozens of attacks in which gunmen have opened
fire on crowds of civilians, knowing full well that they would be
shot dead by Israeli police.

the problem is that tehre are many different groups who have different
agendas.  Hamas has a different agenda from Group 19.  So if you get hamas
to say they agree witht he peace initiative, Group 19 says to itself, I don't
want peace on those terms.  SEND IN A SUICIDE BOMBER!

They are indeed homicide bombers, a much more descriptive term to my mind.
If the suicide bombers blew up only themselves, they would have a greater
impact on the world nations, getting much more sympathy, and giving the
Isrealis NOTHING in the way of propogada to fight them with.

But with a dead 5 year old among the 19 killed in the last bombing, the
murderers are going to get little sympathy.

How about the entire family murdered yesterday in their own house:

07:15   Rachel Shabo, three of her children - Neria, Svika and Avishai - and
        Yosef Tuwito killed in Itimar attack 

Both the PFLP and Arafat's Fatah party's Al Aqsa Brigade have claimed
responsibility for this attack -- perhaps a sign of cooperation amongst
these groups.

What does Hamas want? Consider this statement made by Sheik Yassin, its
leader, to the Daily Mirror:

        We will continue our fight until Israel is an Islamic state.

And some people think that if Israel didn't defend itself the situation
would magically improve?  That these terrorists who thrive on attacking
defenseless women and children will somehow stop their murderous acts
because the Israeli Army allows them to regroup, operate above ground,
set up bomb-building labs with impugnity and makes it easier for them
to carry out attacks?!

Re #19:
Well, what wall would you prefer to compare it to?  Several people have
compared it to the Great Wall of China, which I find amusing since the Great
Wall wasn't much of a success at its intended purpose.  Invading forces
simply went around it.  The same is true of the Maginot Line.

Besides, I was merely remarking that the design reminds me of the Berlin
Wall, which had a similar concrete panel construction.  You're so eager to
see everything as a slight against Israel that you read in a value
judgement, of course.

(I thought they suborned the guards and went through the gates.)

Oh, I see, David. You were talking about the esthetic look of the wall.
Say, doesn't that make the concrete blocks outside the White House just
like the Berlin wall, too? I think it's more like Pink Floyd's Wall because
they're both spelled the same way.

But, no, it's not I who read this "value" into what you said: you yourself
stated that keeping someone out is tantamount to keeping someone in. That's
like arguing that a wall between Mexico and the US is bad not because it would
keep out illegal immigrants but because it would pen in Americans.  As if....

Similarly, comparisons to the Maginot line are poor because it served a
much different purpose: to keep out armies. Israel's army has done a pretty
good job of doing that over the years.  Yet stopping individual attackers
has proven more difficult, much as we've learned here.

Tell me, if Afghanistan were located next door (say in Ohio) and SE Michigan
had been the object of THOUSANDS of terrorist attacks in the past 2 years
and hundreds per year for decade before that, and if the international
community was preserving the Taliban rather than us taking it out, if
Briarwood, Stucci's, Cottage Inn, the Necto, Community High School
and the Farmer's Market had all been targets of suicide bombers -- would
you say that building a wall to keep out these murderers makes it just like
the Berlin Wall because it pens in the people of Ohio?

I think any country that wants to has a right to build a fence, wall, 
etc. on their border in order to keep people out of their country. I 
dont even think they should have to go through all the red tape I had 
to go through to put up a fence around my own yard. 

Of course, Israel is lucky that the Ypsilanti Historic District 
Commission doesnt have any say in this or else they would have to have 
a *wood* fence (perhaps a nice 4ft tall picket fence) and it would have 
to be painted to match the house. 

Re #25: The main reason Israel's fence is controversial is that there's not
much agreement on exactly where Israel's border should be.

Right, all the more reason for them to build a fence. It will help them 
define the border. It doesnt really matter where the border is as long 
as everyone on the Israeli side is a citizen of Israel.

What if everybody  on the Israeli side doesn't want to be?

...and as long as there aren't any Jews on the other side of the fence?

re #28 alright, how about as long as everyone on the Israeli side is 
given the opportunity to become an Israeli citizen with the obvious 
exceptions of tourists, foreign journalists, diplomats, etc?

re#29 Please dont put words into my mouth. I never even so much as 
implied that. 

So rather than seeing them as an (or the) impediment to peace, you aren't
against the "settlements"?  You believe that Jews do have a right to live
in Judea and Samaria?  In Gaza?  In the old Jewish quarter of Hebron?  In
eastern Jerusalem including the old city's Jewish quarter (which includes
the Wailing Wall)?

Sure, those people should not be forced out of their homes. But I dont 
believe it is ok for the settlements to be under Israeli control. For 
example, I think it is ok for Jews to live in Ypsilanti but I dont 
think it would be ok for Israel to claim any land that Jewish people 
happen to live on in Ypsilanti as being part of Israel. 

And yes, I realize that at this point the safety of any Jews who would 
choose to remain in Hebron or Judea or wherever is an issue. I dont 
think it is something that cant be dealt with however. 

I have to say though that even if safety werent an issue, I doubt many 
Jewish people would want to remain in a Palestinian state in the West 
Bank or Gaza simply because of economic concerns and a lack of 
infrastructure. That is unfortunate because they are generally pretty 
affluent and could do a lot to improve the situation there. 

The difference in your analogy, though, is that Ypsilanti is part of
another country. Gaza, Judea and Sumeria are not. These territories
were previously held by Egypt and Jordan, but they have rescinded their
claims. The international border, fixed by Israel's peace agreements
with those countries, are the line from El Arish to Eilat (south of
Gaza) and the Jordan river (east of the "West Bank").

The "territories" are properly under Israeli sovereignty. Israel may cede
some or most of them to a Palestinian Arab state-to-be -- which is what
was happening in the Oslo process.

For a fascinating (and long) discussion about this, see:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/world/israelborders.php

Look, if Israel wants to annex those territories, that is fine with me 
but if they are going to do it, they need to make everyone living there 
a citizen of Israel or else they are, imho, oppressing those people. It 
wouldnt be the first time a nation has gained territory during a war. 
But then one has to think about if the territory is worth it. The 
Palestinians are there and since Israel doesnt want to extend 
citizenship to them (for reasons that I actually do understand, btw), 
the only other decent option is to cede the land to them as a 
Palestinian state. 


Personally, I think Israel should cede most of the territories to the 
Palestinians including many of the settlements. It is not practical for 
Israel to maintain access roads and security to small islands in these 
territories. If I were an Israeli, I would probably be active in 
advocating that view because it would seriously bug me that so much of 
my nation's resources were used up in that way. 

Lynne, let me just remind you that Israel accepted the 1947 UN Partition
compromise (the Arabs violently rejected it), was willing to negotiate
peace following the 1948 war, the 1956 war and the 1967 war. It was the
Arab League that issued its "3 NOs": "No negotiations, No recognition,
No Peace".  Israel accepted UNSCR 242 shortly after it was issued. The
first Arab state to do so was Egypt, a decade later, and for it it was
expelled from the Arab League.

Even prior to Oslo, Israel had withdrawn from 91% of the territories it
acquired in 1967. During the Oslo process, Israel withdrew from 42% of
Jordan's former "West Bank" and Gaza. It thought this was part of a
peace process, but by 2000 it became clear that Israel was ceding land
in exchange for empty promises.  At Camp David II, Israel agreed to
withdraw from 100% of Gaza and 97% of the "West Bank".  We all know the
rest. Arafat's counter-offer was violence. Feisal Husseini spoke of the
Peace Process being a "Trojan Horse" designed to get Arab fighters into
the territories, etc.

As the current issue of the New Republic concludes in its editorial:
http://www.thenewrepublic.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020708&s=editorial070802

"The problem for Israel and the world is that the Palestinian Authority
is complicit in a systematic community-wide policy of murder, and
perversely refuses to accept its damn state."

I know all of that. We have had this exact same discussion before. 

So if all of #35 is true... then why are the outposts illegal, under *Israeli*
law?

I know you know that. It just seems that you sometimes want to forget it
and make statements such as "if only Israel would..." -- while ignoring
that Israel has largely been doing what you suggest for 50+ years.
[I think it stems from misperceptions which are discussed in Summer item 19.]

Scott, the "outposts" that the Israeli government is dismantling are "illegal"
because they are on state lands and were not approved by the state. They
would have the same status on either side of the green line.

It's interesting to note the dichotomy here, though.  If Israelis build a
whole settlement without permission, the Israeli government provides
military protection when needed, then occasionally asks them to please leave
when the political climate warrants it.

If Palastinians build houses without permission, the Israeli government
comes in and bulldozes them.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss