civil war in gaza? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 06-13-2007, 06:14 AM

ok so first off this is long.

for some reason the ongoing debacle involving israel and its occupation of palestine (i know, i know: polemic in the first clause) has been shoved off the media screen of late. over the past few days, it seems that street fighting has broken out and intensified between supporters of hamas and fateh in gaza.

here is a new york times article concerning what is going on in real time:

Quote:

Palestinian Fight for Power Escalates

By STEVEN ERLANGER and ISABEL KERSHNER
Published: June 13, 2007

JERUSALEM, June 12 ? Gunmen of rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah sharply escalated their fight for supremacy on Tuesday, with Hamas taking over much of the northern Gaza Strip in what is beginning to look increasingly like a civil war.

Hamas fighters in Nusairat, in the Gaza Strip, defended a national security headquarters they had seized from Fatah Tuesday.

Five days of revenge attacks on individuals ? including executions, kneecappings and even tossing handcuffed prisoners off tall apartment towers ? on Tuesday turned into something larger and more organized: attacks on symbols of power and the deployment of military units. About 25 Palestinians were killed and more than 100 wounded, Palestinian medics said.

In one Hamas attack on a Fatah security headquarters in northern Gaza near Jabaliya Camp, at least 21 Palestinians were reported killed and another 60 wounded, said Moaweya Hassanein of the Palestinian Health Ministry.

After a senior Fatah leader in northern Gaza, Jamal Abu al-Jediyan, was killed Monday, Fatah?s elite Presidential Guards, who are being trained by the United States and its allies, fired rocket-propelled grenades at the house of Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, of Hamas, in the Shati refugee camp near Gaza City.

An hour later, Hamas?s military wing fired four mortar shells at the presidential office compound of Mahmoud Abbas, of Fatah, who is in the West Bank, a Fatah spokesman, Tawfiq Abu Khoussa, said in a telephone interview.

?Hamas is seeking a military coup against the Palestinian Authority,? he said.

Hamas made a similar accusation against Fatah. Hamas, which has an Islamist ideology, demanded that security forces loyal to Fatah, the more nationalist and secular movement, abandon their positions in northern and central Gaza.

Fatah?s leaders said Tuesday night that they would suspend participation in the unity government with Hamas, which began in March, until the fighting ends.

That agreement to govern jointly, negotiated under Saudi auspices, put Fatah ministers into a Hamas-led government in an effort to secure renewed international aid and recognition and to stop what was already serious fighting between the two factions.

But the new government has failed to achieve either goal, and it appeared to many in Gaza that the gunmen were not listening to their political leaders. Mr. Abbas is under increasing pressure to abandon the unity government he championed and to try once again to order new elections, which Hamas has said it will oppose by any means.

The head of the Egyptian mediation team, Lt. Col. Burhan Hamad, said neither side responded to his call on Tuesday to hold truce talks. "It seems they don't want to come," said Colonel Hamad, who has brokered several brief cease-fires between the two. "We must make them ashamed of themselves. They have killed all hope. They have killed the future."

He said neither side had the weaponry required to produce "a decisive victory."

Talal Okal, a Gazan political scientist, described what could be coming. "Tonight, we may find ourselves at the beginning of a civil war," he said. "If Abbas decides to move his security forces onto the attack, and not to only defend, we'll find ourselves in a much wider cycle."

Fatah forces were ordered Tuesday evening to defend their positions and counter "a coup against the president and against the Palestinian Authority and national unity government."

The streets of Gazan cities were once again empty of pedestrians and cars. People ventured out to buy food, but only to the next building, and parents kept children out of school.

At Shifa Hospital in Gaza, which Hamas gunmen patrolled, bodies of four Hamas fighters lay on the floor of the emergency room, including Muhammad al-Mqeir, 25. His closest friend called him a martyr, even though he was killed by another Palestinian, from Fatah. "They are not Palestinians, they are lost people," the friend said of Fatah. Doctors said that the emergency room was overloaded and that the hospital was running short of blood.

After warning Fatah, Hamas attacked a Fatah-affiliated security headquarters in Gaza City, and declared northern Gaza "a closed military zone."

An estimated 200 Hamas fighters surrounded Fatah security headquarters there, firing mortar shells and grenades at the compound, where some 500 security officers were positioned. The headquarters fell to Hamas. Hamas gunmen also exchanged fire with Fatah forces at the southern security headquarters in the town of Khan Yunis. There, the two sides fought a gun battle near a hospital. Fifteen children attending a kindergarten in the line of fire were rushed into the hospital, which is financed largely by European donations.

Angering Hamas, Fatah militants abducted and killed the nephew of Abdel Aziz Rantisi, the Hamas leader assassinated by Israel in April 2004.

Hamas gunmen attacked the home of a Fatah security official with mortars and grenades, killing his 14-year-old son and three women inside, security officials said. Other Fatah gunmen stormed the house of a Hamas lawmaker and burned it down.

Fatah forces also attacked the headquarters, in Gaza, of Hamas?s television station, Al Aksa TV, and began to broadcast Fatah songs, but Hamas said later that it had repelled the attack.

In the West Bank, where Fatah is stronger and the Israeli occupation forces keep Hamas fighters underground, the Fatah Presidential Guards took over the Ramallah offices of Al Aksa TV and confiscated equipment.

Also in the West Bank, Fatah men kidnapped a deputy minister from Hamas, one of the few Hamas cabinet members and legislators not already in Israeli military jails, part of Israel's effort to keep pressure on Hamas.

Since Monday morning, at least 43 Palestinians have died in the renewed fighting. More than 50 had died in the previous outburst last month that ended in a brief cease-fire mediated by the Egyptians.

A Hamas spokesman, Fawzi Barhoum, accused Fatah, in alliance with Israel and the United States, of trying to destroy Hamas and overturn the results of elections held in January 2006, in which Hamas won a legislative majority.

"They crossed all the red lines," he said of Fatah after the second straight day that Prime Minister Haniya's house was fired upon.

Sami Abu Zuhri, another Hamas spokesman, said: "Those we sit with from Fatah have no control on the ground. These groups have relations with the U.S. administration and Israel." Hamas says it believes that Mr. Abbas's aide, Muhammad Dahlan, is controlling the Fatah forces, and Mr. Zuhri said, "It's an international and regional plan aiming to eliminate Hamas."

Israeli officials are debating whether Fatah can stand up to Hamas in Gaza. They say they have been asked by Washington recently to approve another shipment of armored vehicles, weapons and ammunition to the Presidential Guards. But a senior Israeli official said Israel was worried that the weaponry would just be seized by Hamas, as much of the last shipment was.

"Hamas now has two million bullets intended for Fatah," he said.

Israeli officials are explicit privately about their intention to damage Hamas and its military infrastructure in Gaza and try to give Fatah a boost at the same time. Israel, in retaliation for rocket fire into Israel from Gaza, has been bombing the buildings and facilities of Hamas?s Executive Force, a parallel police force in Gaza, that has not been firing rockets. Israeli officials argue, however, that the Executive Force and the Hamas military wing "share a command headquarters."

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which deals with the 70 percent of Gaza's 1.5 million people who are refugees or their descendants, said its ability to provide needed aid had been severely hampered by the fighting. Three of its 5 food distribution centers and 7 of its 18 health clinics were forced to close Tuesday, said its Gaza director, John Ging.

"The violence is compounding an already dreadful humanitarian situation," he said, with 80 percent of the refugee population already dependent on aid.

Mr. Okal, who is now on the board of trustees of the Fatah-affiliated Azhar University in Gaza, said he would oppose Fatah?s pulling out of elected institutions, but added that he was not optimistic about Gaza. ?We are heading toward a collapse ? of both the political system and society,? he said.

Taghreed El-Khodary contributed reporting from Gaza City.

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/wo...east/13mideast.
html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

uh oh, you might say.

how did THIS happen?
well, in yesterday's guardian a very interesting article turned up concerning a leaked report written by alvaro de soto, who was until quite recently the un secretary general's representative for the region. the article provides a summary (very cursory) of the report and includes of course the usual "well this wasn't supposed to be leaked" remonstrations....

here's the article:

Quote:

Secret UN report condemns US for Middle East failures

Envoy's damning verdict revealed as violence takes Gaza closer to civil war

Read Alvaro de Soto's end of mission report

Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem and Ian Williams in New York
Wednesday June 13, 2007
The Guardian

The highest ranking UN official in Israel has warned that American pressure has "pummelled into submission" the UN's role as an impartial Middle East negotiator in a damning confidential report.

The 53-page "End of Mission Report" by Alvaro de Soto, the UN's Middle East envoy, obtained by the Guardian, presents a devastating account of failed diplomacy and condemns the sweeping boycott of the Palestinian government. It is dated May 5 this year, just before Mr de Soto stepped down.

The revelations from inside the UN come after another day of escalating violence in Gaza, when at least 26 Palestinians were killed after Hamas fighters launched a major assault. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, head of the rival Fatah group, warned he was facing an attempted coup.

Mr de Soto condemns Israel for setting unachievable preconditions for talks and the Palestinians for their violence. Western-led peace negotiations have become largely irrelevant, he says.

Mr de Soto is a Peruvian diplomat who worked for the UN for 25 years in El Salvador, Cyprus and Western Sahara. He says:

· The international boycott of the Palestinians, introduced after Hamas won elections last year, was "at best extremely short-sighted" and had "devastating consequences" for the Palestinian people

· Israel has adopted an "essentially rejectionist" stance towards the Palestinians

· The Quartet of Middle East negotiators - the US, the EU, Russia and the UN - has become a "side-show"

·The Palestinian record of stopping violence against Israel is "patchy at best, reprehensible at worst"

Mr de Soto acknowledges in the report that he is its sole author. It was meant only for senior UN officials, and its wording is far more critical than the public pronouncements of UN diplomats. Last night, Mr de Soto, who is in New York, told the Guardian: "It is a confidential document and not intended for publication."

In January last year, the Quartet called on the newly elected Hamas government to commit to non-violence, recognise Israel and accept previous agreements. When Hamas refused to sign up to the principles, the international community halted direct funding to the Palestinian government and Israel started to freeze the monthly tax revenues that it had agreed to pass to the Palestinians. Several hundred million dollars remain frozen.

Mr de Soto, who had opposed the boycott, said this position "effectively transformed the Quartet from a negotiation-promoting foursome guided by a common document [the road map for peace] into a body that was all-but imposing sanctions on a freely elected government of a people under occupation as well as setting unattainable preconditions for dialogue".

The EU said yesterday that there was an imminent risk of civil war if fighting went on, and UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon urged support for Mr Abbas's efforts "to restore law and order".

In the heaviest day of fighting in Gaza for months, Hamas appeared to make its first concerted effort to seize power in Gaza. There was a wave of co-ordinated attacks, which appeared to overwhelm the larger but less effective Fatah force. "Decisiveness will be in the field," said Islam Shahwan, a spokesman for the Hamas military wing.

Fatah's central committee called an emergency meeting in Ramallah, in the West Bank, and said it would suspend the activities of its ministers in the government. Fatah would pull out of the government if the fighting failed to stop, it said.

For the first time in several weeks, fighting spread to the West Bank when Fatah gunmen attacked a Hamas television studio in Ramallah and kidnapped a Hamas deputy cabinet minister from the city.

The day began with a rocket attack on the private house in Gaza of Ismail Haniyeh, the prime minister and a Hamas leader. He was in the building but was not hurt. Fighting spread across Gaza City and within hours Hamas fighters issued warnings over loudspeakers calling on all Fatah security forces to pull out of their bases and return home. At about 2pm Hamas gunmen seized control of several small Fatah bases and one large base in northern Gaza, where there were heavy casualties when Hamas fighters fired mortars and rocket-propelled grenades at the compound.

Several Fatah officers complained that they had received no orders during the day. Mr Abbas tried calling for a truce, and later Fatah ordered its officers to fight back.

here's a link for de soto's whole report. it is 52 pages long, is written in a quite elegant diplomatic history type manner, and it outlines a really fundamental critique of the way in which the israelis and the bush people bear primary responsibility for the unravelling of the pa in gaza.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-file...SotoReport.pdf

if i could control things, i would require that folk read the report before participating in the dust-up that it will no doubt provoke..but i cant control such matters. it'd be better if you read it. the central points are noted (but nothing more) in the guardian summary/article.

the central action that seems to have engendered the breakdown of the pa follows directly from the bush administration's idiotic policy toward hamas, the israeli decision to freeze revenues that would otherwise have flowed into the pa in order to allow it to actually function. de soto's central position is that there was along the way every reason to believe that had hamas been accepted as the legitimate, elected governing party and had it been allowed to actually operate a viable apparatus that could fulfill the basic functions of a state in gaza, that hamas would have continued to moderate its positions.

but this did not happen.

the ongoing israeli occupation, the continued expansion of israeli settlements, the brutality of the seige of gaza, the idiotic policies of the bush administration (which are characterized in the report as "cowering" before the israelis whom they do not want to "offend" or even fucking challenge, the "pandering" to pro-israeli audiences in the united states, on and on and on...), the choking off of resources that should be available to to pa in order to address not only the question of political coherence, but more pressing the HUGE humanitarian crisis that the israeli seige of gaza has brought about...all this simply adds to the self-confirming cycle of violence and response...all of this simply adds to the inability of any palestinian authority to do anything about violence directed against israel--which is in turn used as an excuse to continue the seige of gaza, the expansion of settlements on and on.

on page 21 of de soto's report there is a quote from an american envoy, repeated twice at a meeting in march 2006, which i think sums up the bush administration's attitude: "i like this violence," he said, because "it means that other palestinians are resisting hamas."

but of course the american had decided up front, via their amazingly stupid "axis of evil" way of thinking, that hamas was in fact "the bad guy" and that "logic" should dictate intrasigence relative to hamas--and so when the opportunity arose to encourage a moderation of hamas via actions that would enable it to functionally govern, the americans and israelis put the kaibosh on all that....and so the present conflict--the present civil war (in potentia) has to be blamed these actions.

but read the report.
what do you think?

Seaver · 06-13-2007, 07:22 AM

This Civil War would have erupted regardless. Why? Because Hamas is an islamic party while Fatah is secular. Just like Nasser and the Muslim brotherhood, their fundamental political philosophies will never mix. Add in n enemy they can never win a war against, they must find a defeatable enemy... each other.

You, and the Guardian, blame Israel and the US, but what do you propose we do? Fund the organization which celebrated on 9/11? Fund the organiation which promised a second holocost? (sp?) How about Israel simpy open their borders to said people? Don't get me wrong, we are making matters worse.. but said war would have erupted even after an Israeli defeat and ensuing massacre.

roachboy · 06-13-2007, 07:50 AM

seaver: your position seems based on only the most abstract understanding of the situation--and it employs that old problem we call the teleological fallacy. the beauty of the teleologial fallacy is that it works the same way no matter the situation in real time that you choose to rationalize by way of it. the problem with it is that it is wrong, factually and in principle, to substitute claims rooted in it for actually looking at the situation.

that said, read de soto's report if you have the time: despite its 52 page length, it is most illuminating.

based on it and other information that i have bee tracking over a fairly long period of time, i would argue that the present situation in gaza is the DIRECT result of american/israeli actions, that there were any number of points where, had those policies/actions been otherwise, that this situation could have been avoided. the reason for the centrality of the americans are clearly outlined in the de soto report--the problems with the olmert government are also clearly outlined--the reliance of other parties on the centrality of these two are also outlined, and represents another REAL problem with the ENTIRE way in which the conflict has unfolded over the past couple years.

you could argue about de soto's perspective and his neutrality--that would be a different discussion, one that would be possible after having read the report.

aside: you should check it out anyway, seaver--for what it's worth, it'd be really quite interested to hear what you make of it. it is NOT a perspective that gets through the infotainment filtration system that often...

Willravel · 06-13-2007, 08:26 AM

This was eventual, and it's sad. I keep letting Darfur, Iraq, Palestine run through my mind, thinking about solutions. My first thought always goes to disarming the aggressors, be they Sudanese Military and the Janjaweed militia, the US troops, or Israel. Yes, disarmament. We create embargoes on ammunition. Palestine has been a victim for decades, and what we're seeing now is a clear direct result of their victimization and inability to truly strike out.

I'm still of the optimistic (some say naive) opinion that war can be ended in one generation. It will take the direct challenging of authority figures. Ehud Olmert and Bush need to be spoken to from a place of authority and power. These people need to understand they aren't untouchable. If Shell and PP called Bush tomorrow and said, "Get out of Iraq or American will be paying $12 per gallon until the day you leave office.", you can bet he'd get out. We need people in power to fight.

Xazy · 06-13-2007, 10:28 AM

Quote:

for some reason the ongoing debacle involving israel and its occupation of palestine (i know, i know: polemic in the first clause) has been shoved off the media screen of late. over the past few days, it seems that street fighting has broken out and intensified between supporters of Hamas and fateh in Gaza.

It is obvious why, it is because Israel is not involved. Just like Lebanon and the violence in the refuge camps is not really in the news either. But 2 weeks ago when Israel retaliated for hundreds of rockets being fired in that made the news.

I kind of laugh at the U.N. I find that they are hypocritical in many ways towards Israel, have not helped in the least against the ongoing assault against them. They are in Lebanon now there is reports of continued smuggling of arms, do they do anything no.

As far as blaming of stopping funding there. Where is the 10 Billion that is right BILLION dollars that Arafat had that vanished in foreign aid that was given. On top of that there are hundreds of millions unaccounted for. Israel has documents from back then of money being used to buy illegal arms that was used against Israel. Yep let us give them more foreign aid, let us give them more money to support terror.

Of course we can talk about the U.N and Arab Nations. If you take the U.N decrees at heart let us begin. Have the Palestinians ever accepted the original U.N. decree in 1947 for duel states to exist. Or has there been nothing but violent attacks on Israel since?

Quote:

but of course the american had decided up front, via their amazingly stupid "axis of evil" way of thinking, that hamas was in fact "the bad guy" and that "logic" should dictate intrasigence relative to hamas--and so when the opportunity arose to encourage a moderation of hamas via actions that would enable it to functionally govern, the americans and israelis put the kaibosh on all that....and so the present conflict--the present civil war (in potentia) has to be blamed these actions.

Wow, let us see how Hamas really is.
1) Fathi Hamad, Hamas Member of Parliament, to al-Aalam Iranian television in Arabic, 15 March 2007: (prior to the swearing-in of the Palestinian Unity government):
"Hamas rejects the Arab [peace] initiative and wants Palestine from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea. If today Israel cannot be beaten militarily, it will be possible in the future."
2) • Dr. Ismail Radwan, Hamas spokesman in Gaza, to Hamas TV, 3 April 2007:
"Hamas is readying itself for the entry of the IDF into Gaza and there is no point in calming the area while the IDF continues to operate in Gaza and the West Bank. All factions, all military groups must be ready for real battle when the IDF escalates the situation."
3) • Dr. Mahmud al-Zahhar, Hamas leader in Gaza,to Hamas TV, 3 April 2007:
"Entry to the capital means the state falls. Entry to Al Aqsa Mosque means entry to Jerusalem, it means the fall of that state that sees Jerusalem as its capital. Entry there will be victorious."
4) • Sami Abu-Zuhri, Hamas leader in Gaza, to Hamas TV, 6 April 2007:
"These are the founding Hamas principles on which we raise our children and in which we believe:
• Armed resistance
• Non-recognition of the occupation in any form
• All Palestine from the river to the sea
• The holy places and Jerusalem
• The right of return
5) Khalid Mash'al. Head of the Hamas Politbureau, at a rally marking the third anniversary of the death of Sheikh Yaseen:
"The Hamas movement has sacrificed Yihya Ayyash, Jamal Mansur, Salah Shehadah and others. Hamas has sacrificed all these but will not retreat from its course, whatever the doubts that others may express. We shall never give up an inch of the fatherland nor any of our rights nor any part of our land... We shall go the way of resistance, which is not a straight line but means blows, clashes, one round after another, attacks and withdrawals. The course is to Palestine, to cleanse Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa. This is our way against the occupation, Hamas was and always will be strong in Jihad (holy war) and Istish-had (suicide bombings)." (Al-Jazeera 6 April)
6) Mash'al at the Jerusalem Conference in Algeria:
"There are some signs of unrest among the Arabs, which is still in an early, partial stage. This awakening comes after the failure of earlier attempts, after the Arabs saw what became of the options they had relied upon; there is the start of an awakening. People feel that there is no choice but to be firm, this is a beginning to build upon, especially now that we have leaders whom we hope will call for firmness and an end to any new concessions. The Arab and Islamic national resistance has shown its capabilities. It has succeeded in standing firm in Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon. In Palestine its success has been partial, in Lebanon it has been open, and we pray for its success in Iraq." (Al-Aqsa TV 29 March)
7) Mash'al on "Land Day":
"The strategic aims of the Hamas movement start with resistance [i.e. - terrorism] from which it will not swerve. Any talk about Hamas having abandoned resistance in exchange for being in government is a losing bet. Any withdrawal in Hamas military operations is not due to a political decision but is part of the rules of struggle against the occupation. Resistance comes in waves, attacks, retreats, ups and downs, Hamas remains true to its oath and the path of resistance... The Mecca agreement and the establishment of a unity government do not mean that the platforms (of Palestinian factions) have been united and that Hamas is now Fatah or vice versa, but rather that we have agreed on a common plan of action with each faction retaining its ideas and policy." (Pal-Media, Falastin Alan-internet, 29 March)
8) Mash'al prior to the Arab summit:
"It is time the Arabs fixed a strategy, we shall not agree to concessions. The series of concessions must be stopped. There will be no concessions on Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa or the right of return. … None of the cards of violence must be lost, we must keep the option of resistance in Palestine. That way is not dead." (A-Shuruq al-Yawmi, Algeria, 26 March)
9) Prime Minister Isma'il Haniyya in an interview to the Saudi paper Al-Jazeera, (2 April) regarding the recognition of Israel:
"As far as we are concerned, this is settled once and for all. It is settled in our political literature, in our Islamic thought and it is settled in our Jihadist culture on the basis of which we make our moves. The issue of recognizing the Israelis is out of the question."
"We have been advocating the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as capital and the return of the refugees. For this we will declare a truce, not recognition of Israel. This is our view in Hamas."
About the Arab initiative he stated:
"The Arab summit has adopted the Arab initiative as it stands and it as not been amended. This initiative has received Arab unanimity and we do respect that but we have our own opinion... We do have a position regarding the clause about recognizing this initiative."
Regarding a Palestinian state he declared:
"The concept of the Palestinian State is clear in our view:
Palestine with its borders and legitimate heritage. However we do not have a problem within the government in this phase. We have agreed to set up a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, we are telling everybody that we have an objective for this phase."

~~~~~~~~~~

I can continue giving quotes of Hamas, but in my book they are terrorists there have been hundreds of rockets fired in to Israel in the past few months, but then again no media coverage there, unless Israel fires back. A total double standard.

Where is the press coverage of the atrocities of everything going on in Africa?

But to me the problem with peace is the brainwashing of the next generation. From a Hamas Mickey mouse on TV preaching hatred to that being taught by birth. The education system the books there is tons of information on what is taught there that makes it impossible for the Palestinian people to desire peace.

roachboy · 06-13-2007, 10:43 AM

xasy: seriously, read the de soto report.
it changes the terms of debate.
and it IS possible to have a rational debate about israel and its role in creating and maintaining the appalling conditions in gaza. you know, by putting the place under seige. creating such conditions is the point of a seige. qed.

it's hard to direct folk to something kinda long and a bit demanding in this context--but fact is that i am really not interested in old bytes about how evil hamas was in some views, but rather on a short-term dynamic, which is the one i pointed to in the part of my op that you bit above, and which you ducked speaking about. thing is that the us and israel had a choice when hamas was elected and to my mind they fucked it up and now--again--palestinians in gaza are paying for it.

the pa was prevented--actively---from governing. the majority of the resources that the pa would have required were frozen by the israelis with american support. this move only followed logically from the axis of evil idiocy. it is a fuck up of a very tall order, one that really has to be added to the seemingly endless supply of such fuck ups that constitutes the history of the bush administration. but this is big.

here it is again, from the nameless washington envoy:

Quote:

on page 21 of de soto's report there is a quote from an american envoy, repeated twice at a meeting in march 2006, which i think sums up the bush administration's attitude: "i like this violence," he said, because "it means that other palestinians are resisting hamas."

and o yeah--there have been a number of articles over the past week concerning machinations underway for the americans via egypt to arm fatah. that should help the party that the bushenvoy already likes so much reach a house-rockin level, dontcha think?

de soto had resigned from his post and wrote the report as an internal document aimed at doing something of what he thought the un could do (but isnt)--providing an impartial view of the chaotic situation, legitimating itself as a separate entity with a meaningful role in the process--whatever that means now--because it has the best most comprehensive information. and the report was not supposed to be leaked--but it was. so this is a rare document, written by someone with nothing to loose. read it. there's alot of talk about in it. "o hamas is bad bad bad" is in this context just blah blah blah--all it shows is that you havent read the report and are not having the same conversation because of that.

Xazy · 06-13-2007, 10:48 AM

Quote:

the pa was prevented--actively---from governing. the majority of the resources that the pa would have required were frozen by the israelis with american support. this move only followed logically from the axis of evil idiocy. it is a fuck up of a very tall order, one that really has to be added to the seemingly endless supply of such fuck ups that constitutes the history of the bush administration. but this is big.

Yes but you forget the billions that was given to the PA that is missing. People believe that Arafat wife (forget her name) has access to 10 BILLION of that money. Again with money vanishing like that, and money that can be documented going to terrorist attacks against Israel, why would Israel give those funds there until there is a trust worthy person to give it to? Literally money given to the PA can be documented that it went to finance terrorist attacks against Israel.

I will read it later tonight when I have time, but I still have strong beliefs and I have yet to hear a reply about how Hamas leaders have proven themselves to support terror, how the PA is corrupt with the funds. I can go on but a lot of it was stated already above.

roachboy · 06-13-2007, 10:54 AM

that's fine--i have stuff to do and wont be around until tomorrow in any event. i hadnt forgotten about the--uh---corruption under arafat at all--i am just not entirely sure how relevant it is in this context--it sure has nothing to do with the choices made by israel and the united state after hamas won the last elections. so much for respecting democracy....

loquitur · 06-13-2007, 11:06 AM

roachboy, the prospect of dead jews seems not to move you at all. There's ample precedent for what happens when Palis get near Jews who aren't armed. This seems not to trouble you. Why is that?

Xazy · 06-13-2007, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

roachboy, the prospect of dead jews seems not to move you at all. There's ample precedent for what happens when Palis get near Jews who aren't armed. This seems not to trouble you. Why is that?

I do expect Roachboy you to consider my comments and have thoughts on the other side rather then one report. You have to consider all that Hamas as an entity has done since coming in to power. Including suicide bombs, attempted bombs, thousands of rockets (over 450 in the past few months). Also the embezzlement of funds for terrorist use from the PA. You also can look to Fatah for similiar under Arafat, and a little under Abbas.

And as Loquitur so bluntly put, that is very accurate. A friend of mine visiting Israel from NYC, just walking down the street Rachov Shmuel hanovi (just a road in Jerusalem) was stabbed in the chest by a Palistenian. He was unarmed he was just an American tourist.

Also let us as well consider that at least a hundred American civilians that were killed / injured by Palestenians. Until tomorrow.

host · 06-13-2007, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

I do expect Roachboy you to consider my comments and have thoughts on the other side rather then one report. You have to consider all that Hamas as an entity has done since coming in to power. Including suicide bombs, attempted bombs, thousands of rockets (over 450 in the past few months). Also the embezzlement of funds for terrorist use from the PA. You also can look to Fatah for similiar under Arafat, and a little under Abbas.

And as Loquitur so bluntly put, that is very accurate. A friend of mine visiting Israel from NYC, just walking down the street Rachov Shmuel hanovi (just a road in Jerusalem) was stabbed in the chest by a Palistenian. He was unarmed he was just an American tourist.

Also let us as well consider that at least a hundred American civilians that were killed / injured by Palestenians. Until tomorrow.

I know !!!!.....let's allow AIPAC to run our foreign policy and that way, we'll work with Israel to kill all the bad people......YAWN......ZZZzzzzzzz

Quote:

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/20...nctions_h.html

April 13, 2007
How Sanctions Helped Hamas

It wasn't merely cynical for us to encourage the Palestinians to hold elections and then shut off our humanitarian aid when they chose Hamas; it was dumb. When Hamas came to power, they rose, in part, on an anti-corruption, good governance platform. When we shut off the aid, we instantly exempted them from any and all blame for their inability to effectively run the country. As Mouin Rabbani from the International Crisis Group says, "they had the best of both worlds." When the sanctions weighed crushingly on the Palestinian people, it was proof of America's zionist leanings. When temporary relief began coming in, through a complicated system that bypassed Hamas and deposited money directly into the accounts of Palestinians, Hamas had no responsibility for spending it well. So we gave them a scapegoat and freed a reformist movement from being judged on good governance grounds. Heads they won, tails we lost.

Quote:

http://blogs.wsj.com/onlinetoday/2007/04/13/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117641103379468184.html

Gaza Grip: How Punitive Sanctions Help Strengthen Hamas; Military Islamic Group Lifted by European Aid; Gunning for Dr. Naim
Cam Simpson. Wall Street Journal. New York, N.Y.: Apr 13, 2007.

GAZA CITY, Gaza -- Last March, 10 weeks after Hamas won a landmark Palestinian election, Bassem Naim reported to work as the militant Islamist group's health minister. His office and ministry were in disarray.

Computers and phones were missing. Medicines for diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular disease were dangerously depleted at ministry-run hospitals, along with basic supplies such as sutures for surgery. Just weeks later, armed men affiliated with a rival Palestinian faction fired rounds inside his Gaza headquarters. "The shooting started in my secretary's office," said Dr. Naim.

Despite those grim beginnings, Dr. Naim remains a member of the Palestinian cabinet, and the Hamas movement to which he belongs still dominates the Palestinian Authority. The group -- which still won't recognize Israel or disavow its own long history of violence -- is now sharing power. But it has largely withstood a global boycott of its government led by the U.S., which considers Hamas a terrorist organization, and a furious armed challenge by Fatah, its main secular Palestinian rival.

The Hamas government has survived, in part, through a military campaign. But it also benefited, paradoxically, from outside humanitarian aid designed to bypass its offices. The aid system, observers say, allowed Hamas to profit politically from relief while avoiding much of the blame for the crushing conditions among Palestinians. "They had the best of both worlds," says Mouin Rabbani, a Middle East analyst for the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, a nonprofit research group.

At an Arab League meeting last month in the Saudi Arabian capital Riyadh, Ismail Haniyah, the Hamas prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, beamed as he glad-handed Arab leaders who just weeks earlier had shunned his government. "The Hamas movement has been recognized as a legitimate, acceptable player in the Arab world and the Muslim world...and as a player to be reckoned with," says Efraim Halevy, a retired chief of Israel's Mossad spy service.

European governments, and even the U.S., have agreed to work with some non-Hamas members of the Palestinian Authority, even though the government is controlled by Hamas. But Hamas's continuing dominance poses serious challenges.

In a series of trips to the region, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is trying to revive Washington's traditional, but long dormant, role as diplomatic broker between Israelis and Palestinians. Hamas's survival, however, clouds peace prospects, as well as parallel hopes to normalize relations between Israel and Arab states. Its staying power could also embolden Islamist groups hoping to make inroads across the region.

Early SupporterDr. Naim, a 44-year-old general surgeon, is the second of 10 children fathered by an illiterate tradesman from Beit Hanoun, in the northern Gaza Strip. The family's main focus was educating its seven sons. Three are now doctors, three engineers, and one a computer scientist.

Dr. Naim was an early supporter of Hamas, founded in 1987. His first-born son joined its military wing and was killed in May 2003 in a Gaza City battle with Israeli forces. Another son is a personal bodyguard to Prime Minister Haniyah, a vaunted post in the Islamist movement.

The German-educated doctor seemed to be a natural choice for campaign strategist when Hamas decided to contest the January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections. He had been politically active in a physicians' syndicate, and such professional organizations had long given Islamists a chance to test their ideas and popularity, especially among Palestinian elites.

The Bush administration backed the January 2006 parliamentary election -- despite a Hamas presence on the ballot -- as part of its pledge to promote democracy in the Middle East. Hamas focused its message on "Change and Reform," rather than on the section of its 19- year charter declaring that Islam will obliterate Israel. Palestinians, long tired of corruption under the late Yasser Arafat's Fatah -- the dominant political force since the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1994 -- gave Hamas 74 of 132 parliamentary seats.

Even Hamas was surprised. "We were prepared that we would have some sort of victory...but it was a new experience for us to be in the position of the majority," says Dr. Naim, who was the Gaza Strip campaign manager.

Hamas expected sanctions, but Dr. Naim says its leaders were shocked by their immediacy and severity. The White House demanded the return of $50 million in unspent aid. Two days later Israeli officials halted their own monthly transfers of about $55 million in Palestinian tax revenues, collected on behalf of the Palestinian Authority for goods moving through Israel. The money, used to pay salaries for about 160,000 civil servants, was vital to the economy of the West Bank and Gaza.

The next day Ms. Rice flew to the Middle East to press Arab governments to join a global boycott, as Israel closed the sole commercial crossing into the Gaza Strip.

Hamas was still a month away from taking office. When Dr. Naim and the rest of the cabinet were finally sworn in on March 29, those who formally belonged to Hamas resigned from the group's political branch, in an effort to insulate the Palestinian Authority from political fallout. But the international community, following Washington's lead, demanded that Hamas recognize Israel, renounce violence and respect previous peace accords. Hamas refused.

After taking his oath, Dr. Naim headed across Gaza streets choked with cars and donkey carts for his first day at the office. But the Palestinian Authority was already almost bankrupt. A humanitarian crisis loomed.

The situation was especially dire at the Ministry of Health, which provided nearly half of all health care in the Palestinian territories and had oversight responsibility for much of the rest.

Palestinians were most dependent on ministry hospitals in the Gaza Strip, an impoverished stretch equal in size to Wichita, Kan., but with four times the population. Now it was also largely sealed off from the outside world.

Amid a dire shortage of medicines and other vital supplies, Dr. Naim inherited $200 million in unpaid bills, many from foreign hospitals that had provided care for Palestinians whom the ministry's own clinics were ill-suited to treat. Palestinian patients were going to be refused such treatment until debts were cleared.

He also couldn't pay the 13,000 employees under his command. Many stopped coming to work. Concerned with the spiraling health and humanitarian crises, some European nations and others pressed for a way to deliver relief without giving anything to Hamas. The Bush administration supported the principle, but did not want the world to relieve Hamas of its responsibilities.

Dr. Naim set up his own triage system at the ministry, including the rationing of surgical care and the deployment of "emergency management" teams to deal with everything from critical patients to administrative crises. He also persuaded vendors to keep some supplies flowing, though he knew far more was needed, and pleaded his case at a World Health Organization meeting in Geneva to get the proposed aid system in place. His pitch resonated, as the WHO passed a resolution calling for urgent assistance.

But other pressures were building from the inside, as Hamas began searching for new ways to ease the crisis. Salaries of public employees were more than three months overdue, sparking demonstrations. Some workers stormed a government building on June 14 in the West Bank.

That same day, Dr. Naim met Hamas Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar in Egypt, and Mr. Zahar carted back five suitcases to Gaza, stuffed with $20 million he'd raised on a tour of the Gulf and Asia. "We are going to continue to bring money in through Rafah crossing. This is a legal process. We are not going to allow anyone to prevent us," Mr. Zahar said at the time. Cash was a necessity. Sanctions had locked Hamas out of the international banking system. While far short of what was needed, the government distributed some back pay five days later, easing pressure.

Following a June 25 assault by Palestinian militants, including Hamas fighters, Israel launched a massive strike on Gaza. Two Israeli soldiers had been killed and one, Gilad Shalit, seized. As they moved into Gaza, Israeli forces also swept the West Bank, arresting 64 Hamas political officials.

Far from weakening Hamas, the actions rallied Palestinians around the government. Thousands demonstrated in support of Hamas in the West Bank, where the Islamist movement was considered weakest.

Money Starts FlowingBy late July, money began flowing to Palestinians through a European initiative accepted by the Middle East diplomatic Quartet, led by the U.S. Dubbed the Temporary International Mechanism, or TIM, "social allowances" -- the word "salaries" was avoided -- were deposited directly into the bank accounts of government employees, bypassing the Palestinian Authority's coffers. TIM also directly financed health-care and other services while circumventing Dr. Naim's ministry.

Yet it was Dr. Naim's employees who were paid first. The European Commission said its intent was to benefit "the whole Palestinian population" by keeping health workers on duty.

The $200 to $400 monthly payments did not amount to full salaries, but provided political scaffolding for Hamas. "All of a sudden," says Nathan Brown, a Middle East expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "the complete collapse of the political system was no longer going to happen." Prime Minister Haniyah, emboldened, went on to assert that sanctions were crumbling.

Because the European mechanism funded government employees and efforts, without using formal government channels, Hamas got the relief it needed without having to take political responsibility for effective governance, says Mr. Rabbani, the ICG analyst.

"Even the very simple child knew that Hamas didn't have money," says Dr. Naim. "The money has been prevented to come here....Why fight against these ministers when they don't have any money?"

No RegretsMs. Rice says she has no regrets about the European effort. "I think the TIM demonstrated that you can support the Palestinian people, and particularly the people who might have no other means of support, and not support the Hamas-led government," she told reporters in Jerusalem last month.

The European Commission would eventually report that it had delivered 27% more money to the Palestinian territories in 2006 than it had during the previous year. The temporary mechanism, renewed every three months, now looks semipermanent.

Meanwhile, throughout the financial siege, street clashes flared between those loyal to Hamas and Fatah. Dr. Naim was among the first high-level targets.

Six gunmen came to the Ministry of Health on April 23 demanding to see him. They were part of a crime group that had operated freely at the ministry for years, brokering permission slips for Palestinians to travel abroad, ostensibly for treatment, Dr. Naim says. The practice was worth thousands of dollars in kickbacks, according to Dr. Naim, who says he shut it down.

After two hours of failed talks with the men, gunfire ripped through the reception area of Dr. Naim's office, where his secretary sits and where the men had been herded by Dr. Naim's personal bodyguards. About a dozen doctors were in a meeting on the other side of the door. As a full siege ensued, gunmen loyal to Fatah surrounded the ministry. The Palestinian Authority security forces, which Fatah largely controlled, did not respond quickly, according to Dr. Naim. But the Hamas military wing did.

Three people were wounded in the fighting that ensued, including a janitor who is now paralyzed. But Hamas won the day. "They didn't come back," Dr. Naim says of the Fatah gunmen.

Across Gaza many security officers loyal to Fatah had been staying home or refusing orders from their new Hamas bosses. To counter this, Hamas had announced the formation of a special security force only three days before the siege at the Ministry of Health.

'The Breaking Point'Publicly, Hamas officials emphasized their desire to ensure civil order. Privately, following the siege, they now understood the need to protect their own power, according to Dr. Naim and others. "This was the breaking point. This was the shock," Dr. Naim says

Hamas's so-called Executive Force hit the streets of Gaza within three weeks. Unlike members of the notoriously corrupt Palestinian Authority security services, the 3,000 Executive Force members were volunteers. (It's not clear how the Executive Force is equipped and funded.)

Their deployment was anathema to Israel, the U.S. and Fatah. With international support, Palestinian security services had been built in the 1990s, primarily to stop Hamas and other militants who jeopardized peace with Israel. Now the militants were wielding their own, semiofficial army.

Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, condemned the deployment as illegal and ordered thousands of his own men into the streets. Gaza became engulfed in something approaching civil war. The Bush administration backed Fatah. Iran backed Hamas. By the end of the year, 326 people were killed in Gaza violence alone.

The bloodshed continued unabated into this year. As the Arab world gaped in horror, Saudi King Abdullah summoned Palestinian leaders from the warring sides to Mecca, where they agreed to a power-sharing agreement that had eluded negotiators for months. Although Mr. Abbas would be criticized in Washington and Israel for the deal, which served finally to legitimize Hamas, his aides, and even Israeli security officials, would cite the ferocity of the Hamas force as a key factor behind the decision.

But the Islamist leaders also decided they had to share power. Bloodshed was eroding their popular support, says Dr. Naim, now the youth and sports minister in the new coalition government.

"Everyone was exhausted," Dr. Naim says. "It was clear to them all that there is no possibility to delete the other side."

Willravel · 06-13-2007, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

roachboy, the prospect of dead jews seems not to move you at all. There's ample precedent for what happens when Palis get near Jews who aren't armed. This seems not to trouble you. Why is that?

How many Palestinians do you think have been killed by Israel in the past 40 years?

loquitur · 06-13-2007, 12:26 PM

Lots. Usually after massacres of Jews.

Question for you, though: how many Palis were getting killed by Jews when the Palis weren't launching attacks against Jews? The answer is, pretty damn few.

BTW, I have no idea where to put this particular witticism, but I enjoyed it so much that I just knew I had to share it, and I knew the people around here would enjoy it. Christopher Hitchens recently remarked, "if you gave Jerry Falwell an enema you could have buried him in a matchbox."

Willravel · 06-13-2007, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Lots. Usually after massacres of Jews.

And that's the problem with the typical western viewpoint of this conflict. It's not anywhere near that simple. First off, that massacre of Jews you mention was because Israel bombed an entire neighborhood of Palestinians because they suspected that one dangerous person may have been in one of the buildings. This isn't a situation where Palestine attacks first without provocation, then Israel has a measured response. Israel has made the West Bank into a prison with their illegal walls. They bulldoze Palestinian houses as they build Israeli homes...slowly shrinking what's left of Palestinian land. They shoot people at stopping points for absolutely no reason. They bomb indiscriminately. And if you're going to sit there and say that the Palestinians do it just as much, which many people will argue, that's just plain wrong. Look at the statistics. Compare total Israeli deaths to Palestinian deaths. Compare Israeli displacement with Palestinian displacement. This is a one sided fight. And being able to see the truth doesn't make me an 'anti-semite' or any such nonsense. It makes me a realist. The problem is that there are so many anti-Palestinian viewpoints out there, a realistic take on the situation looks relatively anti-jewish. I hope that the people who live in Israel can find peace. They won't find peace by destroying Palestine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Question for you, though: how many Palis were getting killed by Jews when the Palis weren't launching attacks against Jews? The answer is, pretty damn few.

And fortunately for both of us, you are able to cite material that supports that viewpoint, right?

loquitur · 06-13-2007, 01:05 PM

come up with any non-negligible substantial number of instances where Israel launched unprovoked attacks on Pali civilians and then come back and we'll talk. I'm not about to start proving negatives. You like citations so much, come up with some.

When you create a culture that glorifies bloodshed you shouldn't be surprised that it ends up eating itself alive. When the Palis are prepared to start behaving like civilized human beings the Israelis will make peace with them. Right now they can't even tolerate each other.

Willravel · 06-13-2007, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

come up with any non-negligible substantial number of instances where Israel launched unprovoked attacks on Pali civilians and then come back and we'll talk.

This is the kind of attitude that is the problem. Go ahead and reread my post. Now again. And again. Now point out 'unprovoked'. Don't see it? That's because you imagined it. You imagined what I was arguing instead of reading what I was arguing. If you want to have a discussion, you'll have to argue against points that have ben brought up. You can't just make them up. That's a strawman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

I'm not about to start proving negatives.

Translation: I'm going to make harsh points about the Palestinians without any evidence. I don't have to prove my points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

You like citations so much, come up with some.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

When you create a culture that glorifies bloodshed you shouldn't be surprised that it ends up eating itself alive. When the Palis are prepared to start behaving like civilized human beings the Israelis will make peace with them. Right now they can't even tolerate each other.

I wish you could understand how deeply offensive and incorrect this statement really is.

Also, as I understand it,'Pali' is a derogatory term.

dc_dux · 06-13-2007, 03:27 PM

Will....I think Loquitor's observation is supported by such offensive actions as he Hamas "Mickey Mouse" cartoon directed to Palestinian kids to kill Jews and destroy Israel.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1178708580247

I have to agree with Golda Mei'rs quote from many years ago:

"We can only have peace with the Palestinians when they love their children more than they hate Israel"

Willravel · 06-13-2007, 03:36 PM

Every culture glorifies bloodshed of some kind, but to suggest that Palestinians aren't civilized human beings is racist.

If Israel and Palestine were reversed, Israel would be looking at a potential civil war.

dc_dux · 06-13-2007, 05:16 PM

Will....I am not aware of any program of the Israeli government (or major political party) that has as its purpose the indoctrination of young childern to kill.

If governments (or the people they represent) support such indoctrination, if its not uncivilized, how would you characterize it?

And I dont know what you mean with your last comment....re, Israel and Palestine being reversed.

Are you suggesting, Israel would have such indoctrination programs, or policies that encourages teens to strap bombs on their body to attack civilians or other such actions?

jorgelito · 06-13-2007, 05:18 PM

Roach, this had been front and center in the news (at least on NPR and BBC, my two main sources). So don't worry, plenty of us are following it.

The civil war is a tragedy. I don't think it's fair to blame Israel though. They would be fighting each other regadless. Some of the problems:

- political power struggle between two parties without regard to their constituents' opinion - In short: They are fighting for power that's it. Not any ideology or ideal. Power.

Abbas is weak: because -
- he has a delicate political high wire to walk - hard to juggle local sentiments, extremists when you're a moderate. I would even compare with Khatamei

-lack of support from Israel and US (this is a a great debacle of US and Israeli foreign policy, failing to take the opportunity to engage and help out Abbas in a favorable position that would have benefited everyone, IMO)

- Lack of control and influence within his own party, Fatah

Egypt shares a large portion of the blame (if you want to play that game) in regards to Gaza, since the beginning.

How can Israel be "racist" against Palestinians if they are the same "race"? They aren't even a race so this really doesn't make sense.

It is a complex web though, if you really want to try an untangle the tit-for-tat "who started it" mess.

The Hamas situation is interesting. A non-state actor dubbed a terror organization that is legitimately elected to the government. Sort of throws a wrench in the works. Now the politcal landscape has been redefined and all parties have to scramble for new positions and strategies.

1. Acknowledge Hamas' legitimacy and risk legitimizing an entity that wants to destroy Israel as one of it's mission statements. Greenlight terrorism?

2. Refuse to recognize and risk being a hypocrite for not accepting the democratic process.

It is difficult to run "scenarios" or "what ifs". If the Palestinian occupied territories of Israel were allowed their operating revenue, would the economic flow be ditributed "responsibly" for the construction and improvment of the state, or just funnelled for more weapons and tools of violence for them to carry out their mission statement of destroying Israel?

Israel and the US may have some culpability for the current state of affairs, but I think most of the blame rests with their leadership, Iran, Egypt, and if you want to go back, UK and France and the UN.

Elphaba · 06-13-2007, 05:27 PM

rb, this is one of the most important topics brought to this forum regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that I have seen in a long time. I will read everything presented before commenting further, as you requested.

Willravel · 06-13-2007, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Will....I am not aware of any program of the Israeli government (or major political party) that has as its purpose the indoctrination of young childern to kill.

I'm not aware of Palestine carpet bombing Israel with their jets, killing dozens of people, in response to an attack that killed one person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

If governments (or the people they represent) support such indoctrination, if its not uncivilized, how would you characterize it?

Desperate would be the word I would pick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Are you suggesting, Israel would have such indoctrination programs, or policies that encourages teens to strap bombs on their body to attack civilians or other such actions?

Considering that Israel is, as a state, carrying out human rights violations as they are now suggests that they are more than capable of being fanatical.

dc_dux · 06-13-2007, 07:43 PM

Will....Israel, as a state, is surrounded by other states whose goals are to drive Israel into the sea. Those nations attempted to do so on numerous occasions through conventional warfare and the Israelis defeated them each time.

As a result, those countries turned to unconventional tactics of strapping bombs to the bodies of teenagers and sending then into highly populated civilian areas in every major city in Israel...then using women and childern as human shileds when Israel responded in defense. I consider those tactics uncivilized.

I dont condone Israel's excesses in their own defense. Their political and military leaders should be held accountable...and in the only democracy in the Middle East, there is some level (not enough) of accountability....more than you find among the Palestinian Authority or any other Arab state in the region. Your suggested that the Israelis are capable of being as fanatical is without foundation, IMO.

As to the Palestinian internal conflict, when Fatah and Hamas are willing to focus on economic development and the rule of law rather than an ideological war against Israel, their people will benefit. $billions of US and international economic development aid has been provided to the Palestinian people and most ended up in Arafat's private Swiss bank account or Hamas terrorists training camps.

I do assisgn blame to the US as well....the Bush administration's commitment to the Israe-Palestinian conflict has been abysmal....the first administration since the 1970s NOT to have a special envoy to attempt to work with both sides to resolve conflict......Carter brokered the Camp David accords which established peace between Israel and Egypt as well as the rights of Palestinians to a homeland...and Clinton nearly finished the deal, with signficant territorial concessions by Israel...only to be sabotaged by Arafat at the last minute.

Xazy · 06-13-2007, 07:46 PM

Watch some pollywood videos http://www.seconddraft.org/movies.php and see how easy the media is manipulated. There are numerous allegations of deaths that later turn out to be fake. It is amazing how the media seems to dance there to one tune, and I will take my leave on this since to me it is hard to have a discussion and I can admit it. But it is very personal to me, and gets me upset the stuff that goes on there.

Willravel · 06-13-2007, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Will....Israel, as a state, is surrounded by other states whose goals are to drive Israel into the sea.

As of late 2006, at least 4,098 Palestinians and 1,021 Israelis have been killed since September 29, 2000. for every one Israeli killed, there has been over 4 Palestinians killed. I'm not sure how 'being surrounded by states whose goals are to drive Israel into the sea" explains that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Those nations attempted to do so on numerous occasions through conventional warfare and the Israelis defeated them each time.

When, recently, has one of these surrounding nations invaded Israel? Now, when, recently, has Israel invaded one of these surrounding countries?

Israel is in no danger from any of those nations. They have one of the most powerful militaries IN THE WORLD, and easily the most powerful military in the region even when compared to the other militaries in the region combined. They have this because the US and UK have chosen to arm them to the teeth for absolutely no reason. And I dare you to tell me it's because they'd be invaded because they just invaded Lebanon and the US didn't do shit to help them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I dont condone Israel's excesses in their own defense.

Then what are we arguing about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Your suggested that the Israelis are capable of being as fanatical is without foundation, IMO.

The invasion of Lebanon was inexcusable. It was fanatical. The wall is fanatical. The bulldozings are fanatical. Their racism is fanatical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

Watch some pollywood videos http://www.seconddraft.org/movies.php and see how easy the media is manipulated. There are numerous allegations of deaths that later turn out to be fake. It is amazing how the media seems to dance there to one tune, and I will take my leave on this since to me it is hard to have a discussion and I can admit it. But it is very personal to me, and gets me upset the stuff that goes on there.

It's a good thing I've already debunked those in another thread.

dc_dux · 06-13-2007, 08:06 PM

This will be my last comment as it is very personal to me as well....living with an Israeli woman who works at the Isreali embassy and has experienced Palestinian terrorism up close and personal.

I support most Israeli responses to acts of terror conducted against her people and I attribute the mutliple resulting deaths of Palestinians to be more the result of the practice of the PA to use its civilians as human shields...sacrificing women and children so they can further rally their cause.

If I were an Israeli citizen, I would NOT vote for a government that was unwilling to respond aggresively to every act of Hamas terrorism....while at the same time showing a willingness to make further territorial concessions when the Palestinian Authority demonstrates a commitment to peace.

Willravel · 06-13-2007, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

This will be my last comment as it is very personal to me as well....living with an Israeli woman who works at the Isreali embassy and has experienced Palestinian terrorism up close and personal.

Tak, a very good friend of mine, was killed in the Israeli attack on and invasion of Lebanon when he was visiting with family and friends on vacation. I guess you could say he had the most direct experience of Israeli terrorism. It's frustrating, because whenever I try to talk with people about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, they jump on Palestinians as if they were animals trying to attack the innocent Israelis in their home country. It's almost as if people actually pay attention to the propaganda.

I respect the shit out of you, DC, but we're going to end up disagreeing on this one, I suspect. I think the AN and UN were irresponsible giving Israel back land where they had once ruled long ago. The whole situation, and subsequent situations, have been poorly planned, conceived, and intentioned. I feel horrible that the holocaust happened, and I'm ashamed to come from the same ancestors as those who carried it out, but the Palestinians didn't deserve to be displaced. So long as Israel bombs the shit out of Palestinians, and Palestinians strap bombs to their chests, the bloodshed will continue. It's a damn shame because more innocent people die than guilty.

host · 06-13-2007, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

Watch some pollywood videos http://www.seconddraft.org/movies.php and see how easy the media is manipulated. There are numerous allegations of deaths that later turn out to be fake. It is amazing how the media seems to dance there to one tune, and I will take my leave on this since to me it is hard to have a discussion and I can admit it. But it is very personal to me, and gets me upset the stuff that goes on there.

Xazy, we've been there....done that....re: the pallywood videos' propaganda, right here in a thread on this forum:
Pallywood http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2105204

.....and....how does a serious discussion with you, take place...considering that you posted (in post #3) unattributed content (no link was posted)....nearly the entire page, in fact....from this page on the Israeli foreign ministry website:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-...5-Apr-2007.htm

Xazy, we cannot have a discussion because too many cannot "grok" that Israel is a separate sovereign nation from the US. for quite a while now; and the US and Israel have some common interests, but many more separate interests, policies, and priorities, too.

If you believed that Israel is separate and has sometimes advocated for the perceived interests of it's own "right wing militancy", at the direct expense to US "best interests", you wouldn't be posting "chunks" on this thread, from an Israeli foreign ministry site, but, if you did, in a manner that demonstrated that you were being "up front" about your agenda, you would have posted the link.

Eleven years ago, it was a myth that Israel was vulnerable....there was no way then, and no way now, in 2007, that Israel is in any realistic danger of being "driven into the sea", by any enemy, or group of allied "enemies", and it's proabably been impossible, since the late 1980's after the fall of the old Soviet Union:

Quote:

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-...playstory.html
Friday August 16, 1996

Israeli's military secrets published in Jane's Sentinel

DOUGLAS DAVIS
Jerusalem Post Service.....

So....in order to actually have a "discussion", we must agree that:
<a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/10/lieberman/index.html">[Israel] is a different nation than the U.S. </a>

...that Israel is the sole superpower in it's region...at least according to Jane's info from eleven years ago....before the US and Israel spent an additional amount, in excess of $70 billion, to further equip, train, and operate Israeli forces.

<b>We must also agree that the "Israel lobby" is able to evoke a bipartisan influence so strong, and often, so counter to US "best interests", that all of us should be gravely concerned</b>, but as we observe right here on this thread....curiously are not alarmed at all. Some us even enthusiastically approve of a country considered a poor "victim" of "Arab aggression"....but isn't.....at all.....a country that has been the largest recipient of US military aid for more than 20 years....that is wealthy enough to pay for it's own "aid", but doesn't, using it's lobby to interfere with our legislators' efforts to prevent the US president from unilaterally starting another preemptive war!

Quote:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-05-15.html

....But with Iran measures possibly headed to the House floor as early as today, it is unclear if Democrats have the votes to pass legislation calling for the president to seek authorization from Congress for a preemptive strike on Iran.

House Democratic leaders initially attempted to insert Iran language in their now-vetoed Iraq supplemental bill, but abandoned the plan after some New York Democrats, including Reps. Eliot Engel and Gary Ackerman, balked at the language.

<b>The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an influential group that advocates strong U.S. ties with Israel, lobbied heavily to remove the Iran provision in the supplemental</b>, arguing that the measure would weaken President Bush’s attempts to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Needing every vote they could get, House leaders dropped the provisions before narrowly passing the Iraq measure......

.....and, we need to agree that this where we were, that it was far from perfect:

Quote:

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0204-01.htm
Published on Sunday, February 4, 2001 in the Baltimore Sun
How Honest the American Broker?
by Jim Anderson

WASHINGTON -- Almost unnoticed in the commotion about the change in administrations in Washington is a quiet revolution in U.S. foreign policy. It is not a success story.

Consider: For the past quarter-century, beginning with Henry Kissinger's bravura performance shuttles, the Middle East conflict has been the center-piece of every president's foreign policy agenda. Whether Democrat or Republican, every secretary of state personally struggled to push the Arab-Israeli peace process forward.

That was true for the flashy secretaries like Mr. Kissinger or Madeleine Albright, as well as more workmanlike officials like Warren Christopher (28 trips to Damascus in four years).

But in the aftermath of the fiasco of July's Camp David II summit and the second intifada, which began Sept. 29, both Palestinians and the likely next government of Israel have denounced American mediation attempts as well-meaning, but dangerous or meretricious, or both.

The harshest words came from the Palestinians. In a statement Jan. 22, the Palestinian Authority suggested that the U.S.-led peace process was a sham, a "mirage designed to trick" the Arab governments and to give "a false sense of normalcy" behind which Israel could keep building more settlements in occupied territory and take permanent possession of more of the West Bank and Gaza.

In apparent reference to the U.S. negotiating team, with its key members such as Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk coming from organizations associated with the Israel lobby in Washington, the Palestinian statement said, "Unfortunately over the last seven years in particular, the U.S. has become increasingly identified with Israeli ideological assumptions."

The trigger for the Palestinian anger appears to have been an unusual statement by then-President Bill Clinton after the Camp David summit crashed. He elaborately praised the flexibility and courage of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak but pointedly omitted any mention of Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat and his travails.

For the Israelis, the concessions put on the table by Mr. Barak under relentless pressure from Mr. Clinton, led to the collapse of his uneasy coalition government and the calling of new elections. Polls project him to be defeated soundly by the more hawkish leader of the Likud coalition, Ariel Sharon.

The man who is expected to be one of the inner circle of Mr. Sharon's advisers, former U.N. Ambassador Dore Gold, made it clear that Mr. Sharon will not be calling on the United States for more mediation help. He spoke last week at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel public policy think tank (where Mr. Ross was and will become a senior fellow and where Mr. Indyk was executive director).

Mr. Gold, as is his style, was blunt and to the point. "We maximized the U.S. role, yet we didn't get results. We have way over-used [the American] presidential impact. There may be value in letting the parties engage by themselves" -- that is, without any American presence.

In a biting farewell to Mr. Clinton, Mr. Gold said, "The lesson is that you don't call a Camp David [summit] unless you've done your homework."

So why did such an heroic American effort end in failure and rejection, particularly after it was marked with a triumphant beginning for Mr. Clinton in 1993 on the White House lawn after a joint signing by Mr. Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin?

Simply put, there was always a lack of honesty in the U.S. effort. The "honest broker" had a cultural and political bias toward one party, Israel, and a vast lack of knowledge and sympathy for the other side, the Palestinians.

There was always an internal contradiction in U.S. foreign policy which was overlooked by the Arabs, as long as they could see an advantage for themselves or, more importantly, no alternative.

As the first President George Bush said honestly when he was in office, "We are not even-handed" in the Middle East.

Successive U.S. administrations have made a continuing priority commitment to Israel's security and well-being. That endures, despite inconvenient Israeli governments such as Yitzhak Shamir's or Benjamin Netanyahu's. The reason: Because of the overwhelming sentiments expressed by the American electorate as represented by the Congress, voter turnouts in key states like California and New York and campaign contributions.

The Arab governments do not claim that U.S. sympathy toward Israel resulted in stacking the deck against the Palestinians. What they do suggest is that the background of the American negotiators simply made them insensitive to deeply held Arab views about such issues as recognizing the rights, in some way, of more than 4 million Palestinian refugees.

Second, the world has changed.

Ten years ago, at the end of the Persian Gulf war and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the only global power that mattered. Now things are more complex. The European Union (EU), by far the largest contributor to the strangling Palestinian economy, is edging closer to the Middle East negotiations and the United Nations is becoming more assertive.

As a symbol of the upheaval in U.S. Middle East policy, the only outsider at the recent Israeli-Palestinian talks in Taba, Egypt, was the representative of the EU, Miguel Moratinos. No American representatives were present or invited by either the Israelis or the Palestinians.

Jim Anderson is a Washington-based correspondent who has covered U.S. foreign policy, including the Kissinger shuttles, for more than 30 years.

So, the US role as "honest broker" was not "honest", but it was not hopelessly broken, as it has intentionally been made to be, over the last six years.....

....and this is where we are, now, and the change has gone a long way towards making things much worse for Palestinians, and much better for Israel's Likud party extremists:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...45652-2003Feb8
Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical On Mideast Policy

By Robert G. Kaiser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 9, 2003; Page A01

Running for reelection last month, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel repeatedly boasted of the "deep friendship" he has built with the Bush administration -- "a special closeness,"....

Sharon was describing what his American supporters call the closest relationship in decades, perhaps ever, between a U.S. president and an Israeli government. "This is the best administration for Israel since Harry Truman [who first recognized an independent Israel]," <b>said Thomas Neumann, executive director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs,</b> a think tank that promotes strategic cooperation with Israel as vital to U.S. security interests.
<h3>host inserts: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs= JINSA</h3>

For the first time, a U.S. administration and a Likud government in Israel are pursuing nearly identical policies. Earlier U.S. administrations, from Jimmy Carter's through Bill Clinton's, held Likud and Sharon at arm's length, distancing the United States from Likud's traditionally tough approach to the Palestinians. But today, as Neumann noted, Israel and the United States share a common view on terrorism, peace with the Palestinians, war with Iraq and more. Neumann and others said this change was made possible by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and their aftermath.

The Bush administration's alignment with Sharon delights many of its strongest supporters, especially evangelical Christians, and a large part of organized American Jewry, according to leaders in both groups, who argue that Palestinian terrorism pushed Bush to his new stance. <b>But it has led to a freeze on diplomacy in the region that is criticized by Arab countries and their allies, and by many past and current officials who have participated in the long-running, never-conclusive Middle East "peace process."</b>

"Every president since at least Nixon has seen the Arab-Israeli conflict as the central strategic issue in the Middle East," said Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, President Bill Clinton's national security adviser. "But this administration sees Iraq as the central challenge, and . . . has disengaged from any serious effort to confront the Arab-Israeli problem."

The turning point came last June, when Bush embraced Sharon's view of the Palestinians and made Yasser Arafat's removal as leader of the Palestinian Authority a condition of future diplomacy. That was "a clear shift in policy," Kenneth R. Weinstein, director of the Washington office of the Hudson Institute, a conservative supporter of Israel and Likud. The June speech was "a departure point," agreed Ralph Reed, chairman of the Georgia Republican Party and former director of the Christian Coalition.

Since then, U.S. policy has been in step with Sharon's. The peace process is "quiescent," said retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, Bush's special envoy to the region. "I've kind of gone dormant," he added. In December Bush appointed an articulate, hard-line critic of the traditional peace process, Elliott Abrams, director of Mideast affairs for the National Security Council.

"The Likudniks are really in charge now," said a senior government official, using a Yiddish term for supporters of Sharon's political party. Neumann agreed that Abrams's appointment was symbolically important, not least because Abrams's views were shared by his boss, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, by Vice President Cheney and by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "It's a strong lineup," he said.

Abrams is a former assistant secretary of state in the Reagan administration who was convicted on two counts of lying to Congress in the Iran-contra scandal, then pardoned by President George H.W. Bush. In October 2000, Abrams wrote: "The Palestinian leadership does not want peace with Israel, and there will be no peace."

Said Meyrav Wurmser of the Hudson Institute, who shares his outlook: "Elliott's appointment is a signal that the hard-liners in the administration are playing a more central role in shaping policy." She added that "the hard-liners are a very unique group. The hawks in the administration are in fact people who are the biggest advocates of democracy and freedom in the Middle East." She was referring to the idea that promoting democracy is the best way to assure Israel's security, because democratic countries are less likely to attack a neighbor than dictatorships. Adherents of this view have argued that creating a democratic Palestine and a democratic Iraq could have a positive impact on the entire region.

Some Middle East hands who disagree with these supporters of Israel refer to them as "a cabal," in the words of one former official. Members of the group do not hide their friendships and connections, or their loyalty to strong positions in support of Israel and Likud.

One of Abrams's mentors, Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, led a study group that proposed to Binyamin Netanyahu, a Likud prime minister of Israel from 1996 to 1999, that he abandon the Oslo peace accords negotiated in 1993 and reject the basis for them -- the idea of trading "land for peace.<h3>" Israel should insist on Arab recognition of its claim to the biblical land of Israel, the 1996 report suggested, and should "focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq."</h3>

<b>Besides Perle, the study group included David Wurmser, now a special assistant to Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton, and Douglas J. Feith,</b> now undersecretary of defense for policy. Feith has written prolifically on Israeli-Arab issues for years, arguing that Israel has as legitimate a claim to the West Bank territories seized after the Six Day War as it has to the land that was part of the U.N.-mandated Israel created in 1948. Perle, Feith and Abrams all declined to be interviewed for this article.

Rumsfeld echoed the Perle group's analysis in a little-noted comment to Pentagon employees last August about "the so-called occupied territories." <b>Rumsfeld said: "There was a war [in 1967], Israel urged neighboring countries not to get involved . . . they all jumped in, and they lost a lot of real estate to Israel because Israel prevailed in that conflict. In the intervening period, they've made some settlements in some parts of the so-called occupied area, which was the result of a war, which they won."............</b>

......The State Department pressed for continued negotiations and pressure on Sharon to limit the scope of his military response to Palestinian suicide bombers, while the Pentagon and <b>the vice president's office favored more encouragement for the Israelis, and less concern for a peace process</b> which, they said, was going nowhere anyhow........

But the administration did make a series of statements and gestures intended to restrain Sharon's response to suicide bombings, and to reassert the traditional U.S. policy that Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank had to cease. At the urging of Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Bush publicly embraced the idea of a Palestinian state.

An internal debate split the administration and invited the lobbying of think tanks, Jewish organizations, evangelical Christians and others who take a fierce interest in the Middle East. While some groups including Americans for Peace Now lined up against Sharon's tough policies and in favor of negotiations, most of the organizations and individuals who lobbied on these issues embraced a harder line, and supported Sharon. Over the past dozen years or more, supporters of Sharon's Likud Party have moved into leadership roles in most of the American Jewish organizations that provide financial and political support for Israel.

Friends of Israel in Congress also lined up with Sharon. <h3>In November 2001, 89 of 100 senators signed a letter to Bush asking the administration not to try to restrain Israel</h3> from using "all [its] strength and might" in response to Palestinian suicide bombings. Signers said they wanted to persuade Bush to prevent Secretary of State Colin L. Powell from pressuring Sharon......

....A series of episodes in which Bush felt Arafat behaved inappropriately further soured the relationship. Bush repeatedly refused to meet with Arafat, who had met with Clinton 21 times. And month after month, U.S. officials blamed Arafat for failing to prevent the suicide bombings in Israel.

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Sharon began immediately to argue that Israel and the United States were fighting the same enemy, international terrorism. Over the months that followed -- months marked by escalating violence in Israel and the West Bank -- Bush and Sharon grew closer, personally and politically. By the end of last year the two had met seven times and talked on many more occasions by telephone (with Sharon doing nearly all the talking, Israeli officials said). Said a senior official of the first Bush administration who is critical of this one: "Sharon played the president like a violin: 'I'm fighting your war, terrorism is terrorism,' and so on. Sharon did a masterful job."

Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, a leading figure in Jewish-Evangelical Christian relations for two decades, offered a more sympathetic description of Bush's alignment with Israel and Sharon. "President Bush's policy stems from his core as a Christian, his perceptions of right and wrong, good and evil, and of the need to stand up and fight against evil," Eckstein said. "I personally believe it is very personal, not a political maneuver on his part."

Politics have played a role, several sources said. Gary Bauer, an evangelical Christian activist and Republican presidential candidate in 2000, said that he and like-minded evangelicals have campaigned vigorously in support of Israel and Sharon's tough policies. "I think we've had some impact," Bauer said.

Another conservative Republican with Christian ties who has made Israel a cause is House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). Last April, speaking to a Jewish group in Washington, DeLay called Israel "the lone fountain of liberty" in the Middle East, and endorsed Israeli retention of the occupied territories. He referred to West Bank by the biblical names, Judea and Samaria, which are often used by Israelis who consider them part of Israel.

The Rev. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention said the White House and its political director, Karl Rove, know "how critical [evangelical] support is to them and their party," and know how strongly evangelicals support Israel. "We need to bless Israel more than America needs Israel's blessing," Land said, "because Israel has a far greater ally than the United States of America, God Almighty."

"This is not your daddy's Republican Party," said James Zogby, president of the Arab-American Institute in Washington, who argues the administration is losing its ability to act as an honest broker in the Middle East by lining up with Israel. "There's a marriage here between the religious right and the neoconservatives," he said, referring to intellectual hard-liners such as Abrams and Perle, both of whom worked for Democrats before joining the Reagan administration.

IMO, we can have no discussion of "what's wrong with the Palestinians", unless we are able to move beyond subtle insertions of Israeli Foreign Ministry web pages. in our posts here, and work on examining what is "wrong" with the
Israelis and the Americans, and what their culpability is in "squeezing" the Palestinians. What options are Palestinians, arguably believing that the "secular choice" of "leadership" that Israel and the US campaigns for them to choose, is actually an Israeli sponsored "puppet" government, supposed to embrace, when they experience "things" like this:

Quote:

Six Day War: Legality of Settlements Debated

Listen to this story... by Eric Westervelt

West Bank settlement outpost of Migron.
David Silverman
<img src="http://media.npr.org/news/images/2007/jun/07/sixday2002.jpg">
<i>An armed Jewish settler walks past mobile homes in the West Bank settlement outpost of Migron. Getty Images</i>

Morning Edition, June 8, 2007 · In the Six Day War of June 1967, Israel defeated the combined armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan, capturing the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula. For Israel, it was a stunning triumph; for Arabs, a humiliating defeat.

Israel no longer occupies the Sinai or Gaza, but its continued hold over the other territories has stymied efforts to bring comprehensive peace to the Middle East.

The fifth part of a five-part series follows. .....

.....The problem with Migron, according to court papers, is that the outpost was illegally built on land owned by Palestinians in the adjacent villages of Deir Didwan and Burqa.

"Israel claims it respects ownership rights in the West Bank," says Dror Etkes, the Settlement Watch Coordinator for Israel Peace Now, "but Migron was constructed … fully on registered private Palestinian land."

In February, responding to a lawsuit by Peace Now, the Israeli government conceded that the outpost was unauthorized, that it was built on private land and, the state said, that it should be dismantled.

In 2005, the Israeli-government-created Sahsohn Commission concluded that the state illegally spent more than 4 million Shekels, or about $1 million, of public funds building Migron.

The state has successfully petitioned the court for more time to create an outpost evacuation plan before dismantling the outpost. Etkes called that just another stalling tactic. He said Migron is a prime example of how settlers continue to establish facts on the ground in the West Bank — backed by the government – that, over time, often become larger settlements.

"And what we see here, is, not only has the state not enforced law on Israelis in West Bank, but the state is supporting and subsidizing law violation on a massive scale," Etkes says.

The ongoing legal fight over Migron is likely to become a key test-case for other outposts. Settlers are fighting back hard in the courts because a loss at Migron could make other, more vast Israeli-built areas in the West Bank legally vulnerable, Etkes says.

"They're extremely afraid of Migron," he says. "They understand very well that once a precedent will be done in Migron, there will be dozens and hundreds of sites in the West Bank. And it's not only outposts, but official settlements, which are fully or partially built on private Palestinian land."

According to the government's own Sahsohn report, more than 100 new unauthorized outposts have been built in the West Bank since 1996. The report says most have basic infrastructure provided with direct help from the state.

The first Israeli settlements in the West Bank began cropping up in the fall of 1967 — just a few months after the Six Day war.

Israeli historian Gershom Gorenberg said that back then, there were warnings at the highest levels within the government that settlements would be viewed by some as neo-Colonial occupation and could backfire. But parliamentary proponents of settlement consistently won out. The romanticized allure of settlement, Gorenberg says, was hard to stop. It was the way Jews in the late 19th century returned to their homeland before independence.

"It had this log cabin, frontier mystique — or the equivalent on Israeli terms — and people who settled the land were heroes," Gorenberg says. "But it was anachronistic. It was this out of date ideal that, when applied to the post-'67 reality, led Israel into a quagmire."

Today the Israeli government, on the one hand, concedes that Migron and the other outposts like it are illegal and contrary to established government policy. Yet, at the same time, the government has actively supported their development and, so far, has done little to remove them.

"That's a pattern that began in the summer of 1967. It reflects that the conflict between the rational understanding that settlement is destructive for Israel and the emotional, almost mythical romance with settlement has not been resolved," Gorenberg says.

Polls show that a majority of Israelis have increasingly soured on the mystique of settlement, and no longer believe they'll be able to hold on to the majority of West Bank land captured 40 years ago.

Yet, near daily rocket fire from Gaza Strip — from which Israel unilaterally withdrew two summers ago — has made Israelis more fearful than ever of implementing a West Bank pullout. As one analyst here put it, "The incredible irony is that at a time when the majority of Israelis have finally reached a conclusion it's impossible to stay in the West Bank, they're terrified of what the divorce will bring."

(Because of intense interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, NPR makes available free transcripts of its coverage. View the free transcript of this story.)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=10816818

I'm "bothering" because I admire roachboy's effort and his patience. So many responses to his OP that come from folks who seem to me, anyway....to have malformed opinions of what Israel is, and has done. Israel has one priority....influencing the US legislature and executive to do it's bidding, and influencing a majority in the US to push the executive and the legislature, because so many swallow the "Israel will be driven into the sea", bullshit.

That was a circumstance in another era. Can you even consider...even as a remote possibility.....that what is perceived as good for Likud dominated Israel, is not necessarily good for the US? Can you consider that the US cannot be both the closest friend to a belligerent, Likud dominated Israel, and
an importer dependent on 14 million bbls per day of petroleum, without the risk of provoking otherwise avoidable wars with Israel's petroleum rich adversaries?

Can you, at least consider, that the US is in need of a policy makeover that includes fair treatment of Palestinians and other middle easterners, at the expense of Israeli influence on US political decision making, because Israel is a wealthy country fully capable of taking care of itself....even to the point of asserting US best foreign policy interests, over those of Israel?

Can you consider, that I, and others who post here, are presenting a fact supported, reasoned argument that addresses the present and recent state of affairs in the area where Israel and Palestinians live?

If you disagree with the accuracy of what I, or roachboy, or willravel have posted, wouldn't it be advantageous to point out the flaw that you perceive, and discuss it with us? Isn't it best to be leary or skeptical of a foreign lobby with the bipartisan influence that AIPAC obviously enjoys? Doesn't it seem safer to elect a US presidential candidate in 2008 that will challenge Likud leadership, more than Hillary or any of the republican candidates will be apt to do? Shouldn't it be a priority to listen to Dartmouth educated King Abdullah of Jordan, at least on a level equal to what Israeli leaders enjoy?

Isn't it extreme to be an American Zionist when simply supporting Israel's right to exist. would be adequate and much more in keeping with US "best interests?

Sun Tzu · 06-14-2007, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Will....I think Loquitor's observation is supported by such offensive actions as he Hamas "Mickey Mouse" cartoon directed to Palestinian kids to kill Jews and destroy Israel.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1178708580247

I have to agree with Golda Mei'rs quote from many years ago:

"We can only have peace with the Palestinians when they love their children more than they hate Israel"

Do you agree with a couple of her other quotes?

"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."

"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy."

mixedmedia · 06-14-2007, 02:34 AM

I think its totally possible to understand the brutality, injustice and "mighty impotence" that the powers within the US and Israel have demonstrated towards the Palestinian people and still believe that the powers within the Palestinian people are not, nor would be, any less brutal, more just or more effective if things had panned out differently for them. I don't see taking sides as anything but a personal preference or an ideological exercise.

Unfortunately, those Israelis and Palestinians who just want to live in peace have no say in the matter. Maybe those people should just understand that one day will come the wonder killing! The death that will set everything in order and bring them peace and prosperity. Or maybe they don't realize the rush one can get from running around with a gun in their hand. Regardless, they can only hope that themselves and their loved ones can avoid senseless death. Pawns in the game.

Tom Waits summed it up pretty good...

Quote:

Road to Peace

Young Abdel Mahdi (Shahmay) was only 18 years old,
He was the youngest of nine children, never spent a night away from home.
And his mother held his photograph, opening the New York Times
To see the killing has intensified along the road to peace

There was a tall, thin boy with a whispy moustache disguised as an orthodox Jew
On a crowded bus in Jerusalem, some had survived World War Two
And the thunderous explosion blew out windows 200 yards away
With more retribution and seventeen dead along the road to peace

Now at King George Ave and Jaffa Road passengers boarded bus 14a
In the aisle next to the driver Abdel Mahdi (Shahmay)
And the last thing that he said on earth is "God is great and God is good"
And he blew them all to kingdom come upon the road to peace

Now in response to this another kiss of death was visited upon
Yasser Taha, Israel says is an Hamas senior militant
And Israel sent four choppers in, flames engulfed, tears wide open
And it killed his wife and his three year old child leaving only blackened skeletons

They found his toddler's bottle and a pair of small shoes and they waved them in front of the cameras
But Israel says they did not know that his wife and child were in the car
There are roadblocks everywhere and only suffering on TV
Neither side will ever give up their smallest right along the road to peace

Israel launched it's latest campaign against Hamas on Tuesday
Two days later Hamas shot back and killed five Israeli soldiers
So thousands dead and wounded on both sides most of them middle eastern civilians
They fill the children full of hate to fight an old man's war and die upon the road to peace

"And this is our land we will fight with all our force" say the Palastinians and the Jews
Each side will cut off the hand of anyone who tries to stop the resistance
If the right eye offends thee then you must pluck it out
And Mahmoud Abbas said Sharon had been lost out along the road to peace

Once Kissinger said "we have no friends, America only has interests"
Now our president wants to be seen as a hero and he's hungry for re-election
But Bush is reluctant to risk his future in the fear of his political failures
So he plays chess at his desk and poses for the press 10,000 miles from the road to peace

In the video that they found at the home of Abdel Mahdi (Shahmay)
He held a Kalashnikov rifle and he spoke with a voice like a boy
He was an excellent student, he studied so hard, it was as if he had a future
He told his mother that he had a test that day out along the road to peace

The fundamentalist killing on both sides is standing in the path of peace
But tell me why are we arming the Israeli army with guns and tanks and bullets?
And if God is great and God is good why can't he change the hearts of men?
Well maybe God himself is lost and needs help
Maybe God himself he needs all of our help
Maybe God himself is lost and needs help
He's out upon the road to peace

Well maybe God himself is lost and needs help
Maybe God himself he needs all of our help
And he's lost upon the road to peace
And he's lost upon the road to peace
Out upon the road to peace.

Therefore I don't have much but gobbledy-gook to add this discussion. I think the powers on both sides are fucked up and wrong. And they feed, with great relishment, off of each other. Funny that, when you think about it, how much they depend on each other.

dc_dux · 06-14-2007, 03:58 AM

Will and Host......Israel has demonstrated a commitment to peace for the last thirty years as long as it does not severey threaten its security, all the while facing terrorist attacks against civilians by Fatah, then Hamas along with Hezballah and its sponsorship by Syria and Iran.

In the 70s, the Likud govt of Begin negotiated a lasting peace with Egypt and in the 90s, the Labor govt of Rabin did the same with Jordan.

The leaders of both parties have been willing to negotiate with Palestinian authorities. Rabin negotiated the Oslo agreement that started the formal process of a two-state solution, including the return of the Gaza strip to Palestinian authority...asking two things in return ...a willingness to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and denouncing violence against civilians. THe world community, through the "Quartet" (UN, Russia, EU and US) has adopted the same principles....and that acknowledgement never comes from the Palestinian authorities.

Instead, the Palestinians, with the tacit support of Fatah, at the time, responded with the Intifada and the new Hamas govt continues to deny Israel's right to exist.

The Palestinian people want peace, the Israeli government and people want peace. The Palestinian leaders do not.

If you can demonstrate any willingness by the Palestinian Authority or political parties to seriously negotiate a two-state solution we can continue this discussion.

tecoyah · 06-14-2007, 04:46 AM

In my opinion we need to get the hell away from the entire region, and watch as they all do what they do best.....Kill Each other. Isreal can, and should take care of its own reality without the United States playing the fool in the background, and the Palestinians will be free to beat the sh!t out of each other until someone has the strength to create a semblance of peace. You cannot negotiate with both sides in a civil war.

roachboy · 06-14-2007, 06:20 AM

so have a look.
this is what really really ineptly conceived and executed policy can get you: EXACTLY what you wanted least to have happen.

Quote:

Hamas Seizes Key Fatah Installation
By STEVEN ERLANGER and GRAHAM BOWLEY
Published: June 14, 2007

JERUSALEM, June 14 ? President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah faced the further collapse of his power in Gaza today as fierce fighting continued and Hamas fighters took over the headquarters of Fatah?s Preventive Security forces in

Aides to Mr. Abbas say he is expected to announce an ?important decision? later today. He is under pressure from within Fatah and from his Western allies to suspend participation in the so-called unity government with Hamas, which began in March, or to declare a full state of emergency.

Hamas forces consolidated their control over much of Gaza on Wednesday, taking command of the main north-south road and blowing up a Fatah headquarters in Khan Yunis, in the south.

By Wednesday, Hamas controlled Gaza City except for several areas, including the presidential compound of Mr. Abbas and the Suraya headquarters of the National Security Forces, the Palestinian army. Hamas had surrounded Al Suraya, calling on the occupants to surrender. Mr. Abbas was outside Gaza, in Ramallah, on the West Bank.

Today, Hamas tightened its grip further by capturing the headquarters of the Fatah-dominated Preventive Security forces, in the Tal el-Hawa district of Gaza City.

The fall of that headquarters would have powerful resonance for both Fatah and Hamas. Preventive Security is an elite national security force that was founded by Mohammed Dahlan, a Fatah strongman, and was considered to be one of the most important Fatah forces in Gaza.

By Wednesday, in northern Gaza and Gaza City, Hamas military men, many of them in black masks, moved unchallenged through the streets as Fatah fighters ran short of arms and ammunition and abandoned their posts.

The powerful Hamas move to exert authority in Gaza, and the poor performance and motivation of the larger security forces supposedly loyal to Fatah, raised troubling questions for Mr. Abbas and Israel, and left the White House with a dwindling menu of policy options.

Mr. Abbas faces a putative Palestinian state divided into a West Bank run by Fatah and a Gaza run by Hamas.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel warned of ?regional consequences? if Gaza fell under the complete control of Hamas, an Islamist movement that does not recognize Israel?s right to exist. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said Hamas control of Gaza would limit Israel?s ability to negotiate with Mr. Abbas, as Washington wants.

Hamas spokesmen said the movement had no political goal except to defend itself from a group within Fatah collaborating with Israel and the United States. They said they wanted to bring the security forces under the control of the unity government, in which Fatah agreed to play a part until the current fighting.

Some Israeli security officials say Israel wants to see the West Bank isolated from Gaza, even more so with Hamas in control there. One official suggested that Hamas?s show of strength in Gaza would make it more likely that the Israeli military would intervene there this summer to cut back Hamas?s military power. The Israeli security services say Hamas, which is able to smuggle weapons and explosives from Egypt, is developing a sophisticated army on the model of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

The Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mark Regev, said Israel did not see ?the implosion of the Palestinian Authority in anyone?s interest.? In Gaza, he added, ?the clear strength that Hamas is demonstrating on the ground is a problem for us, and a challenge.?

?It?s a problem for the Palestinians, too,? Mr. Regev said. ?Our whole policy is to work with moderate pragmatic Palestinians who believe in peace, and Hamas hegemony in Gaza is not good for Israel, for the Palestinians or for peace.?

Since the election victory of Hamas in January 2006, the United States and Israel have worked to isolate and damage Hamas and build up Fatah with recognition and weaponry. Asked whether the Hamas gains showed the failure of that policy, Mr. Regev said: ?I don?t think Israel or the international community should give up on Palestinian moderates. That would be a self-fulfilling prophecy.?

Some in Israel, however, are beginning to ask whether it might make sense to have indirect discussions with Hamas, which is clearly not going away.

In Wednesday?s clashes in Gaza City, Hamas took over the Awdah building, a tall apartment complex where many Fatah leaders lived, causing another Fatah leader, Maher Miqdad, to flee with his family, after at least eight Fatah men were killed.

Hamas also took over and burned the main police station, another symbol of Fatah power, and surrounded the main national security headquarters building, Al Suraya.

In northern Gaza, Hamas gave fighters in isolated Fatah military headquarters until Friday at 7 p.m. to surrender their weapons.

In Khan Yunis, Hamas detonated a large bomb in a tunnel under the headquarters of Fatah?s Preventive Security, killing at least one of those inside and wounding eight more.

Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, said the movement was defending itself, not reaching for unalloyed power.

?There is no political goal behind this but to defend our movement and force these security groups to behave,? Mr. Zuhri said in an interview.

He insisted that ?Hamas did not initiate these attacks, but it was pushed to do so to end crimes by the factions inside Fatah who favor a coup.?

He said Hamas ?is doing the work that Fatah failed to do, to control these groups,? whom he accused of crimes, chaos and collaboration with Israel and the United States.

Mr. Zuhri said the United States should ?sit with the movement at the dialogue table on the basis of mutual respect, respecting the elections.?

Mr. Miqdad accused Hamas of following an Israeli script. ?This is an Israeli plan,? he said. ?They want to connect the West Bank to Jordan and make Gaza a separate jail. This will be the end of an independent Palestinian state.?

Abdullah al-Aqad, 28, of Khan Yunis, said he joined the national security forces to have a job. He marveled at the speed of the Hamas advance. ?We are 70,000 P.A. soldiers, and where are they all?? he asked. ?And facing 10,000 Hamas soldiers.?

From Ramallah, Mr. Abbas spoke to the exiled Hamas political leader, Khaled Meshal, to try to ease the crisis. ?This is madness, the madness that is going on in Gaza now,? Mr. Abbas told reporters.

At least 13 Palestinians were killed on Wednesday and 64 injured, according to Moaweya Hassanein of the Palestinian Health Ministry. He said 59 had died since Monday.

The dead included two workers with the United Nations agency that helps the 70 percent of Gazans who are refugees or their descendants. The agency announced it was curtailing its operations until the fighting stopped.

While Fatah blamed Hamas for the crisis, an Israeli analyst of Palestinian affairs, Danny Rubinstein, said the ?primary reason for the break-up is the fact that Fatah has refused to fully share the Palestinian Authority?s mechanism of power with its rival Hamas, despite Hamas?s decisive victory in the January 2006 general elections.?

Fatah ?was forced to overrule Palestinian voters because the entire world demanded it do so,? Mr. Rubinstein added. ?Matters have come to the point where Hamas attempted to take by force what they believe they rightfully deserve.?

Taghreed El-Khodary contributed reporting from Gaza City and Khan Yunis.

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/wo...hp&oref=slogin

hamas could have been by this point a much different type of organization---holding power moderates because the premises of the game shift--legitimacy is no longer a matter of claims that you make but of continuity of services and security. hamas was elected and those champions of "democracy" those Beacons of democracy, examples to the fucking world---the us and israel--CHOSE not to recognize the elections. they CHOSE a set of actions that would force the collapse of the pa in gaza. they CHOSE to blockade.
they CHOSE hamas coming to power militarily.
they CHOSE to create conditions that would reinforce hamas most radical tendencies, to force it to rely on exactly what both parties were most anxious about.

this is why i tried yesterday to get folk to read the de soto report rather than to rely on the usual rhetorical suspects the usual rhetorical moves to address this question. this is the outcome of the entire discourse of the "war on terror"--this is what it gets you--it gets you what you are most afraid of--it gets you what you claim to want to stop--you produce what you are trying to eliminate--you want, apparently, what you claim to not want--you need, apparently, what you claim endangers you.

i am not interested in the various claims to up-close-and-personal experience of the consequences of this situation. i am interested in the dynamics that cause them. here you see it, in technicolor, happening right in front of you.

rather than look at it, there is post after post above that tries instead to run the thread to ground (this in an electrical sense, like an antenna).
"dead jews dont move you," loquitor sez to me. nice, bud.
x or y above has experience at no to one to two removes of "terrorism".
so it follows that there is no reason to look at system-level causes--you know choices, errors, or (in the case of the bush administration) ideologically-driven fuck ups--because of course we all know that the "war on terror" discourse is a simple description of fact, nothing ideological about it. no reason to think about causes or systemic matters because the television tells us that "terrorists" are just Evil--an "explanation" what gets accepted and repeated above seemingly because it exempts us from thinking about difficult unpleasant things and replaces them with simpler unpleasant things--images of violence inflicted on civilians ON BOTH SIDES of this conflict that are decontextualized because we WANT then to be decontextualizated so that we can contemplate the carnage without bothering with causation.
but what is the status of these simpler, more self-contained unpleasant things, these acts of violence that one deplores while at the same time holding them so close to your imagination that you can think of nothing else? you could say that individual incidents which produce individual victims are important--and i would agree--you could say that looking at systemic matters trivializes these individual incidents--to which i would counter that NOT looking at systemic problems is what trivializes these individual acts of violence--it trivializes them absolutely because it disconnects them from reality, disconnects them from any causes of meanings outside themselves--NOT looking makes all acts of violence arbitrary--and it is the refusal to look that makes these individual victims of individual actions meaningless because your perspective on these actions is such that meaning is impossible to think about.
there is a performative element inside of this, an active dimension to the refusal to think in terms of choices and policy and the linkages between these and this fiction we refer to as "terrorism"---and this action must be connected to something psychological, link to some preference--perhaps that preference is aesthetic--perhaps there is something inwardly prettier about reducing this long, brutal, dehumanizing conflict to a series of artitrary incidents that you can separate at your leisure, that provide you with images of explosions and carnage that you can hold up before your mind's eye and say "tsk tsk tsk" about.

a bus with israeli children is blown up: tsk tsk.
a family of palestinians is killed by the idf: tsk tsk.

i would go further: i think that there is some level at which the policy choices made by israel and the united states with reference to gaza indicates that both actually LIKE this fiction "terrorism" that they NEED this fiction and ENJOY the actions that give this fiction its content--they find valdiation in the fact of it for their idioitic nationalist policies. if there was no enjoyment, then it is hard to figure out why both would pursue policy choices that create and perpetuate the conditions that prompt violent political actions in the first place.

and to my mind there is no other way to see what the united states and israel have been doing to gaza.
the olmert government is hopelessly weak. so is the bush administration. both NEED chaos in gaza. it provides them with the kind of conditions that they can appear to react coherently to and in that appearance of coherent response lay (temporary) bounces in polling numbers and with that comes a (transient) puff of air into the balloon that is the sense of holding power. both have worked very hard to make sure it happens.
and here it is.

so dont talk to me about victims. dont talk to me about which deaths you imagine move me and which dont--that entire way of thinking about this is part of the same logic that you see at the policy level behind the present war--and there is no other word for it--in gaza. this is a clear, self-evident example of the extent to which the ideology geared around the prevention or eradication of "terrorism" is an explanation for it.

you reap what you sow, sports fans.

Willravel · 06-14-2007, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Will and Host......Israel has demonstrated a commitment to peace for the last thirty years as long as it does not severey threaten its security, all the while facing terrorist attacks against civilians by Fatah, then Hamas along with Hezballah and its sponsorship by Syria and Iran.

Palestine has demonstrated a commitment to peace for the last thirty years as long as it does not severely threaten its security, all the while facing extermination from an occupying military and government with superior firepower and that routinely bulldozes homes, attack civilians ('collateral damage' = we don't care enough not to kill innocent people) and has built a wall around what's left of their homeland.

Infinite_Loser · 06-14-2007, 07:30 AM

I must have missed this commitment you speak of, Will.

host · 06-14-2007, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Will and Host......Israel has demonstrated a commitment to peace for the last thirty years as long as it does not severey threaten its security, all the while facing terrorist attacks against civilians by Fatah, then Hamas along with Hezballah and its sponsorship by Syria and Iran.

In the 70s, the Likud govt of Begin negotiated a lasting peace with Egypt and in the 90s, the Labor govt of Rabin did the same with Jordan.

The leaders of both parties have been willing to negotiate with Palestinian authorities. Rabin negotiated the Oslo agreement that started the formal process of a two-state solution, including the return of the Gaza strip to Palestinian authority...asking two things in return ...a willingness to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and denouncing violence against civilians. THe world community, through the "Quartet" (UN, Russia, EU and US) has adopted the same principles....and that acknowledgement never comes from the Palestinian authorities.

Instead, the Palestinians, with the tacit support of Fatah, at the time, responded with the Intifada and the new Hamas govt continues to deny Israel's right to exist.

The Palestinian people want peace, the Israeli government and people want peace. The Palestinian leaders do not.

If you can demonstrate any willingness by the Palestinian Authority or political parties to seriously negotiate a two-state solution we can continue this discussion.

dc_dux, this is just one, small excerpt from my last post....one of many points that seems to directly contradict your argument:

Last week....from NPR:

Quote:

.........According to the government's own Sahsohn report, more than 100 new unauthorized outposts have been built in the West Bank <h3>since 1996.</h3> The report says most have basic infrastructure provided with direct help from the state.

The first Israeli settlements in the West Bank began cropping up in the fall of 1967 — just a few months after the Six Day war.

Israeli historian Gershom Gorenberg said that back then, there were warnings at the highest levels within the government that settlements would be viewed by some as neo-Colonial occupation and could backfire. But parliamentary proponents of settlement consistently won out. The romanticized allure of settlement, Gorenberg says, was hard to stop. It was the way Jews in the late 19th century returned to their homeland before independence.

"It had this log cabin, frontier mystique — or the equivalent on Israeli terms — and people who settled the land were heroes," Gorenberg says. "But it was anachronistic. It was this out of date ideal that, when applied to the post-'67 reality, led Israel into a quagmire."

Today the Israeli government, on the one hand, concedes that Migron and the other outposts like it are illegal and contrary to established government policy. Yet, at the same time, the government has actively supported their development and, so far, has done little to remove them.....

....and I have never known you to respond as you have done on this thread. You answered my questions with a question...and you pass by my main concern...a theme in most of my posts related to the thread subject...that Israel and the US are separate entities with separate interests....but we witness the US constantly cedeing to Israel's interests and priorities, often at the expense of our own, and this cannot be a good thing for the US.

If I cannot persuade even you.....someone who I respect from past experience, as a reasonable voice here....to be counted on to examine and to respond reasonably to "fact rich" presentation of opinions, into an actual discussion, reading your last post helps me to question whether to continue to post on this forum. Your last post persuades me that you and I, on this issue, could not disagree more. Could we even agree that the US has not been an "honest broker" between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and that is a hugely aggravating factor in the current "result"?

You've helped me to see how "radical" my opinions about this are, and how unrealistic any hope is of untangling US relations from those of Israel and the malignant influences of AIPAC on US policy and on legislative agendas.

Are you even alarmed about AIPAC lobbying or about the influence of JINSA/Stephen and Shoshana Bryen on US politics and military policy, to name just two examples of my concerns, since you indicate no tendency to alter your "take" on Israel as a consistent practitioner of reasonable "peace seeking" statecraft?

Do you even regard my reaction to AIPAC and the Bryens as "useful" in the sense that it is possible.....and necessary...... to criticize Israel and it's motives just as one would criticize any other "special interest" lobbying our Congress....as one would criticize the agenda of say....the pharmaceutical lobby?

mixedmedia · 06-14-2007, 07:34 AM

I agree that US and Israeli policy in regards to Hamas was wrong.

Pillars of democracy tried to undermine the results of what was universally accepted to be a free and fair election. The math of that equation never leads to a sound solution. We've seen this time and again. Invariably the results are perverse.

But that said, it doesn't lead me to the conclusion that more tolerant US and Israeli policies would have led to the peaceful moderation of the Hamas party. I think the extremism that certainly does exist within Hamas bears heavily on the equation. So much so that it's equally conceivable that the moderation of the Hamas party would have led to the same factional violence only within the party itself.

joshbaumgartner · 06-14-2007, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Palestine has demonstrated a commitment to peace for the last thirty years as long as it does not severely threaten its security, all the while facing extermination from an occupying military and government with superior firepower and that routinely bulldozes homes, attack civilians ('collateral damage' = we don't care enough not to kill innocent people) and has built a wall around what's left of their homeland.

Having seen some very good films documenting what life is like for the average citizen of Gaza or the West Bank, it is hard to not understand why there is such angst amongst those people. Never mind whether they deserve their lot because of something done decades ago. Remember that most of these people weren't alive more than twenty years ago (IIRC, average age in those areas is less than 20). Add to that the impossibility of good education within the region and the brain drain of anyone with talent who isn't sucked up into one of the militant groups, and of course you have a recipe for what is happening over there. We judge these people by our own standards sitting in a world that bears exactly zero resemblance to theirs, and we wonder why there is so little common ground, and why they continually act in ways we find unbelievable. Instead of doing the difficult thing and actually seeking to have compassion--that is to understand their position from their perspective--we rationalize our understanding by considering them somehow fundamentally different from us. We blame their religion, their culture, their history, as if they were so foreign as to be truly beyond understanding. We allow ourselves to believe that they cannot be reasoned with, and attach all sorts of motivations to their actions that often are incorrect.

I'm not going to justify terrorism or even warfare conducted in this situation whether by Jews on Arabs, Arabs on Jews, Arabs on Arabs, whatever. But I'm also not going to pretend like if I grew up in their world I would be above all of it and behave like a Westerner. I don't pretend to know the answer to peace in the Middle East, but I do know that as long as their is not understanding across the borders, it will remain impossible to achieve.

mixedmedia · 06-14-2007, 08:05 AM

We also talk about "they" as if all Palestinians feel the same way about the violence of Palestinian resistance. There are many voices who cry out for peace, voices that belong to people who exist under the same exact circumstances as those who call for violence. At least, they cry out for peace at the risk of being murdered by their own neighbors. These are the people I choose to advocate for. Otherwise, the sad and testosterone-fueled world culture that relies on brutality and violence and intimidation to solve its political problems has no exclusivity to the Palestinian people.

host · 06-14-2007, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I agree that US and Israeli policy in regards to Hamas was wrong.

Pillars of democracy tried to undermine the results of what was universally accepted to be a free and fair election. The math of that equation never leads to a sound solution. We've seen this time and again. Invariably the results are perverse.

But that said, it doesn't lead me to the conclusion that more tolerant US and Israeli policies would have led to the peaceful moderation of the Hamas party. I think the extremism that certainly does exist within Hamas bears heavily on the equation. So much so that it's equally conceivable that the moderation of the Hamas party would have led to the same factional violence only within the party itself.

....again, all we in the US can do is our best to not aggravate the tensions. We haven't done our best, and we refuse to take any responsibility for that.
Until we are willing to examine the US role and it's shortcomings, compared to what we could do....and could have been doing to be an "honest broker", we offer nothing constructive, and our collective "take" is misplaced.

You can see that we refuse to take any responsibility, written all over this thread, and in the historic record:

Quote:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15191004.htm
Posted on Thu, Aug. 03, 2006

Bush's attachment to Israel started with trip to the Holy Land
By Ron Hutcheson
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - If there's a starting point for George W. Bush's attachment to Israel, it's the day in late 1998 when he stood on the hilltop where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, and, eyes brimming with tears, read aloud from his favorite hymn, "Amazing Grace."

"He was very emotional. It was a tear-filled experience," said Matthew Brooks, a prominent Jewish Republican who escorted Bush, then governor of Texas, and three other GOP governors on the Middle East visit. "He brought Israel back home with him in his heart. I think he came away profoundly moved."

Eight years later, Bush is living up to his reputation as the most pro-Israel president ever. As Israel's military action in Lebanon heads into its fourth week, the president is standing firm against growing international pressure for an immediate cease-fire.

His stance has alienated European allies and fueled anti-American sentiment in the Arab world, but Brooks and other pro-Israel activists couldn't be more pleased.

"He is not only the most pro-Israel president, he's redefined what it means to be pro-Israel," said Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. "People used to talk about `ending the cycle of violence.' He doesn't do that. He understands that it is not a cycle of violence when you defend yourself."

Former White House aides and Republican insiders say the president's stalwart support for the Jewish state is an alliance born of emotion, personal ties and the searing experience of Sept. 11, 2001.

His tutorial on Middle East policy began with his 1998 trip, a whirlwind tour that established some personal ties that would become far more significant later. He met Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert, now Israel's prime minister, and he took a helicopter tour with then-Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon.

"It's interesting how history works, isn't it?" Bush mused in a 2005 speech. "The future president of the United States and the future prime minister of Israel were flying across that country, with him describing to me how to keep Israel secure."

It was a conversation that he and Sharon would have many times, often in the privacy of the Oval Office. Bush said he came away from the aerial tour struck by Israel's vulnerability. After flying over the narrowest part of the country, he joked, "We've got driveways in Texas bigger than that."

Bush's views on Middle East policy were largely unknown when he launched his 2000 presidential campaign. Some pro-Israel activists feared that he would follow his father's approach and temper support for Israel with sensitivity to Arab opinions.

President George H.W. Bush angered pro-Israel activists in 1992 by threatening to withhold U.S. loan guarantees for Israel if its leaders continued to permit new Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank. Israel responded by ordering a freeze on new settlements.

The younger Bush signaled early on that he would take a different approach.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who provided an insider's view of the Bush administration to journalist Ron Suskind, said Bush declared his intention to "correct the imbalances" in Middle East policy at his first National Security Council meeting.

"We're going to tilt it back to Israel. And we're going to be consistent," Bush said, according to Suskind's "The Price of Loyalty," a book about O'Neill's experiences.

Former White House aides say Bush's views hardened after the Sept. 11 attacks. More than ever, Bush saw Israel and the United States as allies in a life-or-death struggle with terrorism.

"Sept. 11 changed everything," former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. "He knows what little Israel is going through. He views it as a democracy protecting its people against groups that have nothing but terrorism and destruction on their minds - just like us."

White House speechwriter David Frum agreed with Fleischer that Bush's desire to combat terrorism is by far the most important factor behind his approach to Israel.

"The reason he's been giving the green light to Israel in southern Lebanon is he's heading toward a confrontation with Iran," said Frum, who helped write the 2001 speech that listed Iran, Iraq and North Korea as part of an "axis of evil." "Hezbollah is Iran's strongest weapon. That's what this is about - the United States benefits from taking away Iran's weapon."

Frum and Fleischer, both Jewish, discounted the role of religion in shaping Bush's views. Many evangelical Christians strongly support Israel and believe that God gave the Holy Land to the Jewish people.

"I never saw any evidence, in public or in private, that the president's faith had anything to do with his pro-Israel positions," Fleischer said. "I would have been uncomfortable with that."

Still, there's little doubt that Bush's stalwart support for Israel has helped him with Christian conservatives and Jewish voters.

Bush got about 24 percent of the Jewish vote in 2004, up from 19 percent in 2000 and far better than other recent Republican presidential candidates. Bob Dole, for example, got 16 percent in 1996.

It has also earned Bush the gratitude of Israelis.

"I think that we never had such relations with any president of the United States as we have with you," Sharon, now near death after a debilitating stroke, told Bush during a 2002 Oval Office visit. "We never had such cooperation in everything as we have with the current administration."

....and again....from post #28:

Quote:

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0204-01.htm

..........But in the aftermath of the fiasco of July's Camp David II summit and the second intifada, which began Sept. 29, both Palestinians and the likely next government of Israel have denounced American mediation attempts as well-meaning, but dangerous or meretricious, or both.

The harshest words came from the Palestinians. In a statement Jan. 22, the Palestinian Authority suggested that the U.S.-led peace process was a sham, a "mirage designed to trick" the Arab governments and to give "a false sense of normalcy" behind which Israel could keep building more settlements in occupied territory and take permanent possession of more of the West Bank and Gaza.

In apparent reference to the U.S. negotiating team, with its key members such as Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk coming from organizations associated with the Israel lobby in Washington, the Palestinian statement said, "Unfortunately over the last seven years in particular, the U.S. has become increasingly identified with Israeli ideological assumptions."

The trigger for the Palestinian anger appears to have been an unusual statement by then-President Bill Clinton after the Camp David summit crashed. He elaborately praised the flexibility and courage of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak but pointedly omitted any mention of Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat and his travails.

For the Israelis, the concessions put on the table by Mr. Barak under relentless pressure from Mr. Clinton, led to the collapse of his uneasy coalition government and the calling of new elections. Polls project him to be defeated soundly by the more hawkish leader of the Likud coalition, Ariel Sharon.

The man who is expected to be one of the inner circle of Mr. Sharon's advisers, former U.N. Ambassador Dore Gold, made it clear that Mr. Sharon will not be calling on the United States for more mediation help. He spoke last week at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel public policy think tank (where Mr. Ross was and will become a senior fellow and where Mr. Indyk was executive director).

Mr. Gold, as is his style, was blunt and to the point. "We maximized the U.S. role, yet we didn't get results. We have way over-used [the American] presidential impact. There may be value in letting the parties engage by themselves" -- that is, without any American presence.

In a biting farewell to Mr. Clinton, Mr. Gold said, "The lesson is that you don't call a Camp David [summit] unless you've done your homework."

So why did such an heroic American effort end in failure and rejection, particularly after it was marked with a triumphant beginning for Mr. Clinton in 1993 on the White House lawn after a joint signing by Mr. Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin?

Simply put, there was always a lack of honesty in the U.S. effort. The "honest broker" had a cultural and political bias toward one party, Israel, and a vast lack of knowledge and sympathy for the other side, the Palestinians.

There was always an internal contradiction in U.S. foreign policy which was overlooked by the Arabs, as long as they could see an advantage for themselves or, more importantly, no alternative.

As the first President George Bush said honestly when he was in office, "We are not even-handed" in the Middle East.

Successive U.S. administrations have made a continuing priority commitment to Israel's security and well-being. That endures, despite inconvenient Israeli governments such as Yitzhak Shamir's or Benjamin Netanyahu's. The reason: Because of the overwhelming sentiments expressed by the American electorate as represented by the Congress, voter turnouts in key states like California and New York and campaign contributions.

The Arab governments do not claim that U.S. sympathy toward Israel resulted in stacking the deck against the Palestinians. What they do suggest is that the background of the American negotiators simply made them insensitive to deeply held Arab views about such issues as recognizing the rights, in some way, of more than 4 million Palestinian refugees.

Second, the world has changed.

Ten years ago, at the end of the Persian Gulf war and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the only global power that mattered. Now things are more complex. The European Union (EU), by far the largest contributor to the strangling Palestinian economy, is edging closer to the Middle East negotiations and the United Nations is becoming more assertive.

As a symbol of the upheaval in U.S. Middle East policy, the only outsider at the recent Israeli-Palestinian talks in Taba, Egypt, was the representative of the EU, Miguel Moratinos. No American representatives were present or invited by either the Israelis or the Palestinians.

....and also from post #28:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...45652-2003Feb8

.......Rumsfeld echoed the Perle group's analysis in a little-noted comment to Pentagon employees last August about "the so-called occupied territories." Rumsfeld said: "There was a war [in 1967], Israel urged neighboring countries not to get involved . . . they all jumped in, and they lost a lot of real estate to Israel because Israel prevailed in that conflict. In the intervening period, they've made some settlements in some parts of the so-called occupied area, which was the result of a war, which they won."............

......The State Department pressed for continued negotiations and pressure on Sharon to limit the scope of his military response to Palestinian suicide bombers, while the Pentagon and the vice president's office favored more encouragement for the Israelis, and less concern for a peace process which, they said, was going nowhere anyhow........

But the administration did make a series of statements and gestures intended to restrain Sharon's response to suicide bombings, and to reassert the traditional U.S. policy that Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank had to cease. At the urging of Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Bush publicly embraced the idea of a Palestinian state.

An internal debate split the administration and invited the lobbying of think tanks, Jewish organizations, evangelical Christians and others who take a fierce interest in the Middle East. While some groups including Americans for Peace Now lined up against Sharon's tough policies and in favor of negotiations, most of the organizations and individuals who lobbied on these issues embraced a harder line, and supported Sharon. Over the past dozen years or more, supporters of Sharon's Likud Party have moved into leadership roles in most of the American Jewish organizations that provide financial and political support for Israel.

Friends of Israel in Congress also lined up with Sharon.
In November 2001, 89 of 100 senators signed a letter to Bush asking the administration not to try to restrain Israel
from using "all [its] strength and might" in response to Palestinian suicide bombings. Signers said they wanted to persuade Bush to prevent Secretary of State Colin L. Powell from pressuring Sharon......

....A series of episodes in which Bush felt Arafat behaved inappropriately further soured the relationship. Bush repeatedly refused to meet with Arafat, who had met with Clinton 21 times. And month after month, U.S. officials blamed Arafat for failing to prevent the suicide bombings in Israel..........

06-13-2007, 07:22 AM	#2 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	This Civil War would have erupted regardless. Why? Because Hamas is an islamic party while Fatah is secular. Just like Nasser and the Muslim brotherhood, their fundamental political philosophies will never mix. Add in n enemy they can never win a war against, they must find a defeatable enemy... each other. You, and the Guardian, blame Israel and the US, but what do you propose we do? Fund the organization which celebrated on 9/11? Fund the organiation which promised a second holocost? (sp?) How about Israel simpy open their borders to said people? Don't get me wrong, we are making matters worse.. but said war would have erupted even after an Israeli defeat and ensuing massacre. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

06-13-2007, 07:50 AM	#3 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	seaver: your position seems based on only the most abstract understanding of the situation--and it employs that old problem we call the teleological fallacy. the beauty of the teleologial fallacy is that it works the same way no matter the situation in real time that you choose to rationalize by way of it. the problem with it is that it is wrong, factually and in principle, to substitute claims rooted in it for actually looking at the situation. that said, read de soto's report if you have the time: despite its 52 page length, it is most illuminating. based on it and other information that i have bee tracking over a fairly long period of time, i would argue that the present situation in gaza is the DIRECT result of american/israeli actions, that there were any number of points where, had those policies/actions been otherwise, that this situation could have been avoided. the reason for the centrality of the americans are clearly outlined in the de soto report--the problems with the olmert government are also clearly outlined--the reliance of other parties on the centrality of these two are also outlined, and represents another REAL problem with the ENTIRE way in which the conflict has unfolded over the past couple years. you could argue about de soto's perspective and his neutrality--that would be a different discussion, one that would be possible after having read the report. aside: you should check it out anyway, seaver--for what it's worth, it'd be really quite interested to hear what you make of it. it is NOT a perspective that gets through the infotainment filtration system that often... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-13-2007, 10:54 AM	#8 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	that's fine--i have stuff to do and wont be around until tomorrow in any event. i hadnt forgotten about the--uh---corruption under arafat at all--i am just not entirely sure how relevant it is in this context--it sure has nothing to do with the choices made by israel and the united state after hamas won the last elections. so much for respecting democracy.... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-13-2007, 12:26 PM	#13 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Lots. Usually after massacres of Jews. Question for you, though: how many Palis were getting killed by Jews when the Palis weren't launching attacks against Jews? The answer is, pretty damn few. BTW, I have no idea where to put this particular witticism, but I enjoyed it so much that I just knew I had to share it, and I knew the people around here would enjoy it. Christopher Hitchens recently remarked, "if you gave Jerry Falwell an enema you could have buried him in a matchbox." Last edited by loquitur; 06-13-2007 at 12:29 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

06-13-2007, 01:05 PM	#15 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	come up with any non-negligible substantial number of instances where Israel launched unprovoked attacks on Pali civilians and then come back and we'll talk. I'm not about to start proving negatives. You like citations so much, come up with some. When you create a culture that glorifies bloodshed you shouldn't be surprised that it ends up eating itself alive. When the Palis are prepared to start behaving like civilized human beings the Israelis will make peace with them. Right now they can't even tolerate each other. Last edited by loquitur; 06-13-2007 at 01:10 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

06-13-2007, 08:26 AM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	This was eventual, and it's sad. I keep letting Darfur, Iraq, Palestine run through my mind, thinking about solutions. My first thought always goes to disarming the aggressors, be they Sudanese Military and the Janjaweed militia, the US troops, or Israel. Yes, disarmament. We create embargoes on ammunition. Palestine has been a victim for decades, and what we're seeing now is a clear direct result of their victimization and inability to truly strike out. I'm still of the optimistic (some say naive) opinion that war can be ended in one generation. It will take the direct challenging of authority figures. Ehud Olmert and Bush need to be spoken to from a place of authority and power. These people need to understand they aren't untouchable. If Shell and PP called Bush tomorrow and said, "Get out of Iraq or American will be paying $12 per gallon until the day you leave office.", you can bet he'd get out. We need people in power to fight.

06-13-2007, 11:06 AM	#9 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	roachboy, the prospect of dead jews seems not to move you at all. There's ample precedent for what happens when Palis get near Jews who aren't armed. This seems not to trouble you. Why is that?

06-13-2007, 03:27 PM	#17 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Will....I think Loquitor's observation is supported by such offensive actions as he Hamas "Mickey Mouse" cartoon directed to Palestinian kids to kill Jews and destroy Israel. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1178708580247 I have to agree with Golda Mei'rs quote from many years ago: "We can only have peace with the Palestinians when they love their children more than they hate Israel" __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

06-13-2007, 03:36 PM	#18 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Every culture glorifies bloodshed of some kind, but to suggest that Palestinians aren't civilized human beings is racist. If Israel and Palestine were reversed, Israel would be looking at a potential civil war.

06-13-2007, 05:16 PM	#19 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Will....I am not aware of any program of the Israeli government (or major political party) that has as its purpose the indoctrination of young childern to kill. If governments (or the people they represent) support such indoctrination, if its not uncivilized, how would you characterize it? And I dont know what you mean with your last comment....re, Israel and Palestine being reversed. Are you suggesting, Israel would have such indoctrination programs, or policies that encourages teens to strap bombs on their body to attack civilians or other such actions? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

06-13-2007, 05:18 PM	#20 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Roach, this had been front and center in the news (at least on NPR and BBC, my two main sources). So don't worry, plenty of us are following it. The civil war is a tragedy. I don't think it's fair to blame Israel though. They would be fighting each other regadless. Some of the problems: - political power struggle between two parties without regard to their constituents' opinion - In short: They are fighting for power that's it. Not any ideology or ideal. Power. Abbas is weak: because - - he has a delicate political high wire to walk - hard to juggle local sentiments, extremists when you're a moderate. I would even compare with Khatamei -lack of support from Israel and US (this is a a great debacle of US and Israeli foreign policy, failing to take the opportunity to engage and help out Abbas in a favorable position that would have benefited everyone, IMO) - Lack of control and influence within his own party, Fatah Egypt shares a large portion of the blame (if you want to play that game) in regards to Gaza, since the beginning. How can Israel be "racist" against Palestinians if they are the same "race"? They aren't even a race so this really doesn't make sense. It is a complex web though, if you really want to try an untangle the tit-for-tat "who started it" mess. The Hamas situation is interesting. A non-state actor dubbed a terror organization that is legitimately elected to the government. Sort of throws a wrench in the works. Now the politcal landscape has been redefined and all parties have to scramble for new positions and strategies. 1. Acknowledge Hamas' legitimacy and risk legitimizing an entity that wants to destroy Israel as one of it's mission statements. Greenlight terrorism? 2. Refuse to recognize and risk being a hypocrite for not accepting the democratic process. It is difficult to run "scenarios" or "what ifs". If the Palestinian occupied territories of Israel were allowed their operating revenue, would the economic flow be ditributed "responsibly" for the construction and improvment of the state, or just funnelled for more weapons and tools of violence for them to carry out their mission statement of destroying Israel? Israel and the US may have some culpability for the current state of affairs, but I think most of the blame rests with their leadership, Iran, Egypt, and if you want to go back, UK and France and the UN.

06-13-2007, 05:27 PM	#21 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	rb, this is one of the most important topics brought to this forum regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that I have seen in a long time. I will read everything presented before commenting further, as you requested. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

06-13-2007, 07:43 PM	#23 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Will....Israel, as a state, is surrounded by other states whose goals are to drive Israel into the sea. Those nations attempted to do so on numerous occasions through conventional warfare and the Israelis defeated them each time. As a result, those countries turned to unconventional tactics of strapping bombs to the bodies of teenagers and sending then into highly populated civilian areas in every major city in Israel...then using women and childern as human shileds when Israel responded in defense. I consider those tactics uncivilized. I dont condone Israel's excesses in their own defense. Their political and military leaders should be held accountable...and in the only democracy in the Middle East, there is some level (not enough) of accountability....more than you find among the Palestinian Authority or any other Arab state in the region. Your suggested that the Israelis are capable of being as fanatical is without foundation, IMO. As to the Palestinian internal conflict, when Fatah and Hamas are willing to focus on economic development and the rule of law rather than an ideological war against Israel, their people will benefit. $billions of US and international economic development aid has been provided to the Palestinian people and most ended up in Arafat's private Swiss bank account or Hamas terrorists training camps. I do assisgn blame to the US as well....the Bush administration's commitment to the Israe-Palestinian conflict has been abysmal....the first administration since the 1970s NOT to have a special envoy to attempt to work with both sides to resolve conflict......Carter brokered the Camp David accords which established peace between Israel and Egypt as well as the rights of Palestinians to a homeland...and Clinton nearly finished the deal, with signficant territorial concessions by Israel...only to be sabotaged by Arafat at the last minute. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-13-2007 at 07:48 PM..

06-13-2007, 07:46 PM	#24 (permalink)
Xazy People in masks cannot be trusted Location: NYC	Watch some pollywood videos http://www.seconddraft.org/movies.php and see how easy the media is manipulated. There are numerous allegations of deaths that later turn out to be fake. It is amazing how the media seems to dance there to one tune, and I will take my leave on this since to me it is hard to have a discussion and I can admit it. But it is very personal to me, and gets me upset the stuff that goes on there.

06-13-2007, 08:06 PM	#26 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	This will be my last comment as it is very personal to me as well....living with an Israeli woman who works at the Isreali embassy and has experienced Palestinian terrorism up close and personal. I support most Israeli responses to acts of terror conducted against her people and I attribute the mutliple resulting deaths of Palestinians to be more the result of the practice of the PA to use its civilians as human shields...sacrificing women and children so they can further rally their cause. If I were an Israeli citizen, I would NOT vote for a government that was unwilling to respond aggresively to every act of Hamas terrorism....while at the same time showing a willingness to make further territorial concessions when the Palestinian Authority demonstrates a commitment to peace. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-13-2007 at 08:13 PM..

06-14-2007, 03:58 AM	#31 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Will and Host......Israel has demonstrated a commitment to peace for the last thirty years as long as it does not severey threaten its security, all the while facing terrorist attacks against civilians by Fatah, then Hamas along with Hezballah and its sponsorship by Syria and Iran. In the 70s, the Likud govt of Begin negotiated a lasting peace with Egypt and in the 90s, the Labor govt of Rabin did the same with Jordan. The leaders of both parties have been willing to negotiate with Palestinian authorities. Rabin negotiated the Oslo agreement that started the formal process of a two-state solution, including the return of the Gaza strip to Palestinian authority...asking two things in return ...a willingness to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and denouncing violence against civilians. THe world community, through the "Quartet" (UN, Russia, EU and US) has adopted the same principles....and that acknowledgement never comes from the Palestinian authorities. Instead, the Palestinians, with the tacit support of Fatah, at the time, responded with the Intifada and the new Hamas govt continues to deny Israel's right to exist. The Palestinian people want peace, the Israeli government and people want peace. The Palestinian leaders do not. If you can demonstrate any willingness by the Palestinian Authority or political parties to seriously negotiate a two-state solution we can continue this discussion. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-14-2007 at 04:18 AM..

06-14-2007, 04:46 AM	#32 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	In my opinion we need to get the hell away from the entire region, and watch as they all do what they do best.....Kill Each other. Isreal can, and should take care of its own reality without the United States playing the fool in the background, and the Palestinians will be free to beat the sh!t out of each other until someone has the strength to create a semblance of peace. You cannot negotiate with both sides in a civil war.

06-14-2007, 07:30 AM	#35 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	I must have missed this commitment you speak of, Will. __________________ I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

06-14-2007, 07:34 AM	#37 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I agree that US and Israeli policy in regards to Hamas was wrong. Pillars of democracy tried to undermine the results of what was universally accepted to be a free and fair election. The math of that equation never leads to a sound solution. We've seen this time and again. Invariably the results are perverse. But that said, it doesn't lead me to the conclusion that more tolerant US and Israeli policies would have led to the peaceful moderation of the Hamas party. I think the extremism that certainly does exist within Hamas bears heavily on the equation. So much so that it's equally conceivable that the moderation of the Hamas party would have led to the same factional violence only within the party itself. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

06-14-2007, 08:05 AM	#39 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	We also talk about "they" as if all Palestinians feel the same way about the violence of Palestinian resistance. There are many voices who cry out for peace, voices that belong to people who exist under the same exact circumstances as those who call for violence. At least, they cry out for peace at the risk of being murdered by their own neighbors. These are the people I choose to advocate for. Otherwise, the sad and testosterone-fueled world culture that relies on brutality and violence and intimidation to solve its political problems has no exclusivity to the Palestinian people. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce