View Full Version : Israel Declares War
It was bound to happen, with neither side willing to sit down and negotiate it seems that the worst is yet to come
Some points that have come out so far:
- America seems reluctant to intervene
- The UN is calling for Israel to withdraw but to no avail
Where to from here??
wagstaff
1 Apr 2002, 20:05
Originally posted by iceman
Some points that have come out so far:
- America seems reluctant to intervene
This isn't surprising as America is Isreal's major backer and is prepared to back it to the hilt as long as it doesn't interfere with its efforts to build Arab support for their upcoming war on Iraq.
And it's good to see that Isreal has learnt from its benefactor in its propaganda drive as this war develops: using vague, generalised terms that don't stand up to close scrutiny such as Isreal conducting a 'war on terror'. While the recent spate of Paletinian suicide bombers is a terrible thing, it's notable how Isreal spokesman manage to justify their killing of Paletinan civillans as acts of self-defence. The Americans should sue for copyright.
And the argument that Isreal is a democratic state is rendered somewhat redundant when the facts are that its very background and history means that it will always give preference to Jewish citizens over non-Jewish citizens.
For the Palestinians to gain their own state, they have to regain the Moral High Ground they lost in the last couple of years.
To do this, they have to stop the suicide attacks, demonstrate they can control their own people, and renounce their previous position that Israel doesn't have the right to exist.
If they had done this 5 years ago, they would already have their own soveriegn state.
I may agree that almost certainly Israel would have objected and tried to block, but world opinion would have been so solidly on the side of the Palestinians that Statehood would, inevitably, have happened.
The Palestinians, however, seemed to be fixated on a sort of medieval romanticism that leads them to desire Statehood by Conquest, rather than Statehood by pragmatic reason and diplomacy.
The Black Civil Rights movement here in the USA had a slogan which served them well - Keep Your Eyes on the Prize - which meant - in essence - do what you need to do to keep the movement going forward.
What the Palestinians have done by returning to the indiscriminate killing of civilians is abdicate the moral high ground, abandon their role (in the eyes of world opinion) as victims of Israeli bullying, appear to be barbarians intent only on murder, and take their cause solidly backward several steps.
Bravado works best when applied judiciously.
I have a dear friend who was born Jewish, sired by an atheist. This was a religious position he subsequently also adopted. Contrarily, he is also a Zionist. Fascinating.
I go to visit his place, surprisingly enough, in a Jewish enclave, in St Kilda, in Melbourne. He has detailed maps of the West Bank, because what is happenng in the Middle East is the thing which most occupies his mind.
During the first few times this obsession manifested itself, I chose not to get too involved. Eventually, after seven or eight years, I said, "What is it about Jerusalem that would make anyone want it so much that they'd be prepared to do this to control it."
He went through all of the history of Isreal since 1947, for the umpteenth time. I said, "This place is a ****hole. I've seen it on television. Why would anyone want the joint?"
He admitted it didn't have a lot to offer scenically. I said, "What is the Jewish claim on this place?" He murmured something about antiquity. Then he told me a story of this Jewish chap, who had been told, in a visitation by God, that he was destined to acquire this place. "O.K.", I thought. I then asked what was the significance of this place, if any, at this time. He said, "It's where all the trade routes met."
I then asked him what happened to the people who were there before the Jewish people took over. He mentioned some tribe I'd never heard of. I asked him why this tribe didn't have a stronger claim to Jerusalem than anyone, because they were there before the Jewish people. He said, "We have the oldest claim, because the other tribe no longer exists."
Without Prejudice
Bloodstained Angel
2 Apr 2002, 07:46
The way to peace in the Middle East is deceptively simple - but because of intransigence and fantasy on both sides it will never happen.
Isrealis / Jews must realise 2 truths :
1) The Palestinian Arabs are not going to go away. Its their country too.
2) The West Bank might be chock full of anciant Jewish holy places and might have once been part of the anciant Jewish kingdom, BUT - you will never have it, and in the modern situation, you have no right to it and your settlements on this land are illegal and must be removed immediately.
Palestinians / Arabs must realise 2 things as well :
1) Isreal is a modern geo-political reality. It has a right to exist, regardless of what Arabs have done in the area for the last few hundred years.
2) Most of you in the refugee camps will never be able to 'go home' to your old houses and properties that you used to live on before 1948. Its just not a practical reality anymore. Be satisfied with the West Bank and Gaza and abandon all hope of re-patriating back to what you used to live on the modern state opf Isreal.
Simple solutions based on what should be simple shifts inb attitude and mindset
WILL NEVER HAPPEN !
cheers
Simple solutions and politics don't mix BSA!
The problem is that the killing has a huge escalation effect. You start with a lot of moderately minded people who listen to reason. 20 people get killed in a suicide bombing and 50 relatives and freinds of each of the dead syuddenly become haters of the other side. That's 1000 people gunning for war rather than peace. And it's the same when Israel does the killing too. Children who lose fathers and brothers are raised in an environment of hate.
It's wrong. It'd bad.........but I don't know the answer.
The part I love is calling it a War on Terrorism.
Its a great way of making sure that the rest of the world let them get on with their ethnic cleansing, because to oppose a War on Terrorism (a war that they supported only a short time ago) would be an extraordinary hypocrisy on the parts of most nations, including our own.
If only Slobodan had waited a few years....he could be having a War on Terrorism too.
As war inevitably involves bringing terror to people then a war on terrorism surely is a war on war...meaning 'war'.
I guess that what is meant by terrorism nowdays is the threat of cowardly attacks on innocents without warning which leaves a society in general in a heightened anxiety state.
There is no doubt that Isreal has to do something about the suicide bombers. The only solution I can see is the radical plan of segregation with a great wall dividing Israel and pallestine and each being kept to their own side.
What worries me about this whole situation is that with the US not wanting to intervene, who's going to stop the war??
We all know the United Nations is powerless to do anything without Americas backing, so where to not only for the Palestinians but the Israeli civilians too??
Originally posted by Porthos
The part I love is calling it a War on Terrorism.
Its a great way of making sure that the rest of the world let them get on with their ethnic cleansing, because to oppose a War on Terrorism (a war that they supported only a short time ago) would be an extraordinary hypocrisy on the parts of most nations, including our own.
If only Slobodan had waited a few years....he could be having a War on Terrorism too.
I think it's disingenuous to compare Israeli actions against Palestinians to "ethnic cleansing".
Ethnic cleansing involves tracking down and murdering every living person of a particular ethnic background. Even the best professional Israel bashers can't make a credible argument that Israel is doing this to the Palestinians.
On the other hand, I believe the definition of terrorism clearly includes covert operations designed to sneak up on and then wantonly murder large groups of people at worship.
Has Israel unfairly taken land? It seems they have.
Systematically excluded Palestinians with Israeli citizenship from the political process? Perhaps.
Sneaked into mosques, Islamic religious holiday gatherings, or wedding parties and murdered large numbers of unsuspecting Muslims? No.
One of the errors that Palestinian apologists make over and over, is to try to justify acts of mass murder of unsuspecting civilians as "right" and "just".
Under any standard of civilization - they clearly are neither.
You talk of "ethnic cleansing" yet Israel has never ever uttered words stating that it can not accept, and will not live with Palestinians and intends to kill them all or dive them into the sea.
Yet Palestine's leaders have stated over and over that this is exactly what they intend to do to Israel.
How can you explain this and still imply that Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing?
If I have misunderstood your post, please set me right.
The Hitman
3 Apr 2002, 06:50
Am I the only one shaking my head in disbelief at this Middle East crisis?
The stupidity and defiance shown by both sides is mind-numbingly ignorant to a proper solution to a problem that is being blown out of proportions by the pig headed folk in power.
It's a circle of death. A suicide bomber blows min/herself up in a public place in Israel, so the Israelis get angry and mount an assault on Palestinian land. So the Palastinians get even more angry, and send more bombers. So then Israel increase their presence and force in Palestinian held areas.
It's a non-stop increase of hate by people who haven't got the guts (especially those at the top) to swallow their pride and realise that there are no winners that are going to come out of this. Palestinians can blow themselves up till the cows go home. When will Israelis see that they will continue to lose people to these bombers as long as they keep bullying the Palestinians.
I am neutral, and I believe both sides are utterly stupid in this war. Sharon is a man who is looking to bully and use force in Palestine. Rabin was a man who wanted peace. Sharon is coming up with half baked reasons as to why they are going to basically destroy Palestine.
The Israelis have been weak, as they decide to use force instead of going to the table - trying to show the world (in particular the Americans) that they are taking their bat and ball and gonna use force.
It's the lack of guts at the top. They don't want to be seen to be giving in to the Palestinian cause at all, so they have to show the Israeli people that they aren't gonna give an inch to the Palestinians. They don't want to lose popularity, so they don't go to the table with the Palestinians.
The Palestinians won't achieve their aim of getting rid of Israel. Israel won't achieve the aim of getting rid of the Palestinians. Neither can close their eyes, and make the other go away. Co-existance is the only answer. How to make that co-existance work is the challenge.
Sorry for the boring rambling,
The Hitman
London Dave
3 Apr 2002, 09:33
There was a deal...done in Oslo...unfortunately, the Israelis had problems being unable to stop building settlements on what they agreed was to be Palestinian land...pity.
I have sympathy for the victims of the bombing, but none for the state of Israel. cant be trusted.
Originally posted by London Dave
I have sympathy for the victims of the bombing, but none for the state of Israel. cant be trusted.
But can the Palestinians be trusted? I think not. History shows otherwise and they have an underlying hatred of the Jews and goal for reclaiming Israel's land as there own which will last for more than anyones lifetimes here. What's more, just as Israel is supported by USA then the Palestinians are supported by Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudia Arabia. In reality both Israeli's and Palestinians are puppets losing lives by the guns and explosives of other nations. Take that support away from each side and the problem would be far smaller.
I draw a parallel to Northern Ireland where despite all the talks and Nobel peace prizes the IRA aim is still for dominance of Northern Ireland by Eire. And the return of the Palestinian homeland (as they see it) similarily is the singular aim of the Palestionians.
If I have an opinion, it is that the USA idea of creating Israel, surrounded by Muslim countries, was ill conceived, but what's done is done.
Sydneyfan
3 Apr 2002, 10:44
I was wondering what everyone thinks the implications will be if other nations willingly or unwillingly become involved in this war?
I heard today that Israel are strongly warning Hezbollah to stop launching Palestinian attacks from Lebanon, so at this stage it's a possibility Israel may attack positions within Lebanon. Arab States are pretty unanimous in support of Palestine and oppostion to Israel's present stance and occupation of Palestinian land. Some Arab States seem fairly willing to become involved if Israel pushes further ahead in this war.
What will Western nations such as the US and UK do, if Arab nations draw themselves or get drawn into this conflict? Will they call for peace from a distance or become involved themselves in what has the potential to be an extremely devastating war?
Originally posted by Sherman
Ethnic cleansing involves tracking down and murdering every living person of a particular ethnic background. Even the best professional Israel bashers can't make a credible argument that Israel is doing this to the Palestinians. Yet. You tell me what a War or Terrorism is going to involve, if it follows the example of its American counterpart.
You talk of "ethnic cleansing" yet Israel has never ever uttered words stating that it can not accept, and will not live with Palestinians and intends to kill them all or dive them into the sea. I don't think Milosevic has ever stated that he was engaging in ethnic cleansing either.
How can you explain this and still imply that Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing? Engaged in, or soon to be engaged in?
Originally posted by Sydneyfan
What will Western nations such as the US and UK do, if Arab nations draw themselves or get drawn into this conflict? Will they call for peace from a distance or become involved themselves in what has the potential to be an extremely devastating war?
Thats a hard question to answer considering that the US might be stretched to intervene considering that it may extend its "War on Terror" to Iraq soon (Its not like the US are denying this)
I cant see any western nation getting involved, if they did then i feel that some of the Arab nations would become involved too and tensions are delicate at the moment so that wouldnt be a good idea
The whole situation went downhill the minute Sharon got appointed, his appointment was never going to signal a move towards peace
Dippers Donuts
3 Apr 2002, 23:53
Very sad state of affairs obviously.
I cannot see it being resolved with Sharon in control, he is little more than a war criminal quite frankly (I refer not to his current efforts, although that too could be arguable, but from his time as an Israeli commander during the 1960' and 1970s). He detests Arafat intensely and is hell bent on driving the Palestinians out completely.
I wouldn't say he is endorsing ethnic cleansing (which is not necessarily the mass murder of a race, that is genocide. Ethnic cleansing is primarily the expulsion of a race from an area. You can ethnic cleanse, by simply "moving them on", so to speak); I would suggest that what Sharon is doing is no different to apartheid.
As for George W Bush, he is being exposed for the do nothing clown that he is. Love or hate Clinton at least he had the intelligence and sense to get involved in the process and develop workable alternatives. Dubbya has no idea. Sharon has successfully neutralised the yanks on this issue by declaring it a war against terrorism. Boxed in dubbya beautifully.
What next? Who knows. Unless this current conflict is doused watch for the gradual spreading of this crisis to involve other Arab countries in a Jew versus Arab stoush.
Hello world war III.
I'm building me a bunker.
Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
As for George W Bush, he is being exposed for the do nothing clown that he is. Love or hate Clinton at least he had the intelligence and sense to get involved in the process and develop workable alternatives. Dubbya has no idea. Sharon has successfully neutralised the yanks on this issue by declaring it a war against terrorism. Boxed in dubbya beautifully.
George Bush, unlike Bill Clinton, is not driven by what last evening's public opinion polls said. George Bush has a defined set of values and he relies on them to set policy. Whether you like them or not - whether you agree with them or not - he has a clear idea of what he wants to accomplish and why. That is called "leading". Conversely, Bill Clinton's "intelligence" and "sense" and "involvement in the process" accomplished zero, nada, zip in 8 years, unless one wants to say he left the situation in the middle east worse than he found it. And that is certainly not any kind of accomplishment worth a damn. Oh - I forgot one other foreign policy accomplishment of Bill Clinton - he fiddled while 800,000 Rwandans were murdered.
Bloodstained Angel
4 Apr 2002, 12:36
Sorry no - can't agree with that one Sherman
Bush is making policy on the run - he is making it up as he goes along.
He has absolutely no clear vision or statement fo purpose when it comes to the Middle East at all.
One day he says Isreal has a right to defend itself, next he supports a UN Security Council resolution calling for immediate Isreali withdrawal from te Occupied Territories
He condemns Arafat as a terrorist, but won't let the Isrealis expell / liquidate the guy.
Only now is he beginning to appreciate just how badly he has handled the whole post-Sep11 political landscape.
He identifies "an axis of evil' by saying certain countries support terror and export weapons of mass destruction. Conveniently he didn't mention teh Chinese, or the Russians, or the Israelis, or teh Pakistanis or teh Indians, or the South Africans.
all of thesze countrues have at one time or another devloped and exported weapons of mass destruction.
Bush says "you are either for us or against us" - where does such a pig-ignorant and totally stoopid statement leave people like the Palestinians ?
Bush says he supports a Palestinian State, yet does nothing while Isreal send in the tanks and helicopter gunships against children. He also does nothing when Isreal describes its actions as 'a war on terror'
Are the Palestinains terrorists ?
Don't ask Bush - he has not the foggiest idea of what he is talking about.
He is now a prisoner of his ill-judged rhetoric - flundering and blustering
He has not got a clue about extracating himself from the mess he has got himself into.
cheers
S.J Rollin
4 Apr 2002, 13:43
Originally posted by chicken minute
PARALELL?
I don't recall the UK bombing either Belfast or Dublin, nor do I recall tanks being sent in and civilians being slaughtered in wholesale manner.
I recall British Paratroopers slaughtering something like 16 civilians at a civil rights march in Derry on Bloody Sunday!
And I think you are getting your state mixed up with you terrorist organisations... The Republic of Ireland has removed it's claim to Ulster from its constitution. The UDA (or was it the UFF or the UVF) bombed Parnell st Dublin and have killed just as many in Ulster as the Republican killers. And I wouldnt see any reason why the British Governmnet would bomb its own soil in Belfast.
Other than that I pretty much agree. I think Frodo just muddied the their water a bit... I mean his solutions of racial segregation and great big walls were tried last century and failed miserably.
Finding a solution to the differences in the middle east where religion is such a core element of the state will never be easy... I dont really know how they are going to solve it but I would like to see the Arab nations recognise Isreal in return for their complete withdrawal from Palestine and the creation of a Palestinian nation... and places like the Golan Heights and the West Bank being complete DMZ's to put Isreal's paranoia at ease.
S.J Rollin
4 Apr 2002, 13:47
Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
Don't ask Bush - he has not the foggiest idea of what he is talking about.
Aint that the truth BA!... before he came El Presidente he had been to two other counties. Mexico and Canada...
The leader of the free world is an ignoramus!
Pessimistic
4 Apr 2002, 15:16
Doesn't the 'War on terrorism' mean something different each month ?
Does Bin Laden Exist ?
Is it better for US Domestic policy that he 'exists' instead of knowing the truth.
Draw paralells to the who ha about whether Hitler was actually dead. It took till glasnost when the east germans said " Hitler ? You only had to ask. Here are the photos of him dead.
One things for sure, the rest of the world is sick of Israel and Palestine and has no leftover sympathy form the past.
Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
Sorry no - can't agree with that one Sherman
Bush is making policy on the run - he is making it up as he goes along.
his middle east policy has been consistent all through. 1. Israel has the right to exist. 2. Palestinians must stop the violence. 3. Accomplish # 1 and # 2 and we have the basis to move forward
He has absolutely no clear vision or statement fo purpose when it comes to the Middle East at all.
ever hear of the Tenet Plan and the Mitchell Plan? Better read up some, friend.
One day he says Israel has a right to defend itself, next he supports a UN Security Council resolution calling for immediate Israeli withdrawal from te Occupied Territories
Why are these mutually exclusive positions? I submit they are not.
He condemns Arafat as a terrorist, but won't let the Isrealis expell / liquidate the guy.
Won't "let" the Israelis? You've been reading too much conspiracy crap, Brother!
Only now is he beginning to appreciate just how badly he has handled the whole post-Sep11 political landscape.
You know – we in the USA, who you may recall were the ones attacked – are pretty damned pleased with Bush's handling of the crisis (witness approval ratings in the mid to high 80% range since 9/11. Al Qaeda and the Taliban were going to create an American bloodbath – or don't you remember? Well, that lasted – what – about a month and accomplished what – about 8 US combat deaths? Sounds like Bush "mishandled" the situation right into the utter defeat of the Taliban plus a rout of Al Qaeda. But, you probably think that Bill Clinton's rousing and complete lack of accomplishments w are a better example of adroit political "handling"
He identifies "an axis of evil' by saying certain countries support terror and export weapons of mass destruction. Conveniently he didn't mention teh Chinese, or the Russians, or the Israelis, or teh Pakistanis or teh Indians, or the South Africans.
all of thesze countrues have at one time or another devloped and exported weapons of mass destruction.
As you point out - there are, sadly, others. I might even include elements in the USA for providing huge amounts of cash to the IRA who surely used some of the funds raised in the US for bombing civilians in Northern Ireland. We Americans need to pay attention to our own backyard, as well.
Bush says "you are either for us or against us" - where does such a pig-ignorant and totally stoopid statement leave people like the Palestinians ?
[/i] Clear headed thinking and refusing to stoop to moral equivocating is most certainly not "pig-ignorant". As to where the statement leaves Palestinians – I guess that is up to them to decide. So far, they seem to be making a poor choice. I hope they can find a leader who can show them a safe way out of morass into which their medieval machismo has taken them [/i]
Bush says he supports a Palestinian State, yet does nothing while Isreal send in the tanks and helicopter gunships against children. He also does nothing when Isreal describes its actions as 'a war on terror'
Israel did not send its tanks and helicopters in against children. That type of overwrought sophistry is, sadly, typical of Palestinian rhetoric against Israel. If Palestinian children are being killed, it is because Palestinian adults have refused to stop the suicide bombings of Israeli citizens at work, at play, at prayer. If Palestinian children are being killed it is because Palestinian adults have willingly sent their children, armed with rocks, to face Israeli tanks (and you call Bush "pig-ignorant"?). If Palestinian children are being killed, it is because Palestinian adults allow their – and I'll give you one here – I'll call them "combatants" – to hide among the civilian population. Palestinian adults have the power and the means to stop the killing of not only their children, but all Palestinians, regardless of age. But they refuse to do so, preferring to offer Palestinian children up for slaughter and, then, blame Israel for fighting back when unsuspecting old men, women and families get savagely and brutally torn apart by Palestinian murderers – oh, I'm sorry! – "freedom fighters".
Are the Palestinians terrorists ?
All Palestinians? I can't believe they are. The ones responsible for the carnage? Most certainly!
Don't ask Bush - he has not the foggiest idea of what he is talking about.
He is now a prisoner of his ill-judged rhetoric - flundering and blustering
He has not got a clue about extracating himself from the mess he has got himself into.
You seem to confuse your disagreement over policy with the fact that there is, in fact, policy in place which is being carried out. When you unwittingly demonstrate that confusion, you weaken your argument.
cheers
I appreciate a civil dialogue and hope I haven't offended you with my defense. Let me also add that I don't think the rest of the world has yet fully understood the resoluteness and passion the average American feels about this whole subject. I was born in 1953. In my lifetime, I have never witnessed anything even remotely approaching the spirit of unity and singleness of purpose expressed across the entire socio-economic spectrum of American life. You know how it feels to be part of a crowd of 50,000 at a football match all rooting for your team? Well, multiple that times 280,000,000. And – to continue the metaphor – we expect to have points scored against us. Americans feel that additional serious attacks on our country are likely – even nuclear attacks. But, if the rest of the world expects us to waiver, they are in for a long, fruitless wait.
Sorry about the flag waving. I've been reading posts here long enough now to start to get a feel for how, at least, the folks who post here feel about these issues and I recognize that the US view is apparently different than the usual opinions expressed here.
So, no offense intended and peace to all . . . .
The whole problem started with the election of Ariel Sharon. The man is a war criminal, albeit untried and unconvicted, but he is accountable for the 1982 massacre of Palestinian refugees in the Sabra and Shatila camps. He also further provoked trouble, by visiting the Temple Mount after he was elected. Although at the time he knew of the trouble it would cause, in his arrogance and perhaps hatred of Palestinians he went ahead with the visit.
This is the main cause of the peace breakdown.
His whole agenda from the time he came to power was to control or get rid of Palestinians.
And by declaring the Palestinians terrorists, he is also controlling the yanks. What alternative do they now have, but to support Israel. Not that they didn't always support Israel anyway, but after Bush's declaration of war against terrorism, Sharon has left him with no way out.
Clinton worked hard to bring the peace process in The Middle East to reality and Bush has no idea of how to control it.
We now have Sharon the war criminal with Bush in the palm of his hand.
Bloodstained Angel
5 Apr 2002, 12:33
That what I mean when I say Bush has become imprisoned within his own rhetoric.
Bush's rhetoric ("You are for us or against us" "war on terror" "those that support terrorism are themselves terrorists" etc etc) has been used as an instrument of blackmail by cunning and totally unscrupulous Israelis like Sharon.
Bushs' ill-judged and badly thought-through comments post Sep11 have come back to haunt him big time.
He is now in a postion where he (and the US State Dept) is now a virtula captive of Sharons hardline position.
with friends like Sharon - who needs enemies ?
cheers
Sydneyfan
5 Apr 2002, 13:17
There's no doubt that Sharon has been an agitator as soon as he got into power and his provocative actions have helped reverse the hard work of both sides beforehand in attempting to bring about peace.
I was just thinking whether it's possible that Sharon and/or Arafat could be rubbed out in a covert operation by outside powers (ie. the CIA), if the present situation continues and that peace in the region proves to be impossible if either men are in power. In the unlikely event of this occuring, the USA wouldn't want to be found out as the nation responsible however, it's highly likely that the US will never arrest either men as war criminals. It's probably a bit far-fetched and extreme but it seems like peace is impossible with either men in power.
wagstaff
5 Apr 2002, 18:18
Originally posted by Pessimistic
Doesn't the 'War on terrorism' mean something different each month ?
"War on Terrorism" is an Orwellian term that is being used by countries like America and Israel because it comes across as much more noble then "War on Afghanistan" or "War on Palestine", and they see it as a viable means to manipulate the general popualtion.
After all, how can anyone be against a war on terrorism? The Americans have been successful in this aspect as the commercial media outlets accept without question that Americans are stamping out terrorism, which comes across as an aim that few would disagree with.
It only falls apart when you begin to analyse what the purposes and motives of the "war on terrorism" are really all about/
Methuselah
6 Apr 2002, 07:34
IMO,
The problem is intractable.
As is the case in Northern Ireland, many people on both sides are sick of all the conflict and want to live in peace with their neighbours, raising their kids and enjoying their lives - just like the rest of us.
However, the zealots on both sides are driving the agenda and always have done.
On the Israeli side, these are people that believe being anti-zionist is the same as being anti-semitic, and are engaged in a holy war. Part of their strategy is to ensure there are new Israeli settlements in all occupied lands...an expansionist policy and one that can only provoke hostility.
On the Palestinian side the zealots believe they are engaged in a holy war, and that all methods of attack are acceptable, including suicide bombing. They want the complete destruction of Israel.
On a military level....Israel has had to develop an awesome military capacity to survive this far. As an example, the population of Australia is just under 19 million and we have 71 tanks and 126 combat aircraft. Israel has just under 6 million people and has 3,800 main battle tanks and 459 combat aircraft.
Against that kind of firepower, the twin Arab powers of Eygpt and Syria have repeatedly failed. So Palestinian zealots, while passionate, are not crazy, and so are engaged in acts of terrorism to press their cause. Any other approach to combat with the Israeli state would fail. Also remember, they have a perfect example of how terrorism against a much stronger opponent can be effective - the israelis themselves used terrorism against british troops with great effect in the conflict that led to the formation of their nation.
On a political level, the main barriers to peace are the fact that coalition govts continue to dominate in Israel and extremist parties can demand hard-line policies.
On the Palestinian side, the reality is that Arafat is indeed a moderate, and does not have the support of many hard-liners and there is no shortage of angry young men and women to martyr themselves for a cause.
On an economic level, the landscape is dominated by Israel, and most palestinians with jobs have to work in Israel - the continuing conflict is unlikely to give any economic hope to the palestinians any time soon.
The outlook - more of the same, with brief perids of peace will each side re-arms.
Porthos
21 Apr 2002, 14:55
So Sherman, how do you respond to the latest attack wherein 70 Palestinians (officially. Unofficially, 400 is the number I heard) were killed by an Israeli assault?
Not ethnic cleansing my arse.
What is needed in these troubled times is a bit of off-the-wall thinking. My proposal is that we build a very high razor wire fence around Jerusalem. Then we fly in all the ****ers from around the world who want to kill people for religious or ethnic reasons. Give each of them an AK47, and say, go at it boys.
We could have teams representing various interest groups from Indonesia, the Middle East, Rwanda, all parts of Yugoslavia, skinheads from Germany and a special place for the Irish. Rupert would buy the worldwide rights for Sky TV and we could see it in our lounge rooms every night, with dinner. Now, that's what I call reality TV.
Do I detect a hint of dissent to the effect that this proposal would result in the death of guilty people? Probably right, not as much fun if no innocents are killed. Collateral damage may be a side benefit though. Think of how many mosques and churches would be destroyed.
The major bonus of my proposal is that no harm can possibly come to Jerusalem, the city. What's going to happen? Would we degrade it into finer dust?
Dippers Donuts
23 Apr 2002, 00:26
How ironic that the yanks are promising aid to the Palestinian towns reduced to rubble by the US supplied/armed Israeli army.
Bush is simply a gutless wonder, if he had any ticker he would have said to Sharon days ago, "unless you remove your forces within 3 days we will cancel all aid to Israel immediately".
Imagine how fast the Israelis would have withdrawn then...
Bloodstained Angel
23 Apr 2002, 08:32
I think the Us Administration would love to serve an ultimatum like that on the Isrealis DD.
However, the powerful "Jewish lobby' inside the Us itself would never let it happen.
Don't forget, American Jewry is the most numerous, richest and most politically powerful population of Jews anywhere in the world. With their money and political influenece they can, quite literally, make or break any US President.
Thats why littel old Isreal is by far the biggest receiever of American Aid monies - this small and prosperous country with an educated poplulation and a mature democratic government recieves a truly staggering 4 billion $US in aid every year.
More than any other country, by far - and its arguable they don't need a cent of it.
Thats why I believe the United States has no place in trying to settle the Middle East problem. As perennial backers and sponsors of Isreal they just aren't impartial or balanced enough to be able to forge a just and equitable settlement - for all stake holders.
They will take the side of Isreal in this every single time - without exception.
cheers
Dippers Donuts
23 Apr 2002, 10:51
They are powerful that is true enough BSA.
Thing is though, don't they all vote for the Democrats (the American Jewish population that is). Shouldn't worry Georgey boy too much should it, not like he would lose too many votes.
**** the Israelis I say, I am getting heartily pissed off with their intransigence and belligerence. "Oh but we are rooting out terrorism" they cry. Cobblers, all they have done is stiffened the resolve of another generation of suicide bombers.
Bloodstained Angel
23 Apr 2002, 13:33
yes, absolutely correct DD
90 cents out of every Jewish dollar given to Election campaigns goes to the Democrats.
and also - the Bush Administration recieved no support from the Jewish lobby at all.
So, you could say that Bush has a a 'clear run' on these issues. He didn't need Jewish money to get elected, he didn't get very many Jewish votes, there are no Jews in his Cabinet.
Which is why the Bush crew had a plan for Middle East peace in preparation last year.
The plan involved recognition of a Palestinian State - a major breakthrough by the White House.
Everything was ready to go - Powell had Arafat and Barak on side and a clear mandate from the Republicans back home to go hard for a comprehensive settlement.
Then along came Sept11 - and in a supreme irony, terrorists with strongly pro-Palestinian sympathies have now ended all proispect of a comprehensive peace settlememt in the Middle East.
A settlement that probably wouyld have given the Palestinains just about everything they have asked for.
The post Sept11 landscape has now changed and it finds the Bush Administration really scrambling to adjust to the new realities.
However, whilst a government that does not depend on Jewish money remains in the White House, I remain optimistic that a just and equitable settlement can be achieved.
The USA should use the 'carrot and stick' approach with Isreal (withold aid if they don't do as they are told) but, once again, the all-powerful Jewish lobby inside the USA will dom its darbndest to ensure that this never happens
cheers
wagstaff
26 Apr 2002, 20:43
The after-effects of the carnage in the Middle East are already occurring. Reports from France suggest that Anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim attacks are on the increase. Usually a society in turmoil like France is at the moment requires just one ethnic group to use as a scapegoat, so this is a rarity.
Another giant leap for mankind. :rolleyes: