BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life

Subject: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: GUEST,Hamshank
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 08:25 AM

This is a report by Andrea Mitchell, NBC News. Mudcatters, what are your thoughts?

April 1 - There is, it seems, a seemingly endless supply of suicide bombers with unlimited support from Iran and Palestinians around the world. And recently, millions of dollars from Saddam Hussein. THE IRAQI LEADER appeared on Iraqi television this weekend, along with his sons and advisers. "It's a disgrace on all Arabs and believers everywhere if they don't help their Palestinian brothers in their battle," Saddam said in the appearance. What does Iraq provide? Intelligence sources tell NBC News: money for the bombers' families, channeled through the extremist group Hamas. On Monday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld harshly criticized Iraq, as well as Iran and Syria, as supporters of terrorism. "The Iraqis - Saddam Hussein has announced that they're offering stipends to families of suicide bombers. They've decided that that's a good thing to do. So they're running around encouraging people to be suicide bombers. I would suggest that that is very actively trying to kill innocent men, women and children, and that's exactly what the Iraqis intend to be doing by doing that," Rumsfeld said.

LIFE INSURANCE, COURTESY OF IRAQ
So, before these young Palestinians blow themselves up, they get what amounts to a life insurance policy financed by Iraq - cash annuities for their parents, subsidized food, scholarships for siblings and, since Israel usually destroys their family homes, replacement housing. Experts say Iraq also provides some weapons to Palestinians, smuggled through neighboring Jordan. What does Iraq get in return? Ken Pollack of the Council on Foreign Relations said, "This is useful for Saddam because he has recognized that the worse the violence between Israelis and Palestinians, the harder it is for the U.S. to come after him. By the same token, it builds up his own popularity in the Arab world." Iraq is not the only country supporting Hamas and other militant groups. They get sophisticated weapons from Iran. Israel captured one shipment last January.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 08:41 AM

We, (the US), in our war on terrorism, and the Israelis, in their wars with Arabs, are either fighting for principles, or for supremacy. If we're fighting for principles, we had damn well better be sure we adhere to the very principles we say we're fighting for. If we're fighting for supremacy, I guess all it really boils down to is "might makes right" and the law of the jungle.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 03:28 PM

Saddam Hussein and the regime in Iraq are offering $10,000 per family if they're able to persuade a family to have their teenager strap explosives on them and go out and kill themselves and kill innocent men, women, and children. It turns out that he has raised that amount, and it's $25,000 per family, not $10,000 per family.

Think of it. Here is an individual who is the head of a country, Iraq, who has proudly, publicly made a decision to go out and actively promote and finance human sacrifice for families that will have their youngsters kill innocent men, women, and children. That is an example of what it is we're dealing with.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 03:30 PM

In a press briefing by Ari Fleisher today, it was also pointed out that story came across the wires in early March.

So why the hyping of the story now, hmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 03:43 PM

the New Yorker also made a connection between Saddam and AlQaeda, as well as covering the chemical warfare practiced on the Kurds. They used cropduster planes (Mohammed Atta who flew one of the airliners on 9/11 was seen meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague last year.) The Kurds were just practice. If Saddam were to attain nuclear capability, he could just as easily sell the weapon to AlQaeda operatives and no one would know where it came from, if a North American city was a target. How do you respond to that?

(some other tidbits, Saddam is building a giant palace in the shape of his thumbprint and is reputed to be the author behind a series of romance novels)

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 04:35 PM

You know what? I think it is high time the American people had to worry about the nuclear threat from unrestricted nuclear build-up. Thing is, we have been the most guilty party in the world, regarding nuclear weapons being used to threaten innocent civilians around the world.

Instead of bombing and invading Iraq, and causing thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of casualties, further destabilizing one of the most unstable areas in the world, why not work seriously to end nuclear proliferation here and now, around the world? Including the US?

Don't forget, the only country to ever use nuclear weapons--and they were used intentionally on innocent civilians--twice--was the United States of America.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 06:21 PM

how do you work toward ending nuclear proliferation especially in rogue states? The Israelis did a pretty good job in '81 when they bombed the Baghdad Nuclear reactor (why does an oil rich nation need one? - except to drop on Haifa, Tel Aviv Jerusalem, or New York perhaps) everyone was outraged for a while (openly) but secretly they were happy because the Gulf War would have been quite different otherwise.

Sure the US used the bomb in wwII then again they firebombed Dresden - a lot of it was revenge for a cowardly surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, the Germans didnt think about sinking civilian merchant ships or bombing civilian cities in England. Those were very different times, and no one understood the effects of Nuclear Weapons. (I went to Hiroshima, and saw the museum - and yet nowhere did the Japanese talk about how they started the war (this is still not taught in schools)) or for that matter the bio-warfare experiments on pows., the sack of Nanking where a 100,000 Chinese were slaughtered. Why should we single out one act of war from history and not even look at in the historical context.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 02 - 06:30 PM

Yeah--the difference now is Americans have to live with the same fear of being bombed as everyone else. Too bad our own government didn't do anything about it when they had the chance, huh?

Just because a government starts a war, doesn't justify their enemies intentionally targeting civilians. If you believe that, then you believe the 9/11 bombers were every bit as justified in what they did, as what we did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Only the Japanese civilian casualties were hundreds of thousands higher, including the effects on their offspring which meant the casualties continued into future generations.

If you are talking about historical context, then you have to accept that the US government has been very much in the wrong in the past, in the present, and will continue to be in the future if we allow things like nuclear proliferation to continue.

How about we do something proactive about nuclear proliferation here and now, by stopping the Bush administration from unilaterally scrapping our nuclear treaties, and prevent them from taking off on another unprecendented nuclear build-up? How about we insist our government stop testing nuclear weapons? How about we initiate the next round of nuclear, chemical, and bioterror weapons treaties, and be the world leaders on these issues, rather than the world bullies because we can get away with it?

How about we act on moral principal, rather than on behalf of the pocketbooks and bottom lines of the military industrial complex's corporate interests?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: Troll
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 12:01 AM

We can take the moral high ground, as you suggest, Guest, or we can be pragmatic. The moral high ground will get us killed because those who oppose us have no such scruples.
If your self-hatred demands that you die rather than fight to save your own life, so be it.
Just don't demand that the rest of us follow you blindly into oblivion.
For openers, find out WHY Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets. Heres a hint. One was a major ship-building center.
It's easy to blame the US for the worlds ills. Learn some history -BOTH sides- and then see who you want to condemn.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 12:15 AM

Self hatred has nothing to do with it. The people who are doing this are trying to get justice. Suicide bombing may be a really bad way to try to get it, but that is the motivation that is causing these people to behave in this way. And they are using this tactic because they percieve themselves as not having any other tools to bring this about. Until this is understood, I think the chances of solving the problem are pretty slim.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: Blackcatter
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 12:27 AM

What our enemies don't understand is that with reactionaries in charge of the politics in the U.S. of A., if they were to REALLY piss us off, we'd use nuclear weapons. George "Dumbya " doesn't give a rats ass about world sentiment. If Saddam pushes George's button, it's going to go off. This is NOT anything I would ever hope for - just a sad reality.

For good or bad - hell, only bad, George will light one off and show the men with tiny penis' the door. The sad thing is there won't be anything anyone else can do. Afghanistan is just lucky that it is so sparsly controlled by the Talliban.

pax yall

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 01:32 AM

Petr - To call the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour "cowardly" is just silly rhetoric. it was clever, it was savage, it was bold and imaginative, it was aggression, but it was anything but cowardly. The USA and Japan both knew war was inevitable in late 1941 or early 1942. They both knew Japan would strike the first blow. The only questions were...exactly when and where?

The US Navy had been on high alert for weeks, expecting an imminent Japanese attack in a number of places, Pearl Harbour included.

The Japanese, for their part, estimated that they might well lose half of their attacking force at Pearl Harbour (ships included) if detected on the way in, or even if NOT detected on the way in. They took American fighting ability VERY seriously.

To call it "cowardly" bears no connection to reality...it's just a knee jerk way of saying "I don't like what the Japanese did". Fine, but it was not cowardly...it was just as courageous as Custer's attack at Little Big Horn, but way better planned. He lost that one, remember? He was a scoundrel at times, and a liar at times, but he was no coward, and neither were the Japanese.

I am sick of people calling other people "cowards" when there is no basis for it and it just is used as a way of saying that those other people are evil and inciting hatred against them. Say they were wrong, say they were warmongers, say they were agressors...but they were NOT cowards.

Are your boys who drop B-52 bombloads from 20,000 feet on guys with small arms cowards? They could hardly be safer if they were sitting at home watching the World Series...

It does not follow that people who do things you do not like are cowards. The Israelis have hit the Arabs numerous times with surprise air attacks rather comparable in their effect to Pearl Harbour. Are the Israelis cowards? I don't think so.

Surprise attack is the nature of modern war...only a complete idiot, once the decision to fight has been made, tells the other side "I will be striking Pearl Harbour next week, on Sunday morning, so expect to see me there, old chap, and we'll have a jolly good battle! Tally Ho!"

And if you're going by that stupid movie they did recently, forget it. It was a joke. "Tora, Tora, Tora" tells the real story.

Carol - No government out there is fighting for "principles", they are all fighting for supremacy. Period. The deluded people who enlist and get killed are the ones who still think they're fighting for principles.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 03:31 AM

If the gen about Saddam Hussein being frantically peddled around right now by you-know-who,is still generally unchallenged in ten years time, then , and only then, will I accept it as truth. He's a bad guy, but when somebody wants to "get" a bad guy they tend to tell tall stories--or to put a sleekit slant on the truth, if ye'll forgi'e a 'Scottisism"

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 11:55 AM

Our nukes can't defend us from anyone else with nukes. So it is pointless to keep building more nukes, when the proliferation of weapons makes us less secure, and increases the likelihood of them being used in "theatre warfare" or civilian targets, like NYC or Washington DC.

All our military might, huge as it is, was powerless to stop the attacks like the WTC by Saudi kamikaze pilots because they had the one weapon LH talks about that we can't defend against: the element of surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 02:24 PM

little hawk, (is shooting someone in the back cowardly or well planned military strategy) cowardly or not the fact remains is that Japanese are not taught any of that in school (ie. that Japan started the war, Im fully aware of history and that the American govt knew it was coming) I walked through a Japanese military museum which extolled all the virtues of the one man torpedo, kamikaze fighters and all the men who died keeping china Japanese. I also walked through the Hiroshima museum, which (tragic though the bombing was) talked only about this crime against humanity and how it must never happen again. ANd yet nowhere do they mention of the thousands of civilians killed in China and the south pacific. practising biowarfare and medical experiments on pows (doctors amputating perfectly good arms and legs for practice) Its as if it never happened (as many people died in Nanking as in Hiroshima and yet no one talks about it). whatever you may think about Pearl Harbour it was a surprise attack on a country at peace time.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 03:31 PM

Petr - You are absolutely correct in your criticism of Japanese aggression and extreme brutality in China and elsewhere, and you are correct about their postwar evasion of admitting responsibility for that aggression...in that they do not properly inform their public of all the facts. You're right about the rape of Nanking. I agree with every word you've said about all that.

Japanese actions in the 30's and 40's were imperialistic, brutal, and utterly unjustifiable...huge crimes against humanity.

I simply don't consider the attack on Pearl Harbour "cowardly"...anything but! It took tremendous guts to launch and carry out that attack.

As for shooting someone in the back...on a battlefield, yes, it is good strategy and it is exactly what is done whenever the opportunity presents itself. The Allies went to great efforts to achieve surprise every time they launched attacks on Japan, Italy, and Germany. Everyone who is in a war (or about to be in one) uses the tactic of surprise attack whenever possible. The only time such tactics are not necessary is when one has such overwhelming force to bear that the enemy has no chance of stopping it. That, again, is simply the nature of war...and it's why we have terms such as "intelligence gathering" and "reconnaissance".

American cowboys also shot people in the back when they could get away with it...despite the myth-making of Hollywood. Billy the Kid was shot from ambush by Pat Garrett (he never saw it coming), and Garret was simply "doing his job".

Since Roosevelt made economic moves which were absolutely guaranteed to result in a Japanese attack on America, Britain, and Holland within a year or less...how does the entire blame for the ensuing hostilities accrue solely to Japan? I do not deny that the greater blame falls on Japan, and that their imperial policy led to the situation, but the Americans also had an imperial policy of their own in the Pacific, and Japan was in the way of it. The blame for war must be shared among the major players...Japan and America being foremost among those players in that case.

The American military at Pearl Harbour mishandled their reconaissance forces...partly due to underestimating Japanese capabilities...partly due to carelessness...partly due to a series of prior false alarms...partly due to just plain bad luck (they actually saw the Japanese attack coming in on Oahu's brand new one and only radar station...but mistook it for a flight of B-17's from California. Such things can easily happen at the beginning of a war, but are rather less likely to happen later.

I really have no argument with anything you've said other than your labelling of the attack "cowardly". The word "cowardly" has become a standard cliche used for vilifying any and all perceived enemies...and it is almost never appropriate in actual fact. It's hate propaganda, nothing more.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 03:35 PM

"There is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of Western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the US. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of Western countries." - George Orwell (in 1945), quoted in a letter to The Spectator

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 12:59 AM

I did not say that one side was as bad as the other. I said that the Japanese were worse than America or Britain. Much worse. Read my words. And the Nazis were even much worse yet! And so was Stalin, but he was an ally of convenience for the West at that particular juncture... But people know this in the West! What use is agreeing with everyone else and repeating for the 85,000th time that water is wet??? We all know that. It will not free us to say it again, for the 85,001st time.

The first job necessary in combating present evil and hypocrisy is to combat it on your own turf, which for me happens to be western society. If you can't resist it effectively at home, you will never be able to truly resist it anywhere else...and if resisting it elsewhere while ignoring it at home you will be either a fool or a hypocrite.

It is the job of a politically responsible person in North America or in any other place to first draw attention to the rot in his own front and backyard.

It is the job of a protestor in Russia or China to do the same...attend to his own front and backyard.

Understand?

I am not living in Russia or China. What point is there in me parroting what 10,000 lazy thinkers in North America who are too naive to ever look in their own front and backyard at all blather on about every day?

I will counter Orwell by paraphrasing him thus:

"There are a majority of armchair patriots in EVERY country in this world whose real, though unadmitted, motive appears to be hatred of everything that strikes them as foreign or different from their own chosen way of doing things. Their fondest hope is to persuade or force all other people on this planet to do things their way and only their way.

They are as common in dictatorships like the former Soviet Union or China as they are in western democracies like Britain or the USA. They make excellent capitalists, marvellous socialists, and superb communists. They universally detest pacifists and critics of the home regime, wherever that regime is located.

Their hate propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side (theirs) is the fountainhead of all that is good and true, while the other side (whoever) is evil incarnate, but if one looks closely at the writings of such fervent patriots in a country such as, for example, America, one finds that they are directed almost entirely against anyone at all except Britain, Israel and the USA.

They do not as a rule condemn violence unless it is used against themselves or a close ally of theirs. In fact, they idolize violence when it is committed by their own people, and they constantly seek new and even more effective ways of practicing it. Thus their firepower is unequalled anywhere outside their borders.

Their entertainment moguls, who are among their richest and most corrupt citizens, have discovered that violence sells even better at the box office or on the video game screen than sex (although the two together are the ultimate combination), and you can't fight profit, can you? The Soviets found that out! You can't fight mass media domination and total military supremacy either, and nothing beats the smell of napalm in the morning!"

I detest totalitarianism, whether it is achieved by either open military dictators (as in China or Iraq, for example) or an oligarchy of the rich hiding behind an elected figurehead (as in America or the UK). I love democracy, but I do NOT see it being practiced at the higher levels of government in either my own country (Canada) or the USA...I only see the procedural pretense of democracy. We still have real democracy at the local level, however...so far...because the "party" system has not yet entirely taken over the local level.

Orwell was a bit wide of the mark...he thought that faceless centralized Soviet-style socialism would take over the world, but he did not realize how much more powerful glitzy corporate mass marketing would prove to be, with the emergence of commercial television in the mid-50's as the public's daily pacifier, hypnotizer, and manipulator...or how effortlessly that corporate marketing system would cross national borders as it gobbled up and subverted the whole world by a combination of commercial seduction, credit spending, and financial monopolies, backed up by brute force...whenever that was required.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 03:25 AM

Right arm, LH!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 12:20 PM

Yeah, and not in a Nazi salute, either, let's emphasize! :-) I have pretty much rejected all the existing political "isms" of our time, though I am still more or less a democratic socialist at heart.

But I really see it as a spiritual issue, in the final analysis. Treat everyone around you with the same consideration, kindness, and generosity as you would wish to receive from them...And don't inflict upon them what you would not want inflicted upon you.

Those are sane rules on which to build a society, a family, or a relationship.

And do what Captain Bligh did on his little boat after the mutineers put them to sea...share the food in EQUAL lots. (I guess he had learned a lesson of sorts by that time...or maybe he wasn't as bad in the first place as the movies have depicted him.)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 02:12 PM

Treat everyone around you with the same consideration, kindness, and generosity as you would wish to receive from them...Little Hawk

I was able to identify all of my enemies and deal with them in the most expedient way. Most of these people were against me. Some may not have been. I would rather kill an innocent person by mistake than be murdered by a guilty one whom I had neglected....Sadam Hussein

Aye, therein lies the rub.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: GUEST,Snow White
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 02:29 PM

But where the hell is Bin Laden?. Snow White

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 03:16 PM

CarolC said:

"Self hatred has nothing to do with it. The people who are doing this are trying to get justice. Suicide bombing may be a really bad way to try to get it, but that is the motivation that is causing these people to behave in this way. And they are using this tactic because they percieve themselves as not having any other tools to bring this about. Until this is understood, I think the chances of solving the problem are pretty slim"

I must beg to disagree...

The Palestinians have had multiple opportunities to become an *independent co-existing* government alongside the Israelis ever since the inception of the state of Israel. They have refused each and every time this has been offered to them. They want complete rule, total autonomy, and little to no Israel. Keep in mind that, prior to Israel being re-formed, they were *not* an independent nation...they have been ruled by others throughout their history. The fact that it is now Israel is the only real difference.

Nearly *80%* of what was historcially called "Palestine" rests *within* the borders of Jordan, not Israel...but you don't hear the Palestinians barking at Jordan to give up land or rule. Why?

No one has been able to answer this one for me. I think the answer is obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 03:28 PM

From the frightening depths of the bizarrely misinformed American mind, Celtic Soul spouts thus while her head spins round:

"The Palestinians have had multiple opportunities to become an *independent co-existing* government alongside the Israelis ever since the inception of the state of Israel. They have refused each and every time this has been offered to them."

Celtic Soul, are you getting your news and information from late night talk shows?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 03:42 PM

No...a Guest speaker on a local news show. He's a Professor at a local University, speaks both Arabic and Hebrew, and studies the middle east on a daily basis. If you'd like, I'll check with the station to find out *exactly* what this mans name is, what University he teaches at, when and where these talks took place, what they were called, who was in power at the time, and what the exact responses were. Or I could call the station and get the transcripts.

If you'd like to do the research yourself, check with "The Don Kroh Show" at WAVA and ask who the guest was on Friday, April 5th 2002 (Subject matter - Palestine and Israel).

www.WAVA.com

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 04:08 PM

CS, I do think you're buying someone's line of propaganda, but I'm going to have to do some research before I can give you any quotes from experts.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 04:38 PM

We don't need any experts here. The suggestion that the Palestinians have been free to establish their own state since the formation of the state of Israel--and just who exactly was offering it?--is just bizarre. Absolutely bizarre.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 06:35 PM

Here's a small example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. It's small, but it took my breath away with its duplicity...

The Palestinians have been begging for some time for help from the international community to get the process of diplomacy started again, and to help them get back to the negotiation table. I haven't heard any indications from the Israeli government that they particularly want the international community to get involved. In fact I did hear Mr. Sharon say that he would rather the international community didn't get involved, that he felt the Israelis should handle things themeselves.

So Pres. Bush announced that Colin Powel would go over there to help, and the Palestinians indicated their relief about this. Just a little while ago I heard that Mr. Bush is saying that if the Israelis don't start pulling out of the occupied areas, Colin Powel's trip there might be in question.

So who does this hurt? Not the Israelis, certainly. It only hurts the Palestinians. So while Bush is giving the appearance of being even-handed with both sides, what he has actually just done, is to give the Israeli government incentive to do exactly the opposite of pulling out of the occupied areas. Why should they give a shit if Powell goes there or not? They've got everything they want already. The only people who will be hurt if Powell doesn't go are the Palestinians. And yet, according to what Bush said today, Powell's trip is not dependent in any way on anything the Palestinians do or don't do, but on what the Israelis do or don't do. In essence, Bush is going to punish the Palestinians if the Israelis don't do what Bush told the Israelis to do.

I'll not be convinced of the sincerity of either the Israeli government or the US government unless they send George Mitchell in there to help.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 06:53 PM

Heh, from the WAVA ("Christian Radio") website: "The Don Kroah Show serving the Washington/Baltimore metropolitan area with biblically-based, conservative talk radio weekday afternoons at five and six. Tune in and you'll have something new to Kroah about!" Muahahahaha. Yeah, sure to be balanced coverage there. I listened to parts of the April 5th show. It was mostly a 2-hour advertisement for some despicable missionary organisation, with some "They're killing BABIES!!!"-type "news" in between.

Seriously, you need to get out more, CelticSoul. There's a whole WORLD of news out there. Your posts make so much more sense to me now...

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 08:04 PM

Here's another line of thinking that I find breathtaking in its duplicity. And its one I've heard many times...

Keep in mind that, prior to Israel being re-formed, they (the Palestinians) were *not* an independent nation...they have been ruled by others throughout their history. The fact that it is now Israel is the only real difference.

So as a result of the victimization that Jews have historically experienced at the hands of people in power, they were given land on which to form an independent nation. Fine. No problem with that.

Except for the small detail of the people who were already living on the land given to the Jews for their independent nation. And when the subject of whether or not the Palestinians have been treated fairly with regards to their homes being taken from them comes up, one of the justifications given is that they were already being victimized by people in power. This line of thinking suggests that Jews deserve an independent nation as a result of their victimization, while Palestinians deserve continued subjugation by people in power as a result of theirs.

Nearly *80%* of what was historcially called "Palestine" rests *within* the borders of Jordan, not Israel...but you don't hear the Palestinians barking at Jordan to give up land or rule. Why?

Perhaps they are only concerned with the land on which they were living when the independent state of Israel was formed, and not on the lands that have historically been called "Palestinian".

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 08:26 PM

Ah, news from the right wing Christian soldiers...that does explain quite a bit about Celtic Soul's posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 10:04 PM

The thing is this: If you want to listen to CNN, you'll get their spin. If you read the NY Times, you'll get their spin. And if you watch the nightly news, you'll get theirs. Much of the time, the people reporting are not much more than talking heads without any real knowledge of the background/history/culture of the thing they are reporting about.

I listen to NPR, I listen to WTOP (a local news only station), I read the Washington Post, I listen to Zoe Hironomous (and you can't get much more liberal than that) when I can get a chance to tune her in. And yes, I listen to WAVA.

I don't buy hook line and sinker everything I hear from any of these sources, but I do start to pay attention when a person has better credentials than merely being a reporter or a talking head.

Don Kroh may be a conservative, but that does not mean that everyone he has on the show is completely biased, or has no idea what they are talking about. They will, of course, support the views of the host (he has a bias, as does Tom Brokaw, as does Ted Kopple), but that is not to say the guests will all be completely wrong, all of the time. You would not know this from merely having visited the website. You'd have to listen to find out. FYI, I have phoned in and passionately argued with their hosts when I have been listening and thought them or a guest wrong. I called in to vehemently argue that women in the military should be allowed to fight on the front lines if that is their desire. If a woman is of the age of majority, why is our government telling them they cannot? If they want to end gender norming, that's fine...there are still women out there who will pass the physical tests as well or better than some of the men. The host had to acknowledge that I had a point.

If you want unbiased news reporting, you're going to have to go to Pluto for it. It doesn't exist here. So, why is the bias of one source any better or any worse than any other?

I am not a conservative. Obviously, I am not a liberal either. I choose to listen to sources from all over and pick apart what seems to make better sense from what does not.

And lastly: Why is it necessary to resort to sarcasm and insults? It is exactly that sort of thing that has landed humanity in conflicts like the one happening over in the middle east right now. Can we not have civil and respectful dialogue even if our opinions differ greatly?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: Troll
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 03:19 AM

CS, they resort to sarcasm and insult because it is easier than doing research to find evidence with which to refute your arguments.
The Palestinians had nearly 100% of what they said they wanted with the Oslo Accords and Arafat walked away from it. The palestinians are not interested in their own state. Their goal- which they have repeated time and again- is the complete and total destruction of the state of Israel and the expulsion and/or death of the Jews who now live there.
This doctrine was again put forth by one of the leaders of Hamas just this week with the added filip that the US has plenty of empty space where the Jews could go. It also seems that Hamas and Fatah are becoming allies again.
CarolC, the idea that the Palestinians use suicide bombers out of frustration because they have no other weapons is naive in the extreme. They use them because they are an extremely effective weapon of terror. The objective of the terrorist is to de-stabilize the government by showing the people that the government cannot stop the terrorist attacks. It is fairly low in capital expense and the number of soldiers killed is relatively low in relation to the damage they do to the enemy.
The Arab States are quite willing to let the Palestinians blow themselves up because they know that if they mobilize to help them, their own cities will be destroyed- probably with nukes- by the Israelis. Sadam, for all his bluster, will not send his troops over the the Syrian border bceause he knows what will happen if he does.
The Israelis WILL use nukes if their backs are to the wall. They remember how their people were slaughtered in the Holocaust without a fight and they are determined that that will never happen again.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 03:57 AM

CarolC, the idea that the Palestinians use suicide bombers out of frustration because they have no other weapons is naive in the extreme.

That's your opinion, troll, and your certainly entitled to it. However, I don't see any documentation in your post giving evidence to support your assertions.

When I have the time, I will endeavor to find some documentation to support my assertions in this thread. Perhaps you would like to do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 10:33 AM

The fact that everyone fails to recognize about the failed Camp David talks is that the so-called "best offer the Palestinians ever had" did not include East Jerusalem, or allow for repatriation of exiled Palestinians. In East Jerusalem, lies the third most sacred site in the Arab world, the Al Aqsa mosque.

With that "best offer" on the table, Arafat was forced to either accept or reject it, on the spot, without being able to consult with the democratically elected Palestinian parliament, Arab leaders in the Arab League, etc.

So those reports that the Camp David talks held out 95% of what Palestinians wanted, are grossly exaggerated, and do not jibe with the Palestinians side of the story.

As to bias of news sources Celtic Soul, you are absolutely correct. One must be aware of the biases of both the source of the news (ie the editorial bias of a newspaper, a newsroom, etc). But one must also be aware of the legitimacy and integrity of the news organization itself for accurate and fair reporting. There is a reason why most religious news organizations aren't considered reliable or legitimate by the international journalism community. That reason is because they are notorious for presenting their bias as fact, rather than spin.

You also neglect to mention that we must also be able to ascertain the legitimacy and integrity of the person being interviewed, especially when they are being touted by the news organization as authorities and experts. News organizations tend to use the same "experts" over and over--or at least go to a source (ie a particular think tank or university) where they know the political ideologies of most of the players.

As you said, there is nothing wrong with any of this. However, you neglect the fact that we ourselves have the burden upon us to know historic fact well enough to be able to distinguish between ideology and history. Between fact and bias.

You posted a wildly inaccurate claim about the history of the Palestinian struggle for a legitimate sovereign state. What you said is just plain wrong, and anyone with knowledge of that history knows it, regardless of their ideological beliefs about that history.

And that is the problem with the US citizenry. They hold everyone else responsible for knowing the history and getting the facts straight, except themselves.

This is why the mainstream corporate media gets away with being the quasi-official state propaganda machine. Our citizens refuse to think critically and act upon the information they receive.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 11:20 AM

Some of the reasons why the Oslo accords failed:

"There is no better illustration of the comical one-sidedness of the peace process: Israel's demand for Palestinian compliance with its own written obligations is deemed a form of sabotage." - Commentator Charles Krauthammer (Washington Post, Jan 16, 1998)

"No Palestinian will ever be extradited to Israel. A decision has been made to this effect, and it is inconceivable to think that such a thing would ever happen." - PA "moderate" Hanan Ashwari, confirming the PA's intention to violate a key Oslo obligation (Voice of Palestine, quoted by Arutz 7, Aug 14)

"As a Palestinian police officer, I will not hesitate to give my gun to anyone who approaches me and tells me he is going to commit an attack against the army or the settlers. I will even kiss the gun before and after the operation." - a P.L.O. recruit from Ramallah for the Palestinian police (Iton Yerushalayim, 10 December 1993)

"We expect the Israelis to give us back these holy places... We believe in freedom of religion. But Jews won't have rights there because these are our places." - Hasan Tahboub, head of the P.L.O.-backed Supreme Muslim Council (The Jerusalem Report, 16 December 1993)

"The intifada will continue, as will the carrying of weapons in the territories and outside of them." - Farouk Qaddumi, head of the P.L.O.'s Political Department, in a speech at a ceremony marking the closing of the P.L.O.'s radio station in Algiers (Yediot Aharonot, 10 August 1994)

"Our enemy is a lowly enemy. The Palestinian people know there is a state that was established through coercion and it must be destroyed. This is the Palestinian way." - Farouk Qaddumi, head of the P.L.O.'s Political Department, in a speech at a ceremony marking the closing of the P.L.O.'s radio station in Algiers (Reuters, 10 August 1994; Yediot Aharonot, 10 August 1994)

They will fight for Allah, and they will kill and be killed, and this is a solemn oath. . . . Our blood is cheap compared with the cause which has brought us together and which at moments separated us, but shortly we will meet again in heaven. . . . Palestine is our land and Jerusalem is our capital. - Yasser Arafat, from Arafat and the Uses of Terror, by Jonathan Torop, Commentary Magazine -- May 1997

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 11:46 AM

CarolC stated: "Perhaps they are only concerned with the land on which they were living when the independent state of Israel was formed, and not on the lands that have historically been called 'Palestinian' ".

CarolC, 80% of Palestine became Jordanian territory in 1923, not some distant time in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 11:52 AM

The US media is notoriously pro-Israeli, Celtic Soul, just like our government is. The mainstream US press merely acts as mouthpiece and megaphone for the Zionist lobby in Washington in this regard.

Now, that said, I read the Washington Post everyday. I do use it as a main source of US government propagandist reporting. What do I mean by that? I mean that I don't expect to read any legitimate criticism of US government policy in that newspaper, regardless of which political party is in power, or who the president is at any given time.

Occassionally, I am surprised to read fair and accurate reporting of events there, as elsewhere in our quasi-official government mainstream propaganda machine, but not often. Which is why I read around 10 newspapers a day, but only two of them from the US. I read newspapers/news websites in English from around the world nearly every day.

European reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, as a rule, more balanced. When trying to ascertain what is happening on the ground in the Middle East during times of crisis, I often go to more than 10 websites to get information from different perspectives. The best website I have found which presents the Palestinian view with clarity and integrity, is the Electronic Intifada website. Yes, it is one-sided--it is a quasi-official Palestinian Authority website which is every bit as accurate as anything I've seen in the Washington Post. It is also a very well maintained website with a high journalistic standards.

But for a view of the so-called "generous" Israeli offer from Barak, try reading the article in the following post, published about a year ago in UK paper The Guardian.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 11:52 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4170339,00.html

The real deal

Israel's view that Arafat missed a chance for peace under Barak is dangerously deluded

Special report: Israel and the Middle East

Ewen MacAskill Guardian

Saturday April 14, 2001

On the edge of Jerusalem, in a hollow in the hills, is a sad sight, the ruins of an abandoned Arab village. It has been empty since 1948, a victim of the conflict between Arabs and Israelis. It is a quiet spot. The stone is old, and the columns and curves belong to a very different architectural tradition from the red-roofed modern Israeli houses that surround it.

Today, there are new ruins. This week, the Israeli army bulldozed 30 homes, adding to the many already destroyed elsewhere in the Gaza Strip and on the West Bank. The Palestinians are paying a heavy price for the uprising they began in September: more than 370 dead and an economy destroyed.

The response of most Israeli liberals is to agree that the Palestinians are suffering but that the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, is to blame: he should have accepted the peace proposals put to him by the then Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, and the then US president, Bill Clinton, at Camp David last year and at Taba earlier this year. It is a view widely shared internationally, and one that the Israeli government is happy to project: that a generous deal was put on the table for Arafat and he missed the historic opportunity. The reality is that it may turn out to be Israel's missed opportunity.

There are two basic Israeli views of how to deal with its neighbour, the future state of Palestine. There is the liberal version put forward by the Israeli foreign minister, Shimon Peres, of an economically healthy Israel co-existing alongside an equally economically healthy Palestinian state. Together they could be at the centre of a revitalised Middle East.

Unfortunately, it is the other Israeli view that has long been dominant and is prevalent today: to have a weak, malleable Palestinian neighbour. Thomas Friedman, the New York Times journalist, writes in his account of his 10 years in the Middle East, From Beirut To Jerusalem, about how the Israelis have never quite managed to give up hopes of controlling all of biblical Israel, which includes the West Bank. That is what motivates the movement of Jewish settlers out into the Palestinian Wild West, the source of most of today's conflict.

Friedman and a host of other journalists and academics have recorded how Israeli politicians since the founding of the state in 1948 have talked peace while grabbing land. While Barak put seemingly generous offers on the table, Jewish settlers continued to expand into the West Bank, which they call by the biblical name, Judea and Samaria.

Demographic maps of the Middle East since 1948, the year Israel was founded, show a steady expansion of the Jewish population eastwards. Arab East Jerusalem today is being gradually surrounded by Jewish homes. Even within Jerusalem's Old City, Israelis are spreading into Arab neighbourhoods.

A Palestinian this week, spotting for the first time new Jewish houses on the outskirts of Jerusalem, said: "It is like a magic wand. You go away for a few weeks and then suddenly there is a whole new place." The Israeli government, supposedly committed to no new settlements, announced this week a further 700 new houses. The Israeli government finds it easy to keep to its commitment to build no new settlements: because there are so many already on the West Bank, all it has to do is just keep expanding existing ones.

It is against this background that Barak's "generous" deal should be seen. The Israelis portrayed it as the Palestinians receiving 96% of the West Bank. But the figure is misleading. The Israelis did not include parts of the West Bank they had already appropriated.

The Palestine that would have emerged from such a settlement would not have been viable. It would have been in about half-a-dozen chunks, with huge Jewish settlements in between - a Middle East Bantustan. The Israeli army would also have retained the proposed Palestinian state's eastern border, the Jordan valley, for six to 10 years and, more significantly, another strip along the Dead Sea coast for an unspecified period: so much for being an independent state.

Israel could afford to be magnanimous in terms of territory, given the amount it has gained over the last century at the expense of the Palestinians, many of whom fled or abandoned their homes for Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and elsewhere.

Compromises were discussed at Camp David and Taba on the right of return of the 3.5m Palestinian refugees, but nothing that Arafat could take away to sell to his own people. In spite of the protestations of Israeli liberals such as Amos Oz that to allow back 3.5m Palestinians would be suicidal for Israel, a solution was possible. The Israeli view that 3.5m Palestinian refugees would flood into Israel is a nonsense. What the Palestinians are looking for is something akin to an apology from the Israelis for taking their land. Israel could allow a few hundred thousand back and pay - or get the US or Japan or Europe to pay - compensation to the remainder, most of whom would stay where they now live.

One proposal on the table was for a land swap: the Palestinians would get part of Israel proper next to the West Bank in return for Israel taking part of the West Bank. Arafat could have taken this deal to the refugees and said: "Look, you are going back to Israel, as I promised." Barak could just as easily have said: "Look, it is no longer Israel but the West Bank." Solutions were possible, but in the end Barak would not give on the right of return.

A genuinely generous offer by Barak might have secured peace. That was the missed historic opportunity. If Israel had been more magnanimous at Camp David, it could have had the greater prize of long-term stability.

There is a huge danger attached to the Israeli view that Arafat spurned a great offer. Accepting this version perpetuates the Israeli myth that the Palestinians will not be happy until the Jews are pushed back into the sea and that the West Bank and Gaza are full of gunmen and bombers intent on making that happen.

There are such people - but most Palestinians are interested less in the destruction of Israel than in establishing a proper Palestinian state. Most are as exercised about the poor quality of the leadership round Arafat and about the endemic corruption and lack of democracy in their own society as they are about Israel. What they want is for the Israeli army to go home and to take the Jewish settlers with them. There will be no peace until that happens.

Nothing in the career of the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, suggests he will do that. Instead, he will continue with the subjugation of the Palestinians and grabbing more of their land. The only safe bet is that there are going to be a lot more Palestinian ruins.

Ewen MacAskill is the Guardian's diplomatic editor [e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 12:23 PM

Apologies, I meant to include the web address for Electronic Intifada in the above post:

http://electronicintifada.net/

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 12:25 PM

After WWI, the Middle East was aportioned to the West. The Ottoman Empire sided with the Germans, and when the Turks lost, France got Lebanon and Syria, and England got what is now Israel, Jordan, and the West Bank.

In In 1923, the British divided Palestine into two administrative districts. Jews would be west of the Jordan river. The land east of the Jordan was aportioned to the Arabs of the area. This became the Arab Palestinian Nation of Trans-Jordan in 1946. For the Palestinian Arabs, this was to be their Arab Palestinian homeland (out from under British rule). The remaining 25% of Palestine west of the Jordan River was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland. Many of these Jews had either been there throughout the history of that area, or had come in the late 1800's to the early 1900's. They too had a vested interest in becoming a nation...no less so than the Arabs of the area.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 12:48 PM

Celtic Soul, the part you seem to be missing totally is that Palestine was not Europe's to divide and reward to ANYONE.

The land was stolen from the Palestinians by the Europeans, and given to the Zionists. They even sold some of the land to the Zionists.

I think you need to learn how to study history. Only then can you know how to interpret it.

Stop listening to the religious right, and surfing the web for info/sites to bolster your patheticly ignorant opinions in on-line discussion forums. You aren't interested in anything more than scoring points in front of your Mudcat buddies. The issues being discussed here are very serious. You aren't. You are just another American right wing armchair fanatic from the lunatic religious fringe.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 02:00 PM

"Palestine" was ruled by the Ottoman Empire (Turks) from 1517 to 1917. "Palestine" included Arab-Palestinians and Jewish-Palestinians both. Neither of these very distinct cultures had self rule in the last 400 years, yet both occupied the territory. 20% of the land was aportioned to the Jewish-Palestinians, and 80% went to the Arab-Palestinians (for good or for ill) in 1923, regardless of whether England had a right to decide what happened with the land or no. Who then should have decided which of the indigenous cultures should assume control of the area? How was that to happen when Britain finally left? Should they perhaps just have pulled out and left those living in the area to duke it out for themselves?

GUEST, are you saying that none of this is correct? Cite your examples.

I still see no reason to sling insults. If your argument is compelling, state your facts and simply allow them to speak for themselves. Insults never taught anyone anything. All they ever do is shut people down to your point of view, making it so that the information is tossed out like baby with the dirty bathwater.

I would also add that I am, at least, posting with a name attached. With a little checking, anyone would be able to match it with my actual identity. I find your brand of attack cowardly in the extreme. You hide behind your anonymity, and so you risk nothing at all and can take whatever jabs you wish.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 02:47 PM

Celtic Soul, I stand by what I said about you and your opinions. You have shown us where you are drawing your information from--wholly uncredible sources.

I'm done discussing the subject with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 03:59 PM

Guest, CS is right. This is a worthwhile discussion, and the article you pasted is a persuasive one, but you do a disservice to your own point of view by using insults and personal attacks against CS.

Looking forward to rational discussion on this topic,

LEJ

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 04:15 PM

LEJ--

A quick look at the other threads dealing with this subject are already showing that the time for worthwhile, rational discussion is over. It happens every time.

When the loonies and hysterics begin to dominate the threads is precisely when I pull out of the discussion, because no meaningful discussion can then take place.

Of course, people are free to carry on conversations with loonies and hysterics--it is, after all, the internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 04:59 PM

Perhaps Sally Struthers can help Celtic Soul!

http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/reactionary/index.asp

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 05:39 PM

Thanks LEJ, and yes, I am listening...

I find it tremendously interesting that GUEST somehow thinks he/she knows me so well from one opinion, and seems to think he/she knows every source from whence said single opinion originates.

For the record: I am currently a Christian, and am living with (as in, not married to) a Pagan man. My fiance finds it terribly amusing that I have been dubbed a right wing extremist and a religious fanatic. I am pro-choice and have participated in many pro-choice marches in DC though I am against late term abortion. I have participated in many gay rights marches in DC. I am a feminist, and believe women should have the right to participate in front line efforts during war if that is their desire. I voted for: Carter, Dukakis, Perot, and Nader. I was just down in Silver Spring visiting with one of my sisters and her family. Her Husband is staunchly fundamentalist Christian, and very conservative. Bemusedly, I mentioned this thread. His response was "You??? Conservative?!? We wouldn't have you! You're a bleeding heart liberal".

As I see it, it's a little like living in the Mid- Atlantic states here in the US. If I travel to New England, I am told I am a "Southerner". When I travel to the South, I am told I am a "Yankee".

Politically, I am just as in the middle...a moderate. GUEST, you see an "American right wing armchair fanatic from the lunatic religious fringe" likely as your own beliefs are far left. As I said though, they wouldn't have me with my pro-choice, Pro gay rights, pro full rights for women in the military beliefs. You would also not know that I have called in to the very same religious radio station arguing passionately these very subjects with their hosts. When I think they're wrong, I tell them.

If you want to know *why* I believe what I believe, just ask. We all know the cliche about what happens when we "assume".

You can be done with it (me) if you like, GUEST, that is your choice. I will be done here when I am done. In the meantime, I am here to listen to the rational posters, and to post my own thoughts. Much as you may not think this so, I am open to hearing others points of view, thoughts, and proofs, and I am willing to change my point of view if the facts warrant it. So far, I have seen a great deal of quoting reporters. It is naive to think that *anyone* here on Mother earth is truly completely objective, even the reporters you think are dishing up the real deal.

Lastly, GUEST said: "The issues being discussed here are very serious. You aren't".

Do you honestly think that conversing in this musical forum about the Middle East is that serious? Things said and done here are not going to make or break the Middle East situation. A little *civil* discourse here, however, can amount to quite a lot in the knowledge and experience of those who read (myself included).

Again, if you would win anyone to your POV, insulting them is probably not the best way to begin.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 07:07 PM

GUEST, I have appreciated the contribution you have made to this discussion. Your posts have been much more effective than mine in presenting the other side of the debate. However, I have to agree with those who are telling you that you hurt your position when you use personal attacks.

And that's a shame, because I think the information you have posted to this thread is worth taking seriously, and I would like to see more of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Hussein Mutual Life
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 09:45 PM

Here's a post from McGrath of Harlow on another thread that provides support for some of the things I have asserted on this thread. I somehow seem to have missed it until now...

=/thread.cfm?threadid=45930&messages=146#681500

Here's the article that McGrath provided a link to on that thread...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4385572,00.html

And here's the article itself, written by Yossi Beilin, who was the Israeli Justice Minister in the government of Ehud Barak. troll, this is especially for you...

A different life is still possible, but it's slipping away

Yossi Beilin
Guardian

Tuesday April 2, 2002

The terrible terrorist events that have struck Israel on the Passover holiday have generated an understandable feeling that "something must be done". Not surprisingly, that has meant waging war on the Palestinian Authority.

Such a war can be justified in many ways, even beyond the natural desire to respond to acts of brutality. The second Palestinian intifada began in September 2000 against the backdrop of a viable political peace process, and it was not restrained by Yasser Arafat at its outbreak. Mass demonstrations were soon replaced by brutal acts of terrorism, some coming from groups closely connected with the Palestinian Authority and Mr Arafat.

But the job of the Israeli government is not merely to explain its actions. It is to ensure the safety of its citizens. A war with the Palestinian Authority would ensure exactly the opposite outcome.

It is easy for many Israelis to cling to the belief that the former prime minister, Ehud Barak, offered Mr Arafat "everything" while Mr Arafat answered him with the intifada. And indeed, Mr Barak did make a considerable peace offer in July 2000 at the Camp David summit. However, it must also be remembered that by December 2000, Mr Arafat had agreed to the Clinton peace plan, as had Mr Barak. Both men did so with reservations, and this act of compromise occurred at the height of the intifada.

But instead of accepting the successful talks that had taken place between Israel and the Palestinians at Taba in Egypt in January 2001 as a way towards a final settlement, Ariel Sharon decided, after being elected prime minister, to terminate the peace process.

He has never concealed his opinion that the Oslo process was wrong. So he brought it to an end with the help of Shimon Peres and the Labour party. First, he delegitimised the Palestinian Authority and Mr Arafat as its leader. He sought the destruction of the power centres of the Palestinian security system. And this Thursday, he essentially declared war on the Palestinian Authority with the intention of neutralising Mr Arafat.

Mr Arafat is apparently willing to achieve his national objectives either by peaceful means or by violence, just as when he showed up at a United Nations meeting in 1974 holding both a gun and an olive branch. During the Oslo process, he put down his gun and was prepared for se curity co-operation with Israel. When he became disillusioned, he was willing to pick up the gun again.

Each escalation of violence has fuelled the next. Mr Arafat's periodic instructions for a ceasefire were not unequivocal. But Mr Sharon did not accept Mr Arafat's cease-fire declaration of December 16 last year, which was largely implemented. He has rejected the Saudi initiative that promises normal relations with Israel in exchange for the withdrawal of Israel from the territories it occupied in 1967. And he seems to interpret the low American profile on the crisis so far as a green light for making war, just as he did in Lebanon 20 years ago.

The only way out of this crisis is for the two sides to agree to a ceasefire to be supervised by the United States, build on the Saudi initiative and use the help of the American mediator, General Anthony Zinni, to ensure that the Palestinian Authority's security forces are restored. Implementation of existing agreements and resumption of peace talks are essential.

The Israeli war against the terrorist infrastructure will give birth to more terrorists because the terrorist infrastructure lies within people's hearts. It can be uprooted only if there is hope for a different kind of life in the Middle East. I believe a different life is still possible, but each day that passes without some gesture by both sides toward that future makes peace ever more elusive.

·Yossi Beilin was justice minister in the government of Ehud Barak.