BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)

Subject: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 May 02 - 05:22 PM

Here's a part three to this thread, which was started by bert with the suggestion: ""How about some positive suggestions for peace in the Middle East. Regardless of which side you feel compelled to support, if you post to this thread you must have at least ONE positive suggestion that might bring about peace." "

And here is my positive suggestion. Set aside the arguments for a little, and listen to the music. Here is a link to a young Palestinian singer, with some fascinating and mp3 files and RealAudio streaming sound of her singing an playing. Here is a link to one of these.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 May 02 - 05:29 PM

That song link worked, but the link to kamilya jubran's site didn't. But I hope this post will rectify that.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: Sorcha
Date: 04 May 02 - 05:48 PM

Stop and think a moment about all the children...........

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: CarolC
Date: 04 May 02 - 06:11 PM

As my positive suggestion, I would like to second Sorcha's suggestion to think about all the children.

According to the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, during the period between Sept. 29, 2000, and April 28, 2002...

117 Israeli civilians were killed. Of those 117 -

14 of them were children

928 Palestinian civilians were killed. Of those 928 -

207 were children

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 May 02 - 07:45 PM

Here's a article about the father of Kamilya Jubrin, the singer I linked to above. He's a maker of traditional instruments as well as a singer - and the article has some fascinating stuff about that, including a bit about a guitar with quarter tones that he has developed to enable it to play Arabic music properly.

The Jubrin's are from one of the few Arab villages in Galilee that weren't physically destroyed in the 1948 war, and they didn't go into exile. Arabs in Israel could be a key factor in developing different style of resistance. (But the general strike that ended in 13 of them being killed by Israeli police in October 2000 demonstrates that that is not going to happen easily.)

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: Troll
Date: 05 May 02 - 02:34 AM

The following is the text of an e-mail that I sent to The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied territories.
"I was struck by the great number (207) of under-18's killed by the Israeli security forces during the time periods listed on your site. But it occurs to me that there is no table showing what the 207 minors were doing when they were killed. How many were engaged in violent confrontations with the security forces and how many were killed as the result of simple murder? A 16-year-old with a large stone or a gun is very different from a 10-year-old who is bothering no one. Do you have a break-down of this sort, and if so, will you make the figures available? The death of anyone is troubling, but sometimes knowledge of the circumstances surrounding a death can help to put it in a more comprehensible perspective.

Newbern W. Johnson"
I hope to get an answer that will clear up this question for me. I recall a similar list put out by The Committee to Control Handguns a few years ago. The figures were staggering. Then it was discovered that they were listing anyone under 18 years of age as a "child".
This was at the height of the drug turf wars in many of our major cities and the gangbangers were killing each other left and right. When the list was broken down to show who had been engaged in the commission of a felony at the time of death, the figures dropped dramatically.
While the untimely death of anyone is deplorable I don't feel that the deaths of those who have deliberately placed themselves in harms way should be given equal weight with those who have been coldly murdered even though them were no threat to anyones safety.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 May 02 - 12:52 PM

Well, from the figures on the site of the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights there's a figure for the number killed up from 1987 until the end of January 2002, with a breakdown by age. (That includes the first intifada). One hundred and one children aged 13 and under (out of 409 who were under the age of 17.)

I imagine quite a large proportion of them would have been throwing stones. Some would have had catapults or sling shots. There were a lot of terrible things done in Northern Ireland over the years, and a lot of stone throwing by children and youths, but few cases of children aged 13 and under being shot dead. I can't recall any other conflict where this has happened on this scale.

I don't believe that Israeli soldiers are more brutal than British soldiers, and I don't believe Palestinian kids are more reckless than Irish kids in the same circumstances.

There has to be some difference in the rules of engagement, so that it is expected of Israeli soldiers that they should shoot stone throwers in circumstances where the danger from the stone-throwers would not have been seen as justifying lethal fire if it had been Derry or Belfast, and regardless of such issues as age.

I think it would be a positive thing, consistent with this thread, to get some clearer idea of what the rules of engagement actually are in this conflict, and how they compare to those which have been in operations in analogous conflicts which have not had such a high child death toll.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: CarolC
Date: 05 May 02 - 02:11 PM

To the extent that any of them were killed for throwing stones, maybe it would also be constructive to find out in which countries of the world it is permitted for police or military personnel to use lethal force against people throwing stones.

I could be wrong but it seems to me that most democratic countries would make an effort to use some method other than lethal force against people throwing stones.

For instance, in Seattle while the WTO was having it's gathering there, protesters were doing things that were far more destructive than throwing stones, but I don't think the police were authorized to use lethal force to deal with that. So the question I would like to know the answer to is, when the Israeli police and military personnel have used lethal force because of stone throwing, what alternative methods did they use to try to deal with it before resorting to lethal force?

It might also be constructive to know to what extent the Israeli police and military forces stationed in the Palestinian occupied territories use lethal force, even if they are not authorized to do so.

I was watching an Israeli reserve officer being interviewed a couple of evenings ago. He said that he did use Palestinian civilians as human sheilds in Janin, and he authorized the soldiers under him to do it also. He said he did it because he felt that it was for a just cause. Using civilians as human sheilds is a war crime according to international law.

I'm guessing that the Israeli government doesn't officially authorize this practice. But it looks, from what I saw in that interview, as well as from some other things I've heard, like the police and military personnel have a certain amount of wiggle room with regards to this sort of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: CarolC
Date: 05 May 02 - 04:18 PM

Here's another statistic that I think is worth noting on the subject of having concern for the children...

This one coming, again, from the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights covering the period between Dec. 9, 1987 and the end of Jan. 2002...

Israeli children age 13 and under killed by Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories and in Israel -

10

Palestinian children age 13 and under killed by Israeli civilians in the occupied territories -

14

No figure is given for children age 13 and under killed by Israeli civilians in Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: CarolC
Date: 05 May 02 - 07:12 PM

Deda, in answer to your question about Palestinian peace organizations, here is another to add to the one that McGrath posted a link to...

Center for Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation

Unfortunately, the headquarters of this organization were destroyed by the Israeli military. See this story...

Noah's Story

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: Troll
Date: 06 May 02 - 12:18 AM

Carol and Kevin, thanks for those figures. I checked to he site for just such a breakdownand I don't know how I could have missed it. Obviously, I did. I'll check again.
Again, thanks.
As far as shooting stone throwers, Kevin, I have read -but don't recall where just now- that the Palestinians have sometimes used a three-layer formation in their demonstrations. The first layer are the stone throwers, usually the kids and teenagers. The second layer are older teenagers with grenades and/or other expolsives. The third layer are the adult fighters with automatic weapons.
I do not know that this is true, but based on the interviews conducted with the fighters in Jenin, where they had school kids with bombs in their book bags, I find it plausible. This would explain the disparity between the number of deaths in Northern Ireland and The West Bank.
The killing on both sides must stop. And it will probably take an outside party to do it by imposing borders and making them stick.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: CarolC
Date: 06 May 02 - 12:23 AM

The killing on both sides must stop. And it will probably take an outside party to do it by imposing borders and making them stick.

Amen, troll.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: Troll
Date: 06 May 02 - 12:39 AM

I just checked the B'TSELEM site and there the figures were, right under the totals. DUH!

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 May 02 - 05:32 AM

They might have been revising the site to bring it more up to date. When I looked they had the break down for the older period, but not for the more up-to-date figures.

All the shots I've seen of this kind of thing on TV have looked very much less organised than that system troll mentions. Very similar indeed to Northern Ireland, where similar suggestions have sometimes being made.

Maybe there seem to be more rocks lying about to throw, because of the nature of the country; and the range at which the firing is done by the soldiers seems a fair bit longer than it does in similar scenes in Ireland, with live bullets being used at a distance which is further than stone throwing range.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: CarolC
Date: 06 May 02 - 07:28 AM

I can't post a link to this for some reason. But I found it in the "Pick an Issue" drop down menu on this page. At the bottom of the page addressing the "open-fire regulations", there are also clickable links to the following subjects...

_____________

Provisions of the Open-Fire Regulations

Rubber-coated steel bullets - "rubber bullets"

Gunfire by undercover units

Statistics on Death during the al-Aqsa Intifada

Testimonies on Firing at Palestinian Vehicles Transporting Women in Labor to the Hospital, 24-25 February, 2002

_____________

So I guess I'll just post the contents of the open-fire regulations page and hope they don't get deleted...

The Open-Fire Regulations

Israeli Security forces in the Occupied Territories operate pursuant to Open-Fire Regulations, which limit the circumstances in which firing at persons is allowed. Despite these Regulations, from the beginning of the first intifada (9 December 1987) to the end of January 2002, Israeli security force killed 1,965 Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, the vast majority by gunfire. 409 of those killed were children under 17.

The principal reason for these deaths is the deliberate policy of allowing lethal gunfire in situations where soldiers are not in danger. Since gunfire can cause fatalities even governed by precise and detailed instructions, allowing Israeli security personnel to fire in non-life-threatening situations, makes it possible that innocent persons will be killed.

Several senior members of the defense establishment justified the high number of fatalities, primarily during the intifada, on the war that was being waged in the Occupied Territories, and claimed that the IDF acted appropriately. This argument is without substance. Israeli security secures who face Palestinian demonstrators and stone-throwers, and occasionally Palestinians hurling petrol bombs, serve a policing function. At those times, therefore, they are subject to international and Israeli rules of law enforcement.

Although the Open-Fire Regulations limit the cases in which security forces are allowed to fire their weapons, they have not prevented deaths and injuries to thousands of Palestinians. A major reason for this failure is that Israel did not develop or purchase non-lethal means to disperse demonstrations, even though the IDF has had to cope with Palestinian demonstrations for more than thirteen years. Countries from around the world have a wide variety of non-lethal means to disperse demonstrations, and tear-gas canisters and rubber-coated metal bullets (hereafter: rubber bullets) must not be the sole means used to disperse demonstrations.

The Israeli security forces in the Occupied Territories do not have a policy to intentionally kill and the Open-Fire Regulations are not intended for that purpose. However, although hundreds of Palestinians have been killed as a result of the Regulations, the Regulations have still not been amended. The lack of intent to kill does not reduce the defense establishment's culpability. Many Palestinians were killed by Israeli security force gunfire in compliance with regulations whose intent is not to kill. These cases cannot, therefore, be considered "exceptional," but are clear proof of the danger inherent in the Regulations and the need to amend them.

The defense establishment is not properly vigilant in ensuring that security forces comply with the Open-Fire Regulations. Soldiers who violate the Regulations are almost never prosecuted. Furthermore, during the current intifada, the IDF ceased its routine practice of opening investigations by the Military Investigations Unit in cases in which security forces killed Palestinians. To B'Tselem's knowledge, only in rare cases have measures been taken against security forces who violated the Regulations, causing the death of Palestinians. It is illogical that in all the other cases the soldiers were in a real and immediate life-threatening situation - the sole circumstance in which the Regulations allow shooting to kill. Despite this, in hundreds of cases of fatalities resulting from gunfire, no action was taken against the violators. The almost total lack of concern about violations of the Regulations gives a clear message to soldiers that these violations, which cause fatalities in numerous cases, are not so grave.

Following the IDF's redeployment, in the context of the Oslo Accords, from parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and Palestinian town centers, the number of Palestinians killed by Israeli security force fell sharply. The drop resulted from reduction in confrontations between Israeli security forces and the Palestinian civilian population, which was the primary cause of most fatalities and injuries to Palestinians. However, the quantitative improvement did not result from a qualitative change, and Israel did not amend its policy or the provisions of the Open-Fire Regulations. The results of the defense establishment's refusal to alter the policy are clearly apparent in the al-Aqsa intifada.

Media reports, statements of the IDF Spokesperson, testimonies given by soldiers to B'Tselem, and analysis of the manner in which security forces have dispersed demonstrations in the Occupied Territories indicate that several changes on the Open-Fire Regulations were made during the al-Aqsa intifada.

The Regulations now state, in part, that stone-throwing is "life threatening." This kind of expansion of the definition of "life threatening" is problematic. At a meeting that B'Tselem held with Col. Daniel Reisner, Reisner stated that the definition of "life threatening" is subjective. If so, it is unclear why soldiers must be instructed that stone throwing is life threatening. Since firing is always allowed in life-threatening situations, the change indicated that soldiers are allowed to fire in situations where the threat to life is not clear and immediate, or even where there is no threat to life at all. In effect, the directive allows the use of live fire where stones are being thrown, and not in a change of definition.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: GUEST,An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 06 May 02 - 01:25 PM

DougR: I dropped out of this thread some time ago when I realised how far our viewpoints diverged, since your idea of a positive suggestion was "let them all contine slaughtering each other and last one still standing is the winner". If we had a few hours to spare and could get together and share a few beers, I'm sure we could find some common ground, but this forum isn't amenable to that kind of meeting of minds.

I started out a few decades back very sympathetic to the Israelis, whom I saw as heroic underdogs, victims of one of the worst genocides in history, rebuilding a nation surrounded by hostile forces.

Now Sharon above all has come for me to be the incarnation of an arrogance tinged with racist disregard for the human dignity of Palestinians and the value of their lives. It started with his invasion of Lebanon (was that 1982 or thereabouts?) I still have a vivid recollection of a TV interview with an Israeli woman who was apparently a holocaust survivor saying of the Israeli soldiers "They're even tall and blond". That remark by a Jewish woman about her own people has caused me to explore just how far the parlallels extend. Sharon's role in Sabra and Shatila bears a more than passing resemblance to that of the German forces when they invaded the Baltic states and "stood by" while local "Christians" massacred their Jewish neighbours. His support for colonisation in the occupied territories (settlements)and call to Jews throughout the world to "return" to Israel show evident parallels to Hitler's "Lebensraum" and "Heim ins Reich" slogans. I don't suggest that Sharon has any exterminationist vision, but I would like to know just what he does see as the Final Solution of the Palestinian Question. It certainly seems to entail treating the Palestinians in some way as Untermenschen, corralled into an economically unviable bantustan (to switch analogies).

That outcome is the logical consequence of DougR's positive suggestion, and to me it is unacceptable.

Reverting to the Northern Ireland parallel which I have cited in the past, it seems to me that the first stage has to entail cooling the violence. Try to get from the Shakespeare to Chekhov stage.

The second involves building institutions which can be trusted. The situation in Palestine/Israel is much worse than Northern Ireland ever was (even Thatcher never bombed Dundalk, Shannon or Tralee), and some international mediation and continuing supervision is therefore essential. Unfortunately, since Israel is regarded as being in the US's back yard, and since Bush from the moment he took up office has been systematically dismantling any means of working towards the establishment of the rule of law in international relations, the UN is further than it ever was from being seen as a credible "enforcer" of a peace solution. But some international "force d'interposition" with genuine neutral credentials and both the military strength and political will to prevent further incursions is essential. That means a UN mandate which the US will not allow Israel this time to treat with contemmpt (ponder for a moment the US citing Iraq's refusal to accept UN inspections as a casus belli while simultaneously vetoing resolution after resolution regarding Israel and then acquiescing in Israel's contemptuous treatment of the aborted Jenin investigation). It would be unreasonable to expect Israel to disarm given the wider regional context, but the Palestinians need to feel sufficiently secure for their side not to have recourse to rearmament, so the international peace-keeping presence would be a long-term commitment.

The next stage has to be to allow politics and civil administration to develop once more in Palestine (the wanton destruction of the embryonic apparatus of public administration by the IDF extended to destroying school records and even the very prisons in which the Israelis wanted the Palestinians to detain people guilty of killing Israelis).

The following stage has to be to begin the twenty-year or more process of education to include giving each side an understanding of the other side's perception of their respective history. School textbooks and even classrom practice in both Palestine and Israel would need to be monitored by neutral experts (cf. Council of Europe reference in an earlier posting under my name Roger O'K)

In parallel it is obviously necessary to allow the economy to begin to develop again, and here too the Israelis unfortunately have to be supervised as they cannot be allowed to disrupt the Palestinian economy at will by arbitrary closure of border crossing-points. Some of the past remarks in this forum about the respective business acumen and educational standards of the Israeli and Palestininan people are unworthy and inappropriate. I have no doubt that, in a more normal environment, Palestine could be a thriving economy and this in itself would reduce the sense of grievance, the idleness and the frustration which are breeding-grounds for terrorism or even for the mere stone-throwing which has led, by escalating tit-for-tat responses on both sides, to the deaths of so many who, while not innocent, did not deserve to lose their lives.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: DougR
Date: 06 May 02 - 07:55 PM

I don't recall advocating that position, Guest, what I meant to convey was that in my opinion, the only way matters between Israel and Palestine will be resolved will be for there to be a war, and the victor will dictate the terms of peace. Please note: I don't favor that way of resolving it, but I don't see it being resolved by sitting down at a table to talk. If that way would work, it would have been resolved years ago. Carter tried, Clinton tried, and Bush is trying ...but.

I'll pose a question: the suicide bombings have ceased. Why do you think they have stopped (even if only temporarily)?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 May 02 - 08:47 PM

Well, I hope the lull in suicide bombings is because people who would have been suicide bombers or would have assisted them and encouraged them might have decided its not a good idea, and that they will turn to more effective methods which don't involve carrying out atrocities.

But I have a horrible feeling it might be just because there's been so much going on that it's been a lot harder to do, and there've been other targets closer at hand. In which case it's likely to start all over again, but with the number of potential volunteers for it probably enormously higher.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: GUEST,An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 07 May 02 - 07:10 AM

DougR: the caveat "(even if only temporarily)" in your question says it all. And unfortunately, when the bombings resume, they will be driven by an even greater sense of resentment on the Palestinian side, and even more innocent people - Israelis but probably also US citizens - will be killed. I think McGrath of Harlow is unfortunately right in his pessimistic scenario. The overwhelming imbalance in military means is one of the things which drive the Palestinians to such desperate remedies. That imbalance is due to unconditional US support for Israel based on geopolitical attitudes which are simply neocolonial, compounded by Bush's childish manicheanism, and the US's close identification with Israel (and paradoxically with the repressive, undemocratic Saudi régime) makes the an ever-more-likely target for terrorist attacks.

Just like Northern Ireland, it's a war which neither side can win. Even if Sharon's forces did the unthinkable and massacred everyone in the camps which they recently invaded, there are enough Palestinians scattered throughout the Middle East and the wider world to continue the fight.

The solution has to come sooner or later through negotiation, recognition of wrongs done on both sides, a commitment to non-violent means for the future and international guarantees and a presence on the ground to secure the peace. There was a UN force in Southern Lebanon when Sharon launched his all-out attack without Israeli government approval, but because of gross underfunding (inter alia due to the US's shameful refusal to pay its UN dues) that force was scarcely even able to record the serial markings of all the vehicles transporting the invading Israeli force, never mind do anything to deter it.

Peace has come about not just in Northern Ireland but in South Africa and elsewhere. Since people are going to end up talking to each other, the sooner they do so and the fewer people who get killed in the meantime the better.

One of the differences between the US's role in the Middle East and its role in Northern Ireland was precisely the fact that the US had no selfish strategic interest in NI. Thanks to a long-term diplomatic effort by the Irish government and the support of Jean Kennedy Smith, instinctive Irish-American diaspora support for "the armed struggle" was redirected towards support for a negotiated political solution and renunciation of violence. It can be done. It requires honesty, objectivity, boundless patience and perseverance. In the absence of adequately constituted and funded international institutions, it also helps if you have someone intelligent in the Oval Office.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: Troll
Date: 07 May 02 - 12:56 PM

GUEST,An Pluiméir Ceolmhar, I would apreciate it if you would clarify what you mean by "Bush's childish manicheanism".
According to my dictionary, Manicheanism was/is a doctrine that states that "man's soul sprung from the Kingdom of Light, seeks escape from the Kingdom of Darkness."
I can see no connection between Bush, Manicheanism and the current Middle-East situation. Enlightenment is in order.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: DougR
Date: 07 May 02 - 01:07 PM

Aw troll, you're probably not looking in a French dictionary! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 May 02 - 01:29 PM

Manicheanism colloquially (in places where it is used colloquially, which may not be all that many) means seeing things in stark black and white - which is not how the world is.

The basic historic Manichean doctrine is that there is a principle of good (call it God) and a principle of evil (call it the Devil), and they are equal and equally eternal. But it's not got all that much to do with the way the term tends to be used.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: Troll
Date: 07 May 02 - 01:35 PM

Thank you Kevin. In that context, the phrase makes more sense.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: CarolC
Date: 08 May 02 - 11:33 AM

Well here's an interesting site. It's by an organization called Jews for Justice in the Middle East. It looks pretty reputable to me.

My positive suggestion for peace in the middle east would be for everybody to read it. All of it. Very carefully. Two or three times, maybe.

http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: GUEST,An Pluiméir Ceomhar
Date: 08 May 02 - 12:43 PM

McGrath got there before me.

In colloquial usage, "Manicheanism" refers to a simple mindset which divides perceived reality into black-and white terms, and particularly the tendency to see people as either the good guys or the bad guys.

With due respect to Joe Offer's request that we should exercise some charity, I honestly don't think Bush is up to the job. When I watched his first press conference after he took up office, I had that uncomfortable, embarrassed feeling that you get when you're interviewing a candidate (for a job, at an oral exam or whatever), and after about one and a half questions you realise that they're hopelessly inadequate, so you try to rescue them from their awkward situation by asking them easier and easier questions to string out the interview long enough to avoid compounding the embarrassment. Then they can't even answer the easy questions and you begin to despair... I don't think I ever saw a US president get an easier ride, and he was still pathetic.

Bush's manicheanism is the new McCarthyism: the world is divided into good guys and terrorists (the latter being by defininition un-American). Sharon hasn't even had to exert himself to convince Bush that the Palestinians are the bad guys, since they murder people using suicide bombs rather than US-supplied F-16s, Apache helicopters and M-16s. He demands extradition of the murderers of the rather nasty individual whom, in a supremely cynical gesture, he had appointed Minister for Tourism. But I don't see him offering to extradite the numerous Israeli agents who have murdererd various Palestinian faction leaders and other enemies of Israel who have been killed without any judicial process, not even the kangaroo court which Arafat organised recently to placate Sharon.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 May 02 - 02:29 PM

"You try to rescue them from their awkward situation by asking them easier and easier questions to string out the interview long enough to avoid compounding the embarrassment"

You must be a nice guy Pluiméir. I get the feeling with the journalist involved in that kind of work are not supposed to be too nice guys. I doubt if it would be those kind of feelings that would be operating if they decided to pull their punches.

A mlore likely reason would be that they might be worried that, if they were seem as the guys who humiliated the President it might get them into various kinds of trouble back at the ofice, or in their future ability to do the job. ("Guys" denotes women as well as men here.)

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: DougR
Date: 08 May 02 - 06:17 PM

GUEST APC: That's the basis for your criticism of Bush? The way he handled his first press conference?

I see.

I agree that the world is composed of good guys and bad guys. Are you suggesting that the world is composed of: good guys, bad guys, guys who are part good, part bad guys? Isn't that a bit like being half pregnant?

We are talking terrorists here. There are people who are terrorists and there are people who are NOT terrorists. Who, Guest, do you think are the good guys?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 May 02 - 07:10 PM

"Are you suggesting that the world is composed of: good guys, bad guys, guys who are part good, part bad guys?"

Well of course it is. Does anybody really believe otherwise?

When it comes to terrorists, when Osama Bin Laden was fighting the Russians he was doing terrorist stuff, but presumably he was seen as something of a good guy. Then there were the Contras of course.

As for state terrorism, Saddam Hussein was just the same as he is now, and had already gassed thousands of Kurdish Iraqis at the time when he was seen as the man to back in the war with Iran. And there was Pinochet, his agents even set off bombs that killed people in Washington, but he was still seen as a relatively good guy.

When it comes to fanatical fundamentalist regimes which oppress women and chop people's hands off and have public executions of people who offend against public morality by adultery or homosexuality, there's a distinction seen between the Taliban and the Saudi Arabian regime.

What it comes down to is the good guys include some pretty unpleasant guys, as is always the case. The bad guys probably include some people who would make much more plausible good guys, if things were set up differently. Those kinds of issues aren't too relevant when it comes to deciding whether to back them or not.

If it was some other government that wasn't seen as friendly, and it was doing the same things as Sharon, for the same reasons, there is little doubt it would be classed as part of that axis of evil.

That's just how it is. It's the way all governments play it, really. Except that in some cases they are more likely to admit that they are being pragmatic and cynical, and making the best of a bad job.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in the Middle East (3)
From: Troll
Date: 08 May 02 - 11:46 PM

Well said, Kevin.

troll