BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?

Subject: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: Lanfranc
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 05:33 AM

Ever since 9/11 I have been haunted by the thought that the US Government, and all those who have fallen into line behind them, has chosen to attack the symptoms of Arab and Islamic fundamentalism rather than address the disease itself.

An article in last night's London Evening Standard crystallised this in my mind, and I feel that it is worth sharing with the Mudcat community. AN Wilson 10/2/03

The problem in the Middle East is not only Saddam Hussein, it is also, maybe even primarily, Israel. An even-handed approach to both Israel and Iraq would have much more credibility.

Not that I am suggesting waging war on Israel any more than on Iraq, but one set of rules for those with a powerful lobby within the US and another for those who haven't is the sheerest hypocricy!

Lest anyone construe this as anti-semitism, remember that the Arabs and Palestinians are Semites, too!

Isn't the traditional site of Armageddon in Iraq somewhere?

Peace will never be achieved the way our leaders are taking us. Nor will security - not for anyone's homeland!

Alan

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: Lyndi-loo
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 09:09 AM

Oh Dear. I think you're going to start some furious arguments with this one, but I think the article is dead right although most people would be not admit it out loud for fear of being accused of Anti Semitism

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: Beccy
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 09:13 AM

Unreal. Simply unreal. Wanna parse words such as anti-semitism? Okay, how about "You're anti-Israel."

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 09:19 AM

Nothing wrong with being anti-Israel in the same sense that many have been described as being anti-American. Ie in the sense that we disagree and protest about the way the governments of those countries are handling their particular crises.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: GUEST,vince
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 09:31 AM

Once again, as a consequence of the west's blatant hypocrisy, and double standards supported by some media apologists, thousands of innocent Iraqui men, women and (worst of all) children may pay the price with their blood.   

If it is to be that those viewed as being potential suppliers of weapons of mass destruction to real or potential terrorists, are an 'axis of evil' to be punished, then I would suggest there are quite a few politicians and business people (especially in the arms trade) in the western 'democracies', especially America, who would qualify and should be brought to justice!

The causes of the up-serge in terrorist activity over the years are long-standing. The west, especially the US, needs to positively address the causes, especially the Israel/Palestine conflict, rather than react, usually counter-productively, to the inevitable effects.

If the UN is not indeed to be considered irrelevant, the US must agree to the urgent implementation of UN resolutions insisting that Israel withdraws to its original borders and stop occupying arab land. Only then can real peace negotiations with the Palestinians begin, if there is the will, and put an end to the suicide bombings. That is not anti-israeli, it is a way to real peace.

The west must start accepting responsibility for past actions and grave misdeeds. If this does not happen the situation will get a lot worse and we may eventually find Mr Hoon implementing his crazy, mindless threat to use nuclear weapons!.

As the saying goes - you reap what you sow! Its time someone had the guts to start sowing the seeds of real justice, peace and reconciliation (naive tho that may sound).

Or perhaps peace and reconciliation just 'aint god-damn profitable enough'??

P.S. It's also time the Labour Party re-gained control of its leader or (preferably) replaced him ASAP!

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: GUEST,Vince
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 10:26 AM

Sorry, got a bit drawn in there. I'll try and stick to music in future

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 11:29 AM

Beccy, have a look around this site. B'Tselem is an organization made up of Israeli Jews, and is in no way anti-Israel:

B'Tselem

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: Lanfranc
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 11:43 AM

Two errors I will admit to - one in spelling (Hypocricy sb hypocrisy), one grammatical (has instead of have in the first sentence).

However, to be anti-Israel is not the same as to be anti-semitic, although it is politically convenient for Israel and her apologists to insist that it is.

Like many others, I feel powerless to stop the current relentless headlong rush to a war the consequences of which can only be guessed at, and this sometimes makes me almost incoherent with frustration. My sense of right and justice is not impaired, so far as I can tell.

"The lies and the greed of the leaders of men,
Those fools who would lead us to war again."
(Alex Campbell - "So Long")

Alan

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 12:47 PM

I have a question. From the link: Which country has seized the sovereign territory of other nations by military force, which it continues to hold in defiance of UN resolutions? Answer: Israel.

Isn't it true that Israel 'seized' the territory in the course of war that its neighbors initiated?

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 12:59 PM

No, Ebbie. That is not the case. Israel "seized" the territory in the course of a war that it started with a "pre-emptive strike" against its neighbors.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: Beccy
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 01:11 PM

Actually, Ebbie... you are correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 01:14 PM

No, Beccy. She is not correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 01:16 PM

Is so. Is not. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: Beccy
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 01:20 PM

I know you are but what am I?

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 01:25 PM

Here you go, Beccy...

THE ARAB DEFEAT OF JUNE 1967 & ITS CONSEQUENCES

From the URL, I gather that this document is from Stanford University. Presumably their history department. I note, in particular, this bit: "June 5-- Israeli preemptive strike against Egypt".

This information is hardly a secret.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 05:31 PM

It was a preemptive strike, ladies, but it was made at a time when the forces of Egypt's armored battalions were lining up on the border of Israel seemingly about to make a massive move, and under the circumstances, the Israelis felt the premptive strike was a life-or-death decision, since they were so extremely outclassed in numbers and firepower. That they not only survived but won is entriely due to their use of tactical surprise, and perhaps more "inspired" tactics. There was definite provication, just none that qualified as a legal act of war yet. In terms of ground truth they did what they had to do to survive under what seemed to be an extreme threat.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 06:22 PM

That assertion is not undisputed, Amos.

Here's what the organization, Jews for Justice in the Middle East, has to say about that, mostly based on quotes from Israeli leaders:

The 1967 War...

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 06:41 PM

Boy, it seems like years ago that their was a level of optimism with the Saudi Proposal (similar to Senator Mitchell's Proposal) which would have provided framework for peace in the Middle East. On another thread Teribus has been saying that it wouldn't have worked but I still contend the it was never given a chance to work.

The Bush administration made not one positive effort to lend so much as one single ounce of support for a process that, in my opinion, would have our woprld a much safer place today. Instead of support, the Bush administration from Day One did all in its power to discredit it.

It is becoming more and more apparent by the day that Sharon and Bush are one of the same in their philosophies on how to bring peace. Both, unfortunately, have come to the ill-conclusion that the only way to create peace is with war. Hmmmmmmm?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 07:27 PM

The first steps necessary for peace in Israel must include preventing suicide bombings. This is because the Israelis, having an elected government, will not allow their leaders to make concessions without prior assurance of results. They've tried it before, and it didn't work. While i normally do not approve of the near-totalitarian leadership of the Palestinians, it does have the advantage that the Palestinian president can take action with less fear of political reprisal should a good-faith attempt fail. The only concession that can easily be made by the Israeli government is the cessation of further settlement.

As far as the validity of Israel's claims to self-defense is concerned, it may very well be the case that some Israeli commanders did not consider the Six-Day War a preemptive strike. It cannot, however, be argued that either the War of Independence, in which West Jerusalem was taken, or the Yom Kippur War, in which much of the Golan Heights was captured, were anything but wars of Arab aggression. The rightful ownership of the land is irrelevant, what is important is who must control which parcels of territory in order to create peace. Israel will only agree to peace if it can be secure, and will not surrender Jerusalem. It seems unlikely that the Palestinians will be content without independence, but it is not certain that they will be content with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 07:42 PM

This is because the Israelis, having an elected government, will not allow their leaders to make concessions without prior assurance of results. They've tried it before, and it didn't work.

This is not true. It has never been tried.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 07:50 PM

If independence means living where they are *told*, doing as they are *told* then Palestinians will not accept this anymore than any people who are coraled into camps. The Jews and the world did not find it acceptable in Germany and the idea of large concentration camps is not a solution today.

Like any people who have been under siege and have suffered physically and emotionally for so long, the Palestianins will need lots of aid to get up-and-running as a productive neighbor. If we think of nation building here, rather than opression or incarceration, then we are making a necessary first step toward ending an environment where kids are willing to sta[ bombs on themselves and become killers.

But, and this is the first time I have said this in my many post on this subject, Isreal is the one that has the most re-thinking to do unless it is willing to just kill every Palestinian.

Like I said, the framework was in place and those who could have supported it and wouldn't were the ones with the greatest firepower and thirst for blood and revenge.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 08:11 PM

Here's what Jews for Justice in the Middle East has to say about the War of Independence.

This article by the BBC gives information about the Yom Kippur War. It says:

"Unable to regain the territory they had lost in 1967 by diplomatic means, Egypt and Syria launched major offensives against Israel on the Jewish festival of the Day of Atonement or Yom Kippur. The clashes are also known as the Ramadan war.

So in the case of the War of Independance, your assertion, GUEST, Forum Lurker, is not undisputed. In the case of the Yom Kippur War, things weren't quite as black and white as you make them out to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 10:25 AM

Historically it should be remembered that according to the Sykes-Picot plan - "The Balfour Declaration", there was never meant to be a State of Israel. Never-the-less a State of Israel was declared, it was supported by the United States of America, and it was recognised by the United Nations.

Bobert says above:

"...this is the first time I have said this in my many post on this subject, Isreal is the one that has the most re-thinking to do unless it is willing to just kill every Palestinian."

Really? I'd venture the opinion that there are at least two sides in this situation.

In another thread, in which Bobert put the same slant on the situation, I pointed out to him the realities of the situation. I will repeat them below, read them and see if you agree with Bobert's statement regarding Israel quoted above.

PLO (Yassir Arrafat) rejected the Mitchell and Saudi proposals. As a political leader he was in a position to advance the cause of the Palestinian people but totally lacked the political courage to carry it through. Why? because to make any concession would appear to be acceptance of defeat and he and the PLO would be replaced with a more hard-line leadership.

Hamas - Had Palestinian elections been held they would now speak for the Palestinian people. Their sole aim is the destruction of the state of Israel - no compromise on that stance whatsoever. They too rejected the Mitchell and Saudi proposals. They are funded by the Ba'athist regimes of Syria and Iraq.

Israel - Rejected the same proposals conditionally. The Israeli conditions, a halt to terrorist attacks and recognition of the right of the state of Israel to exist.

And - <<"Israel is the one that has the most re-thinking to do!!!">>

Give me a break!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 10:35 PM

Why? because to make any concession would appear to be acceptance of defeat and he and the PLO would be replaced with a more hard-line leadership.

This is incorrect. Arafat has made many, many more concessions than Israel has ever offered.

I will post some background for this when I get home. I'm out of town for a few days and my internet time is very limited.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 10:54 PM

as someone said on the boob tube today, "this is a case of both sides being right"...and I would add, of both being wrong.

**BOTH** the Israelis and the Palestinians are guilty of doing things to prolong this mess, and neither is about to back down...Ariel Sharon sure wont, and the militant Palestinians wouldn't even if Arafat told them to.

There are only two solutions :
1) share one country in peace, allowing everyone to worship and work in freedom (yeah, right!)
2) fight until one side pretty well annihilates the other. (lovely, hmmm?)

isn't righteousness interesting?

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 11:29 PM

Boy, I'd love to see the world as Teribus for just one minute! Waht a dreamer....

T does T's thing of that copy and paste and thinks that the entire world will drop to it's knees in marvel and wonderment...

Forget it!

T is confused!

T says the Hamas is a major power broker in the deal. Wrong!

Hams may be the radical wing of the Palestinians but if the Bush administration were to actually *engage* the PLO, then Hamas becomes a lesser player...

T says that Arrafat rejected the proposal. Well, what choice did he have with the Bush administration huffin 'n puffin about how terrible the propoasal was. Hmmmmmm # 764937636!

So it comes down to Sharon? Hahahahahaha. Waht a joke!!!

And so T goes about thinking that the Saudi Propoasl had a shot? Yeah, right, T, and so did Al Gore in Bush's Kangaroo Supreme Court>

Do you really believe yourself, T? 'Cause if you do then I'm real worried about you....

Wanta buy a bridge?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocricy Rules - OK?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 02:41 AM

Bobert,

Regarding Hamas, at no time did I ever say that Hamas was a major power broker in the deal - They are however a major factor - and if you deny that Bobert you are flying in the face of reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 11:29 AM

CarolC, you seem to have forgotten about Ehud Barak's offer, which granted 98% of the territory Arafat had asked for. Arafat refused, and Barak was voted out of office. The Labor Party did try offering concessions, and it got the Likud candidate elected.

As to the War of Independence, you will note that your source said that the Arab states joined the war immediately following the declaration of independence. I cannot imagine any clearer case of self-defense than when a country is attacked immediately upon coming into existence, by leaders whose stated goals included the destruction of said country.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 11:38 AM

Forum Lurker, the myth of that generous offer if still going strong I see. From what I have read, although percentage wise it could be seen as generous, when you looked at the details, it showed the territory being offered was carved up into smaller areas with Israel getting corridors inbetween which controlled access to water etc.

If I've got time I'll see if I can find a source.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 11:45 AM

Forum Lurker, you are incorrect. But I don't have time to post documentation right now. I'll post it when I get home. Suffice it to say, Barak's offer was incredibly generous to the Israelis, but it was entirely unworkable for the Palestinians.

I'll have a look at what you're saying about the War of Independence when I get home and respond to that then.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 11:46 AM

This was just the first website I came up with and I have only skim read it but it seems to be similar to what I have read before.

Click here

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 11:55 AM

Link

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: Lanfranc
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 06:28 PM

Another article on the same subject from today's Observer

One Rule for Iraq, Another for Israel

Alan

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 10:31 PM

I have never denied that Israel seeks to maintain a certain amount of control over Palestine. From the official point of view, such control is necessary to protect the Israeli people. I would love to know how you think the Israelis can be safe from terrorists when the apparatus of Palestinian government is inextricably linked with the apparatus of terrorism. I will also admit that the Sharon administration probably seeks control as much for retaliation as for security; the settlement policy still in effect makes that plain. The problem is that, should Israel grant the Palestinians full independence, they will be unable to protect themselves from terrorists by any means short of total isolation. Unless the Palestinian government can show itself capable and willing to prevent terrorists from operating in their country, there can be no independent Palestine.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 06:42 PM

The problem is that, should Israel grant the Palestinians full independence, they will be unable to protect themselves from terrorists by any means short of total isolation. Unless the Palestinian government can show itself capable and willing to prevent terrorists from operating in their country, there can be no independent Palestine.

This has already been proven to be untrue. I've just got back home from a long trip and I'm a bit tired. I'll track down the pertinent links for you some time in the next day or two.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 07:50 PM

More on "Barak's generous offer" to add to what Bagpuss has posted:

Gush Shalom

Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors

And this from the Washington Post...

"Though Arafat in the weeks before the summit had been looking for the Israelis to carry out their interim agreements before taking up a permanent settlement, he had agreed to go to Camp David on several conditions. One was that he would not be blamed for the possible failure of what he believed was a premature summit. Malley and Agha say Clinton volunteered that the United States would remain neutral in the case of a failure."

Clinton Exasperated With Barak During Peace Talks

Now, to address your assertions in your last post.

"We have a skeleton, we didn't complete the house. The Oslo agreement has had a rather short occasion to implement itself, and that was between 1993 and 1996. The Oslo agreement was stopped in 1996 when the government in Israel was changed and Mr. Netanyahu became the Prime Minister. I think that the foundations and the structure of Oslo are still the best ones available. And once we shall have an opportunity, we shall complete the building that may withstand the winds of the outside world, and the skepticism of the people."

--Shimon Peres, September 24, 2001

And according to Yitzhak Rabin, Arafat and the PLO were willing to work with him in stopping terrorism. (This was during the time when the Palestinians still had hope because they thought the Oslo agreement would be implemented)...

"In the last two years, not one Israeli has been killed by PLO terrorism," Rabin said. The real threat, he said, does not come from Israel's old adversaries - he pointedly included Syrian President Hafez al-Assad in the faded threat category - but from "the ugly wave of" Iranian-supported Islamic fundamentalism.

--Yitzhak Rabin

Re: the War of Independence. The site I posted a link to said the following (bolded emphasis is mine)...

""The armies of the Arab states entered the war immediately after the State of Israel was founded in May. Fighting continued, almost all of it within the territory assigned to the Palestinian state...About 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled in the 1948 conflict." Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

Was the part of Palestine assigned to a Jewish state in mortal danger from the Arab armies?

"The Arab League hastily called for its member countries to send regular army troops into Palestine. They were ordered to secure only the sections of Palestine given to the Arabs under the partition plan.""

Clearly, this shows that the Arab response was in self defence on their own soil, and that Israel was the aggressor in this case.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 08:44 PM

I think that if you look at actual battle lines, you will see that Arab troops repeatedly entered into the Israeli territories. If the official standpoint always agreed with what actually happened, we wouldn't be having this debate. And recall that Rabin was assassinated because of his willingness to compromise with the Palestinians. It still seems that Arafat must make the initial overtures, not necessarily out of any moral obligation, but simple recognition of the fact that, while his power base seems fairly stable, Israeli Prime Ministers have very little stability of support.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 08:44 PM

The paradox of it all is that if it weren't for the suicide bomber, Sharon would be sulking off in a corner somewhere. And if it weren't for Sharon the suicide bombers would be in school, and the people who promote their actions would be marginalised.

The extremists on the two sides feed off each other. I imagine that provoking retaliation is actually a prime factor from both sides when it comes to determining what to do next. Maybe in the end exhaustion will set in and people will realise what's happening.

Maybe it'll be better if Hamas takes over on the Palestinian side, and then at least the people organising the terror on the Palestinian side will at last be the Government, as well as on the Israeli side, and that might even make it easier in time to stop the feedback process.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 09:01 PM

No, I don't think that'll help any. Sharon will just launch a full scale military occupation like he's always wanted, instead of the current halfway phase. This, in turn, will greatly increase the Palestinians' hatred of Israel, leading to more attacks. These will be used as justification for even harsher measures, until either the Israelis try a Final Solution or the Palestinians go for a full insurrection, backed by all of the other Arab nations, sparking yet another Arab-Israeli war. Either way, it's not good.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 09:06 PM

Nothing's good in this situation. The most likely outcome in the short run is very likely the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and Israeli Arabs, and in the long run the destruction of Israel.

But miracles can happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 09:06 PM

I think that if you look at actual battle lines, you will see that Arab troops repeatedly entered into the Israeli territories.

Please provide documentation for this.

And recall that Rabin was assassinated because of his willingness to compromise with the Palestinians.

How can one forget that?

It still seems that Arafat must make the initial overtures, not necessarily out of any moral obligation, but simple recognition of the fact that, while his power base seems fairly stable, Israeli Prime Ministers have very little stability of support.

Arafat has made many overtures. Israel has reneged on all of the agreements it has made with the Palestinians.   Nothing constructive will happen in Israel/Palestine until Israel gives up it's agenda of permanently removing all of the Palestinians from Israel and the occupied territories, or until it succeeds in removing them (or killing them, or scaring them away, or by making their lives so bloody miserable, they'll leave on their own).

Of course, if it does succeed in getting rid of all of them, that will still not guarantee security for Israel, because there will always be people who will not be happy about this ethnic cleansing, and who might want to express their displeasure in ways that Israelis might not like. Israel just keeps digging itself deeper and deeper into a hole that it doesn't like being in at all. Not at all unlike what the US is doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 09:46 PM

I don't believe that the majority of Israelis wish to remove all Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza, though I don't know for certain. The largest steps that need to be taken are for Israel to remove its settlements and make a definite commitment to Palestinian independence. Unfortunately, it would take a Prime Minister of extroardinary charisma and commitment to get the Knesset to go along with this, and the last time one came along, he was shot. I don't think that Arafat has been as cooperative as you say he has; he seems to care more about his power and ideology than helping his people (the same is true of Sharon). You say that Israel keeps digging itself into a hole, which may be true; I don't see that they have much of a choice in some of their security measures, though. What do you think they ought to do to prevent suicide bombings, if not go after the terrorists?

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 09:51 PM

Well said, CarolC, and it would take either a moron or a highly polorized Repub. partisan to see it any other way.

I think it is well worth re-mentioning that a year ago there was a framework which would have brought the entire Middle East problems to the table. The Bush administration marginalized it, crticized it and crushed it. Their PR is absolutley fictional but,bootom line, Sharon and Bush killed the Saudi Proposal (Mitchell Proposal) with out working up a sweat.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 10:17 PM

I don't believe that the majority of Israelis wish to remove all Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza, though I don't know for certain.

I don't believe the majority of Israelis want this either. But like the people here in the US, Israelis appear to have been thoroughly brainwashed by their government about what their government has been doing in their country and in the rest of the world. The Israeli propaganda machine has as firm a grip on what information Israelis have access to as what we find to be the case here in the US.

And on top of that, Rabbis here in the US and in Israel are under tremendous pressure to toe the official line and to promote this misinformaion to their congregations. And on top of that, the Big Lie about Arafat "walking away from the best offer he could have been given by Barak because he 'doesn't want peace'" caused a lot of Israelis and Americans who were involved in the human rights organizations that were helping to promote a just peace in the middle east to become incredibly disillusioned with the whole peace process, and many abandoned it altogether.

Just like in the US, the Israeli government is keeping the population of Israel in ignorance of the true situation, and in fear, in order to be able to more easily promote its agendas in the region. Israelis and Americans are just as much prisoners as the Palestinians.

It's an incredibly difficult situation for everyone. But the truth is the only thing that will set everyone free. It worked in South Africa. It can work in the middle east as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 10:28 PM

What do you think they ought to do to prevent suicide bombings, if not go after the terrorists?

They need to honor the agreements that they have already made with the Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:03 PM

Do you really think that will be enough? I certainly think they should withdraw from the settlements, and I think that will reduce attacks, but I doubt it would put them at a level anyone could consider safe.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:12 PM

It worked pretty well before. I draw your attention, once again, to this quote from Yitzhak Rabin:

"In the last two years, not one Israeli has been killed by PLO terrorism," Rabin said. The real threat, he said, does not come from Israel's old adversaries - he pointedly included Syrian President Hafez al-Assad in the faded threat category - but from "the ugly wave of" Iranian-supported Islamic fundamentalism."

--Yitzhak Rabin

Perhaps you might find studying the process that South Africa underwent to get where it is today helpful in understanding how these things can work.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:14 PM

Excuse me. I thought we were talking about the Middle East. Sorry to have messed with anyone's agenda here.

(What's you mean "we", there Bobert?)

Danged if I know.......

Forget it....

Anyone want to talk peace, you know where to find me...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:17 PM

So Hamas will keep the attacks up, still operating out of the Palestinian territories, just like they have been for, what, two years now? Just because the organization was founded in Syria and funded out of Iran doesn't mean that it doesn't use Palestinians as bomb fodder. Israel is worried about its security, and I have to wonder if an independent Palestinian state would be able, or even willing, to prevent Hamas and other such organizations from carrying out attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 11:00 AM

If Israel was genuinely worried about its security (if security was the real reason for the Israeli government's actions), it wouldn't have completely destroyed the Palestinian infrastructure and law enforcement agencies. What it would be doing (and what was starting to work pretty well back when Rabin was still around) is to cultivate a partnership with a free Palestine under the Oslo agreement, and SUPPORT rather than undermine the Palestinian Authority. A free Palestinian people and a strong Palestinian government can help Israel combat organizations like Hamas, and they would have the incentive to do so.

When Palestinians have no hope for the future, no infrastructure, and no working government (all of which were destroyed by the Israeli government), they have nothing to lose, and no reason to want to fight groups like Hamas.

Sorry Bobert. I'm a bit slow this morning. I'm not sure I understand your last post.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 11:10 AM

"Going after the terrorists" clearly doesn't stop suicide bombers. Just as retaliation against the Israelis doesn't do anything to stop the counter-retaliation.

When you're stuck in a hole, stop digging. That applies both ways, but in the case of Israel, it's the government itself which is doing the digging, and in the case of the Palestinians, it's the opposition, so Israel is in a much better position to stop digging. Except if it wasn't for this reciprocal war of terror they wouldn't be the government...

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 11:15 AM

Too true, McGrath, but what else can they do? You surely can't imagine that a government whose sole security policy is "make them stop wanting to kill us" would maintain power in a parliamentary system. In order to maintain political power, an administration needs to go after the terrorists. In order to stop terrorism, they need to stop occupation and retribution. I don't see what they CAN do.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 11:43 AM

If you come to the conclusion that what you are doing makes thigs worse, you stop doing it. If that mean that you lose power, that's how it goes - what's the point of "power" when it doesn't allow you to do what you believe to be right and necessary.

And that applies just as much to the people who supply the arms and the finance and the backing, and who could change the whole situation quite significantly by just turning off the tap.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 11:46 AM

All you, Forum Lurker, or anyone else needs to do is look at history. When the Palestinians had hope for the future and were getting help in setting up a viable free state for themselves, terrorism against Israel decreased.

After Israel had reneged on its agreement and the Palestinians lost hope, terrorism against Israel increased. The more punitive the Israeli Government gets toward the Palestinians, the more terrorism increases against Israel.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how it works. The Israeli government is not interested in peace. It is not interested in saving the lives of innocent Israelis. It has other agendas, and it doesn't matter to them how many innocent Israelis (or Palestinians) get killed in the process.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 11:48 AM

It has other agendas, and it doesn't matter to them how many innocent Israelis (or Palestinians) get killed in the process.

Carol,

What do you think the other agendas being pursued by whoever itis that comprises the Israeli government are?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 12:01 PM

And that applies just as much to the people who supply the arms and the finance and the backing, and who could change the whole situation quite significantly by just turning off the tap.

Excellent point, McGrath. We (the US) need to stop sending BILLIONS of dollars every year to Israel.

What do you think the other agendas being pursued by whoever itis that comprises the Israeli government are?

Ethnic cleansing within Eretz Israel, and hegemony in the middle east, Amos. It's an agenda that has been stated by the leaders of Israel themselves, over and over, right up until the present period of history.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:09 PM

I am not saying that power is more important than peace. What I am saying is that, without power, you can't work towards peace. If every time you try to withdraw the troops, your coalition collapses, you CAN'T withdraw the troops. That is why no one has managed to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:51 PM

No one has managed to do it because Israel has never carried through on its agreements.

You know, Yitzhak Rabin wasn't the only one who was assasinated (by and Israeli militant) for working for peace in the region. Anwar Sadat was also assisasinated (by a Muslim extremist). But that didn't stop Egypt from honoring its agreements to the other countries involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 06:52 AM

CarolC;

"No one has managed to do it because Israel has never carried through on its agreements."

I think you are being just a bit one sided here. IMHO it would be more accurate to say;

<< No one has managed to do it because no-one has never carried through on agreements.>>

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 07:52 AM

Surely the "it" in that sentence referred specifically to the withdrawal of occupying forces from the West Bank and Gaza, in accordance with UN resolutions?

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 11:16 AM

Mostly. "It" also refers to the granting of full autonomy to the Palestinians, and Teribus's "it" could also mean the cessation of terrorist attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 11:40 AM

Teribus, please tell me which agreements Arafat did not honor.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 11:42 AM

For that matter, Teribus, please enumerate all of the agreements that were not honored by any of the sides other than Israel. I would like to spend some time looking into those.

Subject: RE: BS: Hypocrisy Rules - OK?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 06:28 AM

Carol C,

Certainly, as this will take some time I will get back to you.