Bush Stance Shocks Arabs

[modaya]

JERUSALEM, 16 April 2004 — French President Jacques Chirac yesterday added his voice to Arab outrage over America’s support for Israel’s claim to occupied land and dismissal of Palestinian right of return.

In Cairo, the Arab League described US President George W. Bush’s declarations as “very dangerous” and “legally baseless,” warning they could “strengthen Israel’s occupation.”

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=43186&d=16&m=4&y=2004

[skooooo]

1. WTF? why the shock?

why does anything shock them anymore???

[Eye and Monkey]

2. Shock and Awe.

[carols]

171. Without the Awe

I don't think they are very awed these days - if they ever were. Shock and Anger, yes...Shock and Terror, yes, Shock and Oppression, yes. But awe? That was mighty narcissitic of the Idiot Usurper and his cronies...
Carol

[saigon68]

11. Those Arabs better shut their Pie Holes

With Krazy Killer Kimmitt on the ground.

And Little Boy Blue Meyers in the air.


They are going to bomb the Towel Heads back into the STONE AGE</Sarcasm>

[mr_hat]

3. What part of "apocalypse" don't they understand? JESUS!

[MGKrebs]

4. Interesting snips from the NYT article.

We are entering a period of some serious shit. And there is no easy way out.


Sharon's Tenacity Swayed Bush, Israeli Aide Says

In inevitable contrast, Israel's largest daily newspaper headlined its main news story "Sharon Got It All."

In endorsing Mr. Sharon's plan at the White House on Wednesday, Mr. Bush said that as part of any eventual peace deal, Israel would not have to withdraw from all of the territory it captured in the Arab-Israeli war of 1967.

Arab leaders condemned the American declaration, while European leaders distanced themselves from it.

"He said that after three months, if it wasn't finalized then he wasn't going," Mr. Gissin said. "That sort of insinuated threat brought about the conclusion of the final statement." He credited Secretary of State Colin L. Powell with helping to resolve the dispute.

"Although the road map is the American plan, the president agreed to endorse another plan which is inconsistent with the road map.''

In Washington, Bush administration officials defended Mr. Bush's and Mr. Sharon's agreement, calling on Palestinians to look less at the American acceptance of Israel's retaining some settlements and more at the Israeli pledge to withdraw settlers.

He added that the final boundaries between Israel and a Palestinian state, ... would have to be settled through "a negotiation between the two parties.”

http://nytimes.com/2004/04/16/international/middleeast/16shar.html

mods- these aren't full paragraphs- just snipped sentences.

[Just Me]

110. My republican father actually cast me into tears,...

,...when he asserted that we should be more like sharon. I said, "What the hell is the matter with you!!! sharon is a freakin criminal and cares nothing about the interests of humanity!!!! He's a goddam*ned power-obsessed THUG!!!" Of course, his response was, "maybe you should just leave this country". This time, I replied, "and leave the likes of you in charge,....oh, hell, NO,...I don't think so!!!" He pouted,...and pouted and pouted and pouted. I guess he is still waiting for my apology for "hurting" him by standing up to him. He will wait forever!!!!

[TheBattman]

149. Sharon a thug?

Is Arafat any less of a thug?

I guess it's Sharon who is bombing civilian Palestinians on busses and at weddings.

Maybe I'm just naive, but by background tells me that the land belongs to Israel. Not just because of the Biblical reasons (although that should be enough), but also because of the fact that Israel was granted it's own nation by the UN. That nation was attacked by Arab Muslims and the resulting war expanded Israel's land.

The spoils of war......

Muslim Arabs do not want ANY Israel - and didn't even before Israel gained it's power. Then when wealthy Jews that settled in the new Israel actually bought land, that further angered those around them (God forbid they legally and fairly purchase land).

Why is it that every time Israel concedes something to the PA, the PA actually steps up terrorist attacks?

Would you want neighbors like that?

[frankly_fedup2]

154. You are definitely right on this one.

Have you ever heard of Black Sunday? You know, when the Israeli athletes at the Olympics in Germany were kidnapped by ARAFAT'S terrorist organization (PLO) and murdered? Arafat is a terrorist and I don't think Clinton should have even associated with this man. Arafat, tried to assassinate King Hussein of Jordan and that is when he was banished from Jordan and suddenly there was a Palestinian Nation that the Jews had stolen from them. Never heard of them before then. Never heard the term "Palestinian" before the last century. They got it from the term "Palestine" and by changing it slightly to Palestinian (from Palestine), they think the people of the world believe that the land of Palestine was theirs. Uh uh. Nope.

Definition: Palestinian = Arab, Egyptian Arab, Jordanian Arab. Plain Arab.

Definition: Arab = Muslim, terrorist, extremist. They feel they must kill all Jews and Christians because Allah told Gabriel to tell Muhammad (who wrote and memorized the Koran) that this must be done by all Arabs in 600 AD. Why, well, during that time was the time of the Christian Crusades. So, what else would Allah tell Gabrielle to tell Muhammad? However, I do not think that Muhammad meant forever!!! (SARCASM with truth in there also).

[Matilda]

5. Even for Bush, this is pretty damn stupid.

It flies in the face of every law of protocol in mediation for the
mediator to be so completely partisan. No good can come of it,
and it leaves an awful legacy for the next President to deal with.
Of course the Arab world will oppose it, and the EU should condemn
it forcefully.

It beats me how anyone with more than half a brain can't realise
that Bush is a congenital idiot who should never have got within
shouting distance of the White House.

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. What mediation? Israel is our ally? The PA is our enemy

The PA has sided with our enemy not just in the recent Gulf War, but in Gulf I as well.

[opihimoimoi]

7. Only confirms Bushies Loloness Level off the scale.

[Nancy Waterman]

15. The Brits are not happy about this either

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,1193134,00.html

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/comment/0,11538,1193166,00.html

Tony Blair will today attempt to restore British influence in Washington when he warns President George Bush that the Middle East "road map" remains the only viable option for achieving a lasting political settlement. Less than 48 hours after Mr Bush spurned his plea for an "even-handed" approach to the Middle East, the prime minister will make clear in private that Britain cannot sign up to Ariel Sharon's unilateral plan which was all but endorsed by the president.

As Blairites admitted that the president's declaration marked a personal setback for the prime minister, foreign secretary Jack Straw last night underlined Britain's unease. He said: "President Bush ... has to make his own judgments. We make our own."

The prime minister, who began his two-day visit to the US last night with a meeting in New York with UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, will today put on a brave face when he says that key elements of the Sharon plan, such as the pledge to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, can be reconciled with the road map. But well placed Blairites made clear yesterday that Mr Bush's announcement had been "uncomfortable" for him. Britain's unease was underlined on Wednesday night when Downing Street issued a carefully worded statement which welcomed aspects of Mr Sharon's statement, such as withdrawal from Gaza. But the statement said nothing about abandonment of central elements of the road map, such as treating Palestinians as partners and calling for the vast majority of Israeli settlements to be removed from the territories occupied since 1967.

[Matilda]

37. Unfortunately for Bliar, I think he's passed his use-by date with Bush.

He was useful about twelve months ago, but the only way he could get
Bush to change on anything would be to threaten to pull British
troops out of Iraq, but that's not about to happen.

Bliar has dug himself into a big hole, and until he can admit it was
all a mistake, he can only go in deeper and deeper.

It's a shame, because in spite of everything he's done, I do believe
Bliar, unlike Bush, has a brain. It's just a pity that he has no
soul.

[MGKrebs]

45. Well said, Matilda.

[Atlanticist]

Well put, the media in Britain is amazed

that Blair continues as Bush's lapdog.

The picture on Blair's face when Bush said "...or Tony as I like to call you", was sweet. The same face as the one he'd have if he was ever filmed accepting his Congressional Medal of Honour from *.

What's in it for Blair ? He's clever, articulate, left-wing (in social and economic terms, if not martial terms), he seems to have a conscience, he seems to understand ME geopolitics - all things which obviously Bush has no clue about. Why Why Why ? You're an honourable man wedding yourself to the stupidest most mendacious President in living memory. Christ, at least Nixon employed a relatively liberal domestic agenda. I'm deeply sorry for you guys, having to put up with Bush as your head of state. However, as a Brit, I'm also deeply ashamed that a progressive Prime Minister is offering this man any succour at all.

On Palestine - OMG!!! If Bush and Sharon think this will move forward the "war on terror", they are sorely deluded. I can see the Hamas recruits lining up now.

[mitchtv]

10. and they will continue to be our enemies

as we legitimize Isreali expropriation of their homes, and lands ans continue to destroy their farms. No Hope equals violence

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. Their hope is in ending terror

Then they will get a state. If they don't end it, they don't get a state.

[mitchtv]

20. land or peace can't have it all

Isreal must compromise. No land- No peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. Israel has given land for peace

The Palestinians have never offered peace.

[Matilda]

49. No - Israel has only ever taken land from the Palestinians.

There will always be those amongst the Arabs who will resent the
fact that it was their land that was given to Israel in the first
place, but that's an issue that has to be buried in the past.

But if Israel were to voluntarily retreat to the pre-1967 borders,
peace would be a real possibility. And Israel can afford to do
that, because the Arabs have no army and little real weaponry, and
Israel will be in no greater physical danger than she is now. There
would be no excuse then for the intifada to continue. An intifada
that started the day Sharon walked onto the Temple Mount, knowing
that it would inflame the Palestinians. There had been no suicide
bombings inside Israel for about two years until that day, and
Sharon knew what the result would be, because sadly, the Palestinians
act on their emotions, instead of using their heads and keeping
cool.

If the Bush/Sharon deal goes through, Israel never will have peace,
and I find it hard to credit that this can be in the best interests
of anyone in the long-term.

[Muddleoftheroad]

75. Israel gave up land for peace with both Jordan and Egypt

Of course, they actually offered peace in return -- something the Palestinians have NEVER done.

You fantasize about A) Israel retreating to the Green Line and B) even if that happened, the MASSIVE Palestinian terror network suddenly opting for peace.

Hamas and others, you should recall, have sworn to destroy Israel, not just recapture anything outside the Green Line.

Whether the Bush/Sharon deal goes through or not, Israel never will have peace.

[Zomby Woof]

127. land for peace?

Are you talking about the Sinai's return to Egypt?? Israel TOOK that land in '67. All they did with Camp David is give it back. Land for peace! A million laughs.

Personally, I'd like to cut all the purse strings to Israel and let them fend for themselves. Find out the true meaning of reaping what you sow.

[Muddleoftheroad]

129. Yep, land for peace

Land taken from enemies and then returned to them as part of a peace agreement. Lest you forget, those same enemies have fought Israel several times, yet Israel found a way to peace.

Many here would like to cut the purse strings to Israel. Thankfully, that is a ridiculously minority opinion. Most Americans won't let Israel be abandoned. We seem to have better memories than you.

Never again!

[Cassandra]

141. Sorry, I must have been asleep...

Did I just wake up in 1939?

[frankly_fedup2]

155. The Arabs will demand this and that . . .

and the Jews have accommodated them HOW many times? These "ARABS" do not want peace with Israel. They will not be happy until they have that little piece of land no bigger than Rhode Island (or is it Florida??).

Anyway, they lost that land when Egypt, Jordan, and some of the other 24 or so Arab Countries tried to destroy the Israelis in the 6-day war; however, the Jews (with our help . . . thank you very much), kicked their ass and after kicking their ass, we then took more land.

After they tried to start a war and lost, that is what all this murdering they do is about. They lost that land and they are not over it yet. And Israel has offered it back to them, but like was said above, still not good enough.

[NuttyFluffers]

163. what is being asked with that is...

that a next to powerless and desperate people give up the last remaining source of power they have (be it cruel, evil, and illegal as it is) and rely on the benificence of israel. a fool's bargain by any standards. will *never* happen. it requires a *divine* leap of faith from any group to divest themselves of *all power* and depend on the largess of any other, let alone an occupying army. to strip them of even this last bit of power is a straight walk towards complete marginalization and tempting genocide.

no, what is asked is outright foolish on all accounts, and anyone with any political sense can se it for what it is. it'll never happen by force - outside of genocide. no, the only way is for israel to make a move. just like sun tsu mentions always give your enemy a means to escape because cornered men, like rats, who'd normally run away when cornered fight like 10 men. palestine is cornered, there is no escape, they will fight to the death, because there is nothing but death to face. israel *seems* like they are cornered by their arab neighbors, but look who has the better military? no, israel is in no corner of equivalent scale - except diplomatically.

peace can be had, but the illusion of ending terrorism as the first step to peace is just outright foolishness. the aggressors need to offer an escape hatch otherwise the cornered will latch on with a death grip and try to drag their aggressors to their doom with them. disobey sun tsu's advice at your own folly, for nothing new under the sun has really been found about human nature.

[Muddleoftheroad]

164. Before I really respond

How would you find peace then?

[Matilda]

12. Exactly - Israel is the ally of the U.S. against the Palestinians.

Therefore, as self-appointed mediator, the U.S. President should be
extra careful to take a non-partisan stance, if he has the genuine
intention of promoting peace in the region.

BTW, the P.A. hasn't sided with the enemy - the U.S. has made itself
the enemy of the P.A. and all Arabs by siding wholly with Israel.
It may make the Zionists happy, but it will never lead to peace and
stability in the region.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. Why pretend to be neutral?

We aren't, nor should we be.

Israel is OUR ally who stood by us even during the Cold War when -- lest we forget -- the Arab world was pretty clearly alligned with the Soviets.

As for peace and stability in the region, there is NOTHING that will lead that way.

[Matilda]

23. The Arab world turned to the Soviets because of U.S. support for Israel.

There is no point arguing about Israel's right to exist - it's there,
and the Arab world has to live with that. But in displacing hundreds
of thousands of Arabs, Israel set a fuse to a powder keg that is
still burning. Unfortunately, there will always be some amongst
both Israeli Jews and Palestinians who will never be satisfied until
the other side no longer exists, but I believe that with genuine
fairness and goodwill, both sides can and should co-exist and unite
to quash extremism on both sides.

I have read your posts before, and know your attitudes, so I realise
I am wasting my time.

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. The Arabs displaced the Palestinians by attacking

and then they displaced hundreds of thousands of Jews as they ethnically cleansed their own states. THEN they had the audacity to blame it all on Israel.

[Malikshah]

52. This is factually inaccurate

Simha Flapan and Avi Shlaim, among other Israeli historians, have shown, without a doubt, that what is stated above is categorically false.

The first step to peace is for both sides to stand up and seek the truth. Only then can reconciliation have a shred of hope.

As long as lies are perpetuated regarding the events leading up to the end of the mandate, there is no hope.

[Muddleoftheroad]

77. So what you're saying

Is that the MASSIVE Arab attack on Israel in 1948 that ended the UN mandate is just my imagination?

:wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow:

[The Stranger]

82. That and the Sturn and Irgun gangs driving out the native Palestinian

population. The leaders of these gangs became the first leaders of Israel.

[Muddleoftheroad]

83. Those were different than Arab gangs how?

There was an undeclared war in Palestine for many years before 1948 -- both sides took part.

[The Stranger]

87. Here. Learn.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Stern-gang

Updated: Jun 23, 2003

Encyclopedia: Stern Gang

(This article is about the Jewish nationalist group. For information about the man named Lehi from the Book of Mormon, see Lehi (Book of Mormon).)

Lehi (Hebrew acronym for Lohamei Herut Israel, "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel") was a Jewish nationalist group, widely considered to be terrorist and radical. It was active during the British Mandate of Palestine prior to the founding of the State of Israel and during the first part of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The British authorities dubbed it the Stern gang, after its founder, Avraham Stern.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Irgun

Encyclopedia: Irgun

Irgun is shorthand for Irgun Tsvai-Leumi (also spelled Irgun Zvai-Leumi), Hebrew for "Military-National Organization". Widely regarded by the British, amongst others, as a terrorist organization, but as freedom fighters by many Israelis. Irgun is known by its Hebrew acronym Etzel. Its best known activity was the bombing of King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, killing close to a hundred people.

It branched off Haganah in Jerusalem under Avraham Tehomi in 1931. The reasons for their withdrawal was discontent with Haganah's policy of restraint when faced with Arab and British pressure. After a short independent period, Irgun re-joined the Haganah, but never integrated with it and quit once more in 1937 because of Arab riots. Irgun adopted the revisionist views of Zeev Jabotinsky.

[wellst0nev0ter]

116. Don't Bother

People like him don't mind the fact that Israel will become almost exactly like apartheid South Africa in less than 20 years, if not worse. Based on that fact alone, there is very little reason to support Israel's present policies, if not the country itself.

[Malikshah]

92. Actually, in a way, yes.

Define Massive.

Shlaim, in his work, shows that at no time during the 1948-49 war were the Israeli forces outnumbered. This doesn't even get into the equipment superiority, or the unified front as opposed to the divided Arab state attempts.

At the outbreak on May 15, Israel had numerical superiority, just barely--by the end, they had clear numerical superiority.

So, yes-- it is your imagination.

[Matilda]

55. You must know that isn't true.

From 1948, Israel systematically attacked Palestinians in their
villages, literally massacring thousands. As they were defenceless,
thousands more Arabs fled from their homeland across borders for
their own safety.

I think it's tragic that the surrounding Arab states refuse to allow
citizenship to Arabs who may want to stay, but the original fault
lies with Israel. From the beginning, they never wanted to share
the country, not even with the original inhabitants, and they have
done their best since statehood to drive them out.

[Malikshah]

59. It's called the Iron Wall policy

coined by Jabotinsky and adopted in varying degrees by Israeli administrations the idea stems the results of the famous claim by Rabbis, who upon returning from the lands prior to the mandate, stated that "the bride is beautiful, but she is married to someone else"

Jabotinsky's idea was simple-- shit or get off the pot.

Either the Zionists give up their plans or make a concerted effort to create an Iron Wall policy-- be strong enough to make the neighbors accept your claims and negotiate with you.

[Matilda]

63. I don't think negotiation is on Sharon's mind.

Brute force is more like it. He's willing to give away Gaza now,
but that won't last either.

Israel will have the land, but never peace this way.

[Malikshah]

71. The Iron Wall policy has "negotiation due to force" as a premise

In other words, you beat the others into submission so that they are forced to "negotiate" to your liking.

We're in agreement-- Sharon, Ben-Gurion, Meir, Begin and others followed this line of thinking over time.

The David-Goliath claim is a pathetic attempt at adopting the victimhood stance-- Reality belies that claim as we've seen.

[TheBattman]

150. Let's just ignore

Let's just ignore the fact that the Arab peoples have, for literally thousands of year, have waged war against Israel/Jews/Hebrews. This even predates Islam which is just a further feeding of the fire.

[newyorican]

151. Let's ignore the fact....

that your statement is historically asinine...yeh, that's it.

[Mattforclark]

53. Ummm

"Israel is OUR ally who stood by us even during the Cold War when -- lest we forget -- the Arab world was pretty clearly alligned with the Soviets."

That's really not accurate at all.

[makhno]

57. Huh?

Israel didn't stand by shit during the Cold War. It certainly never was a useful ally, rather an impediment to US foreign policy success in the region.

bm

[burrowowl]

69. Sharon et al our allies!?

Remember the Liberty!

[nonbelief]

158. Israel

Israel is the ally that stole American nuclear secrets, then gave them to the South African Apartheid regime in exchange for the right to test its weapons in South Africa.

Some friend...

[puerco-bellies]

14. Israel is only allied to herself

Remember the U.S.S. Liberty!

http://www.ussliberty.org/

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. Shocking

A 40-year-old accident. Yeah, that's conclusive proof.

[puerco-bellies]

30. Sustained air surface attack

No matter how much you lie about the attack it does not change the FACTS! The Liberty crew even launched clearly marked life rafts to save the wounded and Israeli gun boats punctured them with machine guns then pulled them aboard to cover the evidence. They only broke the attack off when U.S. Fighter aircraft came in to range. I have been half way around the world on a Navy Vessel. Any bum-boat skipper in the most remotest areas of the world can recognize a U.S. Navy vessel. The Israelis hammered the Liberty for hours, they knew who it was. Sell your bullshit elsewhere.

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. "No matter how much you lie about the attack"

Your version doesn't agree with either government or logic. Israel had no call to attack us then or now. Israel has been the best and most reliable ally we have in that region.

[puerco-bellies]

44. Our governments position was there were WMD's in Iraq

Any governments position is almost always self serving. This version is not mine, this is part of U.S. Naval history. My motivation for posting was the memory of my fellow sailors. I believe the facts speak for themselves and are apparent to anyone open minded, and unbiased.

I belive the reason you so strongly disagree with me is because I'm not an apologist for a foreign government! My guess for the Israeli motivation was probably to keep the U.S. from insisting on cessation of hostilities before the complete occupation of attainable Syrian and Egyptian territories.

Other thoughts..
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/moorer-liberty.htm
http://usslibertyinquiry.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=36

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. If BOTH sides to an event say it was an accident

Then that is a good way to bet.

[Malikshah]

54. "Both sides" needs to be defined

Does the US side not include NSA evidence to the contrary?

[Muddleoftheroad]

76. No it doesn't

Both sides is the U.S. and Israel. Both agree that it was an unfortunate accident, despite tinfoil attempts to paint it as something else.

[Malikshah]

101. Bamford's work is hardly tinfoil conspiracy

As well as the accounts of the survivors. The refer to them as tinfoilers is a gross injustice.

"Both sides" does need to be defined as a term.

The leadership will say one thing for their own ends.

The reality is often something quite different, as in the case of the USS Liberty.

[Muddleoftheroad]

103. For their own ends

You say the leadership will do things for their own ends. Attacking the Liberty was NOT such an action.

Your own words defeat you.

[Malikshah]

143. Their own ends is apt

Israel did not want us listening in at this point in the 6 day war as attempts were being made to reach a resolution

The US did not want to exacerbate an already tense situation by exposing the direct attack against our forces by an allied country who had just preemptively attacked other countries

These judgement calls themselves should be judged in the open.

[bpilgrim]

22. exactly. this UNILATERAL, RADICAL, BEHAVIOR of the neoCON TERRORIST

has done NOTHING to improve our lot only FEAR and DEPRESSION when you take into account the FACTS ON THE GROUND.

both these FREAKS - * and sharon - have GOT TO GO!

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[Matilda]

26. I used to think that peace would best be served if Sharon and Arafat

could be tied back to back and dropped into the ocean from a great
height.

Now I think that should be made a threesome.

[bpilgrim]

28. they should all be locked up

definately couldn't hurt :hi:

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. Funny how you leave Arafat out of that

Your bias is showing.

[bpilgrim]

43. actually the neoCONs must take respocibility for that, as well...

they are the ones making the UNILATERAL ACTIONS... hello

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Terrorism is a unilateral action

And Arafat is involved in that up to his ears.

[sistersofmercy]

78. "The PA has sided with our 'enemy'" ??????????????

Did you just pull that from your hat? First of all, which "enemy" are you speaking of? The Iraqis? But, but I thought we were there to free the Iraqis. Or do you mean to imply al Quaeda? Well you'll need to cough a link to back up that one. I specifically recall seeing pictures of mourners in the WB and Gaza setting up mini shrines to honor and mourn the deceased on 9/11. If your going to come up with a hand full of radicals who hate America as an example, don't bother because what you are currently doing is seeking to argue with a broad generalization anyway.
Second, it's the other way around. Saddam and al Quaeda had one shared belief, that the Israeli government is actively seeking to oppress and annihilate the Palestinians with the blessing and military aid from the US.
GWI was wrong, we should not have been there and this war is just criminal. Go ahead bring up the poor Kuwaitis, the ones who buy little boys from Cambodia, the cousin of the royal family who lied about the incubator babies before our congress and ones split town before the Iraqis invaded, leaving their imported servants behind to mind the country and endure the attack. Yeah right the poor Kuwaitis. Awwwwww!
BTW do you know a huge chunk of the Iraq debt is from war reparations awarded to the Kuwaitis? Which btw the Kuwaitis have refused to forgive. Don't hear about it much only hear about the Russian and French debts.

[FlaGranny]

89. Israel will soon be our ONLY ally.

We have few friends left - fewer every day.

[leesa]

147. Um mm "The ENEMY", as you call the Iraqis, have done nothing

to us. Why are they the enemy??? Israel is hardly an ally. More like a blood sucker. Taking our money, never repaying loans and tricking people into wars against THEIR enemies is hardly a definition of an ally! Why do we continue to support their genocidal behavior?

[Muddleoftheroad]

161. The Iraqis sure did last time

And good ol' Arafat was lining up with them against us when even Syria was on our side.

Israel didn't trick the U.S. into a war. That war is about oil, plain and simple. Do more reading about it and get back to me.

Your use of terms like "blood sucker" and "genocidal" are both offensive and not supported by anything other than hate, certainly not any facts.

[gauguin57]

9. why i'm not shocked

The Fundies have a stranglehold on this government, and on Georgie Porgie's testicles.

For those who may have missed the "60 Minutes" background ...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/60minutes/printable524268.shtml

"60 Minutes" report on how fundamentalist christians believe that for the proper sequence of the "end days" to kick in, the Jews must control all the real estate they now have. Cuz it's "God's will."

pertinent snips:

"... What's the number one item on the agenda of the Christian Right? Abortion? School Prayer? No and No. Believe it or not, what's most important to a lot of conservative Christians is the Jewish State. Israel: Its size, its strength, and its survival. Why?

There is the alliance between America and Israel in the war on Islamic terror. But it goes deeper. For Christians who interpret the bible in a literal fashion, Israel has a crucial role to play in bringing on the Second Coming of Christ. ...

... according to the Book of Revelations, the final battle in the history of the future will be fought on an ancient battlefield in northern Israel called Armageddon. It will follow seven years of tribulation during which the earth will be shaken by such disasters that previous human history will seem like a day in the country. The blood will rise as high as a horse’s bridle at Armageddon, before Christ triumphs to begin his 1,000-year rule.

And the Jews? Well, two-thirds of them will have been wiped out by now. But the survivors will accept Jesus at last.

“The Jews die or convert. As a Jew, I can’t feel very comfortable with the affections of somebody who looks forward to that scenario,” says Gershom Gorenberg, who knows that scenario well.

... The Christian fundamentalists believe the only Israelis who are really listening to God are the hard line Jewish settlers who live on the West Bank and Gaza and refuse to move.

... They believe that God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people. “Every grain of sand, every grain of sand between the Dead Sea, the Jordan River, and, and the Mediterranean Sea belongs to the Jews,” says (Moral Majority co-founder Ed) McAteer. This includes the West Bank and Gaza.

[AlCzervik]

8. When i saw the press conference

and the news coverage i honestly didnt believe what i was seeing, like we dont have way more trouble right now than we can handle? Is this just Base pandering? Is Bush trying to help Sharon divert attention from his corruption problems? Or is it both? This is one of the worst things he has done in a very long list of very bad things.

[iam]

13. It's all very simple,

Israel must coninue to exist or Jesus cannot return. We are in the grip of a religious extremist, in a time when men scream "god is great" as they crash jets into buildings. An insanity that will scorch the surface of the earth waiting for the second coming. An absolute psychosis destined to destroy civilization in order to save it. In other words, planet Earth is up shit creek and we have conservatism to thank.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Simpler than that

Israel is our ally. Israel must continue to exist both for that reason and, if it ceases to exist, it will blast the Arab world to dust.

[bpilgrim]

24. such monsters men create in their hearts

"if it ceases to exist, it will blast the Arab world to dust"

talk about a logical fallacy :crazy:

if i recall correctly the whole arab world offered FULL diplomatic relations and FULL recognition of ISRAEL just last year... guess what the sharon boogey man said... NO!

so muddle whaddaya think? one nuke or two :shrug:




peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. Factual fallacy

The plan you cite also included the destruction of Israel via right of return. So what you cite is entirely bogus. You were duped by good marketing.

[bpilgrim]

42. sure muddle

it's all in our heads :crazy:

peace

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. No, just in yours apparently

:crazy:

[sixtoes1]

51. It's pointless to try to convince them muddle. I've lived and breathed

the Middle East for years. I'll bet they haven't even imagined living completely surrounded by enemies. Israel fighting for it's very survival. If the Arabs cared one bit about Palestinians (as they claim), they would've offered help. Palestinians get nothing but cricket sounds from Arabs. I know where you're coming from. Practically grew up there as an American citizen (Saudi Arabia)

[The Stranger]

81. Gosh, you have me so convinced.

You're a real veteran of living amongst the "enemies."

[NuttyFluffers]

165. lived there too and completely disagree with you

did grow up in Saudi Arabia and came with a completely different view. huh, maybe our on-the-ground perspectives is just that, our perspectives. i suggest not loarding it over others that you have some 'special' perspective from being there, because, obviously both 'sides' have their representatives...

[The Stranger]

80. "Destruction of Israel via right of return", or creation of true democracy

in Israel. The notion that Israel must be maintained as a Jewish majority based on racist laws will go the way of that memorable chant "Segregation Now . . . Segregation Forever."

Nor did anyone cite "destruction" with regard to South Africa's dismantling of its racist "democracy." (Actually, maybe a few did, but regardless, South Africa hasn't been destroyed, nor have all of the White South Africans.

[Muddleoftheroad]

84. Let's see, I think Germany was a "true democracy"

in the 1930s and we saw what happened there and pretty much every OTHER place the Jewish people have lived.

No, the notation that Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people (note the distinction), is based on reality -- i.e., what happens to Jews elsewhere. Remember, it was the Arab nations who ethnically cleansed the Jews from their own states.

And to compare 2,000 years of abuse, murder, pogrom and Holocaust to South Africa is beyond ridiculous.

[The Stranger]

86. Bullshit.

Jews lived in relative peace among Arabs, including Arab Muslims and Arab Christians, in Jerusalem and surrounding areas for millenia before the Inquisitions, pogroms and Crusades crescendoing in the Holocaust took place in Europe. It wasn't until well into the 19th century, with the dispossession of the native population of Arabs, that the Arabs ever began to clash with the Jews in the Middle East. To deny this is to lack any grasp of history whatsoever.

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

As far as "ethnic cleansing", that arose later in Israeli history, even after the initial immigration of European Jews in the early 20th century, when fanatics began believing that the land was holy and that they were entitled to ethnically cleanse other peoples because of some religious "promise." That is what is happening now to the Palestinians, who have seen their ancestral lands literally robbed from them based on some notion that the state must be kept "Jewish", maintained as such by racist laws.

[Muddleoftheroad]

88. Your history is a bit condensed

Considering Islam wasn't even founded until the 600s (so no Arab Muslims existed prior to that and not many for a while afterward) and then you rationalize the time of the Crusades to now, that doesn't leave much actual time for peace and that time has LONG since passed.

Perhaps the clashing you refer to is when the Jewish people finally grew fed up with being second class citizens in Arab/Muslim locations.

Ethnic cleansing of Jews by Arabs happened starting in 1948 when the Arab nations were angry that Jews actually had a state.

[The Stranger]

91. Please.

Ethnic cleansing of Jews by Arabs happened starting in 1948 when the Arab nations were angry that Jews actually had a state.

They were excluded as citizens in the state founded right where they were living. That might tend to make people a little angry.

I'm glad you seem to try to recognize the distinction between events in Europe and those in the Middle East. But what the post above states is that while there was Anti-Semitism rampant in Europe for centuries, it was not the case in the Middle East, where essentially everyone lived as "second class citizens," without the pogroms, ghettoes and exiles leading up to and including the Holocaust, which occurred in Europe, which you had pointed out originally anyway.

[Muddleoftheroad]

95. "excluded as citizens"

So that's why Israel is the most pluralistic state in the Mideast or the reason that Arabs vote and even have members of the Knesset?

You attempt to distance the Arab people from the mistreatment of Jews. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jews and Christians were indeed treated as second class citizens by Muslim leaders for centuries.

Then, of course, we could talk of the Grand Mufti and his WWII actions...

[The Stranger]

104. They only allow less than 20% to become citizens.

The reason why Sharon is trying to "disengage" is because he knows that the population rates are dooming any ethnic majority for Jews.

Again, one need only look to South Africa and history repeating itself.

[Muddleoftheroad]

107. No, they allow Palestinians who are in ISRAEL to be citizens

As they should. The disputed territories are not Israel. Nor do I think Palestinians would disagree on that point.

[The Stranger]

144. Incorrect. The ones that were in Israel and were driven out

cannot be citizens now, but have to go live in the territories. You might want to check the news article that started the thread again.

[Muddleoftheroad]

145. The ones IN Israel are citizens

Unsurpisingly, the ones who left are not.

[The Stranger]

159. Wrong. Only some small portion are allowed to become citizens. The vast

majority are not. Most were driven out and are not allowed back, even though it was their land.

[frankly_fedup2]

157. How come the Jews still let some Palestinians (ARABS)

in to work? Even after all this carnage, they allow them in to work and support their families.

See, the Arabs (Palastinians) don't want peace with Israel. Cause if you have peace, you have to build roads, make laws, work hard. Do you ever see the ARABS doing anything? No one is keeping them there against their will. They can leave anytime they want to. Occupation for over 50 years . . . puhlease.

[The Stranger]

160. How come you don't know anything about the conflict?

How come you are asking why Palestinians should be "allowed in"? Did you ask if Black South Africans should be "allowed into" South African cities during Apartheid? The situation is the same.

Why do you repeat the falsehood that "Arabs (Palestinians) don't want peace with Israel"? Do you realize Israel has been occupying Arab lands for decades? Do you realize Israel is occupying the land of at least two other countries today? Do you realize that Israel has turned down peace offers from Arabs over four times in the past two years?

Start here:

http://www.cactus48.com/

[Muddleoftheroad]

162. Palestinians who are not citizens

Have no right to be in Israel. No more than you or I.

I love your last part about peace offers. Peace offers that include the destruction of Israel via right of return don't mean peace, they mean suicide.

[The Stranger]

172. Wrong again.

People who were there when the Israelis declared statehood should be included in the state, as should their descendents -- or no one should be included. And if someone or their family has never stepped foot there, they can wait in line.

None of the peace offers included the destruction of Israel via right of return, but the return of the Israeli military to the borders it had accepted from the UN and are the only legal borders. There was (1) the Arab League's offer, (2) the Quartet Plan, (3) Sharm Al Shekh, and (4) the Tenet Plan. Israel's answers to Peace in all four instances was as follows: (1) No to Peace, (2) No to Peace, (3) No to Peace and (4) No to Peace. There was also yes to more ethnic cleansing and settlement building and occupation and walls and ghettos and identity cards, etc.

Also, the no right of return no was a no to the creation of a real democracy instead of a racist one, like existed in Apartheid South Africa.

If, when you hear someone call for true democracy you are hearing "destroy Israel," then that explains things very well.

[lumpy]

105. Blantant hatred of the Arab states

shows explicable bias.

[BobDCousy2004]

21. I wonder if this had anything to do with Bush's new stance

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040413-044528-8222r.htm

If Arafat sides up with the very people that kill innocent civilians and supports attacks to kill Americans, then we need to get rid of him in order to have a chance of a free Palestinian state, otherwise, we should support Israel since they're doing more to stop terrorists than Arafat is.

[bpilgrim]

27. you mean his DRUNKEN STANCE? or the BUSH DOCTRINE

both are pretty old.

i think unilaterally abondoning the worlds last hope of a netrual unbiased mediator for PEACE is NOT a good idea... specially since these THUGS DESTROYED the palestinian police from jump :crazy:

welcome to DU :hi:

peace

peace

[Jazzgirl]

29. Sniff.....sniff.....

n/t

[doubles]

168. Game, set, match..... you hit the nail on the head!

[Terran]

25. One wonders if Powell supports this or not...

I can't see it. Bush is listening to the fascist Sharon before his own Sec. State. Powell is being silent in the face of this lunacy, however. He's worthless.

[Matilda]

31. Imagine what harm Powell could do to Bush if he found his soul.

If he had the guts to resign and say what he really thinks (we know
from the video of his pre-U.N. speech on WMD), Bush really would be
finished.

How sad that the only real soldier among that lot is a self-serving
coward.

[DemoTex]

40. What do you expect from the author of the My Lai cover-up?

What do you expect from an Reagan-era arms broker in the Iran-Contra Affair? Can you believe that, as history circles on itself yet again, Powell (as Sec. State) might be Negroponte's boss when (and if) that former Ambassador to Honduras (1981-1985) becomes Bu$hco's Ambassador to Iraq? I'll laugh when the tears and the violent choking abates.

[Matilda]

61. I know, you're quite right.

But I think Powell isn't really part of the inner sanctum, and I
just sometimes can't resist dreaming about what he could do to
Bush if he saw the light.

[DemoTex]

68. Powell is guilty of war crimes.

He ain't gonna rat on his current suggar daddy. Believe me!

[Matilda]

70. I guess he won't. But -

remember the video that showed him throwing the briefing papers for
his U.N. speech into the air, and saying he couldn't read all this
bullshit? That seems to suggest that somewhere - way down deep -
the man may have a conscience. No-one else close to Bush has, so
I just keep hoping against hope that one day he'll crack, and tell
the world what's really going on with Bush and his cronies.

That's not to say I have any time for the man - maybe it's even
worse to follow Bush knowing damn well what he's about, whereas
Cheney, Rumsfeld et al are so warped I don't think they even know
right from wrong.

[w4rma]

32. More insanity from BushCo. (nt)

[Earth_First]

39. Incredible...

shock n awe

[MGKrebs]

41. It would seem the "roadmap" was merely a PR stunt, eh?

This Bush statement flies in the face of the roadmap (Bush) plan, so I assume we are to believe that the press will call McLellan on this tomorrow?

[Malikshah]

58. The ultimate in hollowness

The echoes from this roadmap reverberate with the cries of the families of innocent victims from all sides of this conflict.

The Road Map to Peace ranks up there with the "Operation Infinite Justice" "No Child Left Behind" plans as disgusting attempts at PR

[Rex]

50. IMO the BFEE needs another 911 to suspend elections.

And this is just their way to make sure it happens.

[Chicago Democrat]

56. Its the Crusades all over again! But without Europe....

Even the British don't support that. The Polish are arguing against going against Sadr.

[saigon68]

60. Sadr is a dead man walking

Kimmitt is going to take him out soon, maybe this week end.

[sixtoes1]

62. I say give 'em what he wants. Sadr wants to be a martyr, right?

Oh, wait a minute. He changed his mind, didn't he? Ooooops.....

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sixtoes1]

65. Keep wondering. It could be that I've lived a very long time

in the middle east and simply have a different view than most on this board wrt middle eastern affairs.

[lumpy]

109. So ?

Many people who have lived in the mideast for a very long time have varying views. This does not qualify as making them experts on foreign affairs. Lame qualification for expertise.

[sixtoes1]

152. I challenge you to show me where

I said I was an expert, lumpy. I was merely making the point that my opinion is based on actually having lived there and shopped in the souqs, bought cheap gold and rugs, eaten chicken tika and shawermas with the locals. It's not based on bits and pieces of news that reflect an inaccurate picture, in MY opinion.

[NuttyFluffers]

166. and lumpy is making hyperbole that your opinion is still just that

because he's correct, in the end it's just another opinion. insider view, yes, and that's valuable. yet i stand as your opposite, i've been there too and completely disagree with your assessment. tit for tat. those who have lived there do come out with different assessments, so in the end what we have to say carries little weight in debate. it just offers fresh perspectives to *add* to the body of evidence - and that's all.

[Chicago Democrat]

66. Then its all out civil war for sure...

[wabeewoman]

67. And this is why bush is siding with Sharon

because now we are assassinating whoever we please without trial, without the pretense of justice. We have become like Israel and it is not a source of pride among those of us who believe in the values this country was founded on. Things like a fair trial, the rights of soverign nations... My problem with Israel is the same as it is now with the US-both are bullies and its hard to side with a bully. IMO Bush and Sharon are the biggest terrorists of all.

[Chicago Democrat]

100. Bush and Sharon are the biggest terrorists of all

God help us, cause no one else will.

[lumpy]

111. Well stated, wabeewoman.

Both Sharon and Bush have created the enemies of their states. The people of those states are the ones who take the brunt of suffering.

[Muddleoftheroad]

112. Sharon didn't create the enemies of Israel

The Arab world has been the enemy of Israel since before 1948. Sorry, you can't blame him for 55 years of history.

Sharon is far from perfect, but the Arab world CHOSE to be enemies of Israel.

[lumpy]

117. Israel chose to be enemies of Arabs.

Sorry, you can't blame Arabs for 55 years of history.

[Muddleoftheroad]

119. Sure, Israel chose to be invaded in 1948

Israel chose to have the Arab nations try to stop the creation of the state of Israel. Israel chose to have endless conflict with its neighbors. Israel chose to have its neighbors sponsor terror against it.

Yeah, sure.

[sixtoes1]

153. What history books have you been reading, lumpy?

I could recite this from memory, but for the sake of credibility, I will quote from the Lexicon Universal Encyclopedia. "In November, 1947 the United Nations voted to divide Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The British withdrew from the area on May 13th, 1948 conceding failure in achieving peace between the Jews and Arabs. On May 14th, Israel proclaimed its independence. On May 15th, the Arabs attacked, refusing to recognize the partition of Palestine and the new nation." The UNITED NATIONS created this fiasco. Actually it was the Leauge of Nations back in 1922 after WWI. But after the UN attempted to give BOTH sides their own plot of land, it was the Arabs that attacked Israel because of their LEGAL declaration of sovereignty (that is if you support the UN as a legal body).

[Karenina]

106. Please, please S68...

STOP THAT!!! :spank: I realize you're prolly right...:cry: I been conjuring "DO NOT PASS GO" on this one all week. Sadr is the "red button." NOW YOU TAKE THAT BACK!!! :spank: Please... :cry:

[kentuck]

72. What part did Elliott Abrams play in this "agreement"?

Now there is another real heavyweight....

[tinnypriv]

97. He was highly involved

According to Israeli analysts (who call him "one of the hawks who surround the President").

That should come as no surprise, since this guy was also involved in getting Israeli companies into Iraq (on the quiet, with the Israel labels removed).

Don't expect to see any of the above reported in the U.S. media.

[Muddleoftheroad]

98. Ah yes, that nationwide media conspiracy

So why do you think that is?

[tinnypriv]

102. Because they're cowards

And don't want a stream of abuse from "pro-Israel" lunatics. Plus, the democrats won't raise a peep either. That's the simple answer.

Incidentially, the Israeli press has no problem reporting any of this, which is where I found it out. For example, the part about Abrams and Israel trading in Iraq is reported in Ma'ariv by their main business reporter (not Intl edition), and on the Walla internet service (also business section, though not in Ha'aretz).

The part about Abrams being highly involved in the drafting of the Bush letter is reported in Hazofe, Ma'ariv, Yediot Aharonot and Ha'aretz, today and yesterday.

Those same articles even tell you the answer why the U.S. media doesn't dare to report this: all of it is considered "politically explosive", which the U.S. admin wants to "keep quiet".

Those are direct quotes BTW.

So, please, don't bother throwing the word "conspiracy" at me if you don't have the competence to argue the facts.

[Malva Zebrina]

73. I agree with those who equate George Bush with Ariel Sharon

they are joined at the hip, especially with this last initiative on the part of Bush. It will backfire. How anyone can profess to be against Bush and for Sharon, goes beyond me--that is simply not possible at this point.

Rabbi Michael Lerner has published an excellent essay in this month's Nation magazine

a few paragraphs--Lerner is obviously a progressive and expresses my point of view on this situation

<snip>

President Bush may hope that Americans can be convinced that the United States should follow Israel's example and respond to both terror and legitimate resistance with heightened repression. Israel has just assassinated the leading sheik associated with Hamas terrorism, and the Sharon government has refined a technique of collective punishment so that over the years it has punished millions of Palestinians for the acts of a handful of terrorists. While Sharon's policies have actually generated an increase in the number of Israelis hurt by terror, the impression of "standing tough" has worked to retain his popularity among many Israelis who have become convinced that Israel has every right to hold on to the West Bank. If the strategy works for Sharon, it might work for Bush's adventure in Iraq as well--if Bush can find a way to convince Americans that the Israeli strategy America seems to be following in Iraq is precisely the way to stand strong against terror.

In exchange, President Bush is reportedly planning to give Sharon a written commitment that the United States will no longer push for a return of Israel to its pre-1967 borders. This concession would be the most significant accomplishment yet achieved by the Israeli right. For decades US policy has aimed at convincing Israel that it must live by the same principle that has governed international law since the end of World War II: that countries must not be allowed to increase their territory through armed conquest. It was that very principle that was used to justify US support for the autocratic government of Kuwait when it was attacked by Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 1990, and it is the cornerstone of the hopes of the international community to prevent endless wars in the twenty-first century. If he abrogates that principle, Bush not only opens the way for Israel to permanently annex major sections of the West Bank and permanently end the hopes of the Palestinian people for an economically and politically viable state of their own; he also sets a precedent for national expansion through war as dangerous as his pre-emptive war strategy for Iraq.

Perhaps the most extraordinary public relations gimmick in this entire charade between two militarists is the notion that Israel is "giving up" control over Gaza and thereby merits a concession by the United States. Unlike the West Bank, where Israel can cite biblical ties and divine promises as additional motivators to its security concerns for continuing occupation, Gaza has been nearly universally recognized as a drain on Israel that provides exactly nothing for Israeli security or well-being. Having kept more than a million Gazans in a state of penury and malnutrition that could only be rectified by UN aid, Israelis have long flirted with the idea of a unilateral withdrawal from the seething caldron of hatred that its occupation has managed to create. Yet Sharon's withdrawal will involve continued military presence in the south of Gaza and along all of its borders-effectively turning it into one large Palestinian ghetto with no means of economic or political support.

Instead of withdrawing from Gaza as part of a process aimed at open-hearted and generous reconciliation and lasting peace, Sharon has concocted a withdrawal for the sake of occupation in the West Bank. Indeed, before he left for Washington, Sharon promised settlers in the West Bank that six major settlement areas there would permanently remain under Israeli sovereignty, and that his Gaza withdrawal was intended to "keep us from being dragged into dangerous initiatives like the Geneva and Saudi initiatives." Sharon may hope that the forces of Hamas, dominant in Gaza because Israel failed to provide social services and instead allowed them to be delivered to the Palestinian refugees by the Islamic fundamentalists, will use the withdrawal to establish their own regime separate from the Palestinian Authority, thereby further decreasing the chance for a viable Palestinian state. Certainly a Hamas takeover in Gaza would increase Israelis' fear of the vulnerability they might face should they withdraw from the West Bank--and that fear will play well for Sharon's electoral future.

more at:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040426&s=lerner

[JNelson6563]

74. Taliborn-agains preparing Zion for Jesus

Why the shock? :shrug:

Julie

[Mari333]

79. Our soldiers in Iraq will catch the brunt of this stupid move

and be put right on the line. This move was like throwing gas on a fire.
www.empirenotes.org
bad move, bad policy, bad everything.

[IndianaGreen]

85. Kerry supports this agreement as well!

Not wanting to be outdone in pandering the Likud and their American supporters by Bush, Kerry wanted to meet Sharon when Ari came here to get Bush to bless his permanent annexation of the West Bank.

Israel to invite Kerry to visit Israel

Maariv News Service

The Israeli embassy in Washington is to invite John Kerry to visit Israel. Kerry asked to meet Sharon during the prime minister’s US visit but his schedule was already booked.

http://www.maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=6064

Move Could Help Bush Among Jewish Voters

By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 15, 2004; Page A16

In declaring that Israel should be able to keep some of the occupied territories and block Palestinian refugees from settling in Israel, Bush followed a familiar pattern of finding common cause with Jews and increasingly pro-Israel Christian conservatives. That Bush's move was good politics was evidenced by Democratic rival John F. Kerry's quick move not to let Bush outflank him among pro-Israel voters.

"I think that could be a positive step," the Massachusetts senator said, approving of the Bush-Sharon action regarding both refugees and Israel's borders. "What's important obviously is the security of the state of Israel, and that's what the prime minister and the president, I think, are trying to address."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12952-2004Apr14.html

[Classical_Liberal]

90. uhg! Will Marxhall's work.

.

[mobuto]

113. And why wouldn't he?

Kerry needs to establish his bona fides as an international leader. How better to do that than meet with America's leading allies?

[mountainvue]

93. I don't know why

the Arabs are shocked at anything Bush does anymore.

[modaya]

94. I am a Canadian

It is like this I come to take over buffolo.and I win the war then all the resident who was living in there in buffolo for years they flee of war then war is finish they want come and stay at in buffolo but,Kofi Hannan he is world super power superman or what ever Says that you have no rights to return to buffolo. cos you are a terrorist or you no longer American , or whatever, how do you feel?

dont you call this Ethnic cleansing ? Where BUSH have right to say
here?

[Muddleoftheroad]

96. No ethnic cleansing

Is where the Arab states throw out hundreds of thousands of Jews -- many whose families had been in those states for centuries. That's what happened in the ARAB world.

[tinnypriv]

99. Which Israel wanted

And worked hard to bring about.

Might be important to mention that, don'tcha think?

[Muddleoftheroad]

108. You mean three years after the Holocaust

Jews were concerned about other Jews living in states unfriendly to Jews? So much so, that they bent over backward to invite them into Israel and find a home for them.

Wow! Amazing that the Arabs didn't do the same for the Palestinians.

[lumpy]

118. Jordan and other Arab states have

large communities of Palestinians displaced by Israel.

[Muddleoftheroad]

121. No, mostly they have refugee communities

And places like Lebanon make a point of making that the reality and don't truly open their doors. Jordan is almost unique in its tolerance of the Palestinian population and even that came AFTER fighting them in 1970.

[lumpy]

115. Israeli Jews are so terrified of being overtaken

population-wise by Arabs that they are begging for Jewish migration. But where to put them? Hence the land grabbing allowing Jewish settlements with IDF protection. We have all heard of the bulldozing and displacment of Arab householders, the hacking down of orchards to deny Arab livelihood and settler harassment of Arabs. This is so obvious it is useless to argue, so don't bother.

[Muddleoftheroad]

123. Israel is small

But it still has empty land. Besides, only people here seem to worry about this demographic shift. People in Israel know that Gaza and the West Bank will mostly NOT be Israel. As a result, the demographics remain 5-1 Israeli Jews vs. non-Jew.

[phoebe]

114. Seems to me that * is willing to let the nuclear bomb be the

arbiter of this mess. The "Christian Coalition"/PNAC boys are, no doubt, rabidly frothing at the mouth at this information.

This is the most dangerous decision that these men have ever made. As usual, the consequences have not been thoroughly assessed. Honestly, words fail me. This move is utterly unacceptable.

Predictions - Sharon will be voted out by the end of the month, Bush will be villified by all but "we" will sigh a huge collective sigh of relief when the Israelis vote their conscience and elect a rational man to head their country.

[lumpy]

120. Perhaps Israeli

conscience has been usurped by fear of the future which the Sharon government has managed to perpetuate.

[phoebe]

122. What, exactly, can be more worrying than knowing that you are

under the dictats of a man who could use a nuclear bomb?

[Muddleoftheroad]

124. How about Holocaust

It would take a damn HUGE nuke to kill as many Jews as the Holocaust did. THAT is what most Israelis worry about -- another Holocaust.

[phoebe]

125. I'm not clear - are you agreeing with me?

n/t

[Muddleoftheroad]

126. Nope

Some things are worse than the bomb.

[phoebe]

131. I know that you are not advocating the using of a nuclear bomb

but that is what you are implying by your statement.

[Muddleoftheroad]

132. Nope

I am merely stating that there are worse things than the bomb. The Jewish people know it personally.

[phoebe]

133. I am aware of the history of the Jewish people. I am also aware of

the disastrous consequences of using ANY type of nuclear bomb. The effects would be devastating to ALL regardless of race, ethnicity and religion.

[Muddleoftheroad]

135. Yes, nukes suck

However, there are worse things in the world. That's why Israel has them, to prevent those worse things.

[phoebe]

136. Your terms of debate are illogical - therefore I am going to cease my

responses to you.

[Muddleoftheroad]

137. LOL

Where I come from, that's called taking your ball and running home.

[NuttyFluffers]

170. haha, funny isn't it?

as if *any* state launch of thermonuclear missiles wouldn't set off nuclear war... and somehow nuclear war, which will kill billions, is nowhere beyond the scope of the holocaust? millions > billions? fascinating new math, no?

galling ain't it? i agree, lets take ball and go home. buh bye!

[Zomby Woof]

128. although they have no problem

Creating a holocaust for others. Oy vey!

[Muddleoftheroad]

130. What complete and utter fucking bullshit!!!!!!!

There has been no "HOLOCAUST" for anyone created by Israel. You stumble over your mindless propaganda.

[gate of the sun]

138. many would disagree with you

including some Israeli's. I heard one of the border police who quit because he felt the actions of the government were wrong. He felt the actions toward the Palestinians was horrific. He said the "best thing for the Israeli's was to end the occupation". Your defense of Israel may be admirable in some way but to be blind to the suffering of other's is not admirable. According to this guy the wall they are building will cut people off from their livelihood sometimes their land on which they grow crops. He said one city would be completely surrounded except one road in and out. That is not right and very reminiscent of Actions taken place against the Jews in Europe. The actions of the Israeli's may not be a " Holocaust" in terms of how the Germans exterminated them but their behavior and attitude, not to mention actions are wrong and devastating to the Palestinian people. Holocaust means "destruction or slaughter on a very large scale". If the majority of Palestinans are cut off from a way to make a living, cut off from medical care, homes destroyed, and people killed. It came be said that Israel is creating a Holocaust for the Palestinian people.

[Muddleoftheroad]

140. Name some who are that insane?

I'm not talking people who disagree with Israel, I'm talking people who would compare the Holocaust that destroyed the European Jewish community, killed 6 million Jews and impoverished the rest who lost everything to what is happening to the Palestinians.

There is no "may not be" to calling this a Holocaust. To even use the term dimishes the loss and suffering of Jews around the world.

No, the Palestinian people continue to grow in number. They are generally at war with the state of Israel and suffering as a result of their own refusal to end that war. To call that a Holocaust again is a bizarre and propagandistic use of the term.

[gate of the sun]

142. well it is not a term I typically use

but I do believe that the Israeli's have gone way too far in inflicting suffering on the Palestinian people and they are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity in regards to them. I do disagree with you that it is the Palestinians fault that they do not "cease" war with Israel I believe it is much more complicated than that. Also I might add that there is no way we will ever agree on this subject so there is no point even trying. Peace.

[frankly_fedup2]

156. Excuse me please . . .

but have you ever heard of a 50+ year occupation? Doesn't that sound strange to you? No one is keeping the "ARABs" from leaving. They are Egyptian Arabs and Jordanian Arabs. No such thing as a Palestinian. Arafat coined the term after he was thrown out of Jordan for his assassination attempt on Hussein. He knew "Palestine" was important to the Jews, so he created a "Palestinian" people. That way, it would sound like the Jews were on their land. Look it up. It's the truth.

[Zomby Woof]

174. as a matter of fact I have heard of a 50+ year occupation

Tibet comes to mind... there are examples world-wide. The ME is not the be-all and end-all of the world. Israel should be left to fend for itself - they're armed to the teeth, they seem to be carrying their weight around quite well in the region. Look it up. It's the truth.

[Logansquare]

176. Well then I guess there are no "Kurds" either

since they don't possess a country.

[Cassandra]

139. Holocaust?

Have there been roundups from surrounding Arab countries in an effort to herd every Palestinian (or Arab, or Muslim) into concentration camps? Have there been mass executions, with the general population staging mass shootings and arson of Palestinians? Do you really think that Israelis have decided that every Palestinian or Arab should be hunted down and killed and is there any evidence that that has happened? Perhaps you should be more careful when slinging loaded words around, to make sure they mean what you mean.

[Zomby Woof]

173. pretty damn close

Sharon is a worse terrorist than Arafat ever was.

[gate of the sun]

134. Kerry supported this yesterday

as well.

[leesa]

146. Why would anyone be surprised at US support for a land grab from

Muslims? Isn't that what makes our little self-righteous world go round?

[BabsSong]

148. That boy just knows how to make things better, doesn't he....

for christssake the asshole is holding is breath in Iraq and he has to haul off and do something like this. Why didn't he just talk around in circles and play dumb like he does in front of reporters at news conferences. He's such a boorish clod who just doesn't know when to zip it up. With such a touch for international diplomacy, who the hell needs Evil Doers!!!!

[CabalBuster]

167. This only help those radical factions of the Palestinians who

can now say to those moderates "I told you so". Negotiating peace/land is a waste of time, there is only one way for liberation: continuing and increasing the armed struggle. I can see now how more palestinians will now be joining Hamas, et. al.

[Muddleoftheroad]

169. Where are these "moderate" Palestinians?

[lumpy]

175. Where are those moderate Palestinians?

In the ghettos.