Originally posted by glynch I think that it is interesting that you guys accept this ex communist intelligence guys version of the facts as true without more confirmation. Glynch, you're cirticizing someone for posting something from the Wall Street Journal when you started a thread with a post from counterpunch.org? Oh well most of you accepted all the disinfo about Iraq and wmd from dubious defector types, too. Condescending again.
Well..other than the details of Paceba's involvement, nothing he says is really shocking This doesn't contradict anything you could read in primary and secondary sources going back to the 60's. -Deji
Deji, thanks for your perspective. It seems well thought out. However, I am a bit unsure about your aid figure. I was just curious if you knew exactly how much we give in foreign aid to Israel and how much we give to other arab countries. I can only seem to find numbers of humanitarian assistance (through USAID) we give, and I think military and other forms of aid (through the state department) are quite sizeable. I'm just ignorant of the numbers and you seemed like somebody in the know. Do you know where such information is available? From what I have heard, the total amount of aid (military and humanitarian) we give to Israel outstrips the amount of aid we give to the next 10 biggest recipients. I only heard that in a lecture by an Israeli-Palestinain scholar, but I was wondering if you knew where such numbers were in print.
How was that a personal attack? I made 2 very valid observations: 1) Your source was less reliable than the one you crticized; 2) You were condesecending to others (which many would take as a personal attack....see sticky ).
One aspect about Israel that frustrates me, and that lip service was given to for a short while, but then forgotten, was this simple fact: A leader who strove for peace was assassinated by a hawk...and the response to this? Put a hawk in power. This blows my mind...of people don't think that this kind of thining is a significant "obstacle " in the way of peace, I don't get it... Imagine what Americans would be saying if the reverse happened; A Palestinian leader comes along who puts peace first, makes headway, and is assassinated by the hawk element of the Palestinians...and in response they put a hawk in power. Would we or would we not be saying several things about this clearly demonstrating that they have no intention of pursuing peace, that a successful hawk cuop had taken place, etc.?
HUH??? Are you talking about Rabin? That was the 80's. Then there was a decade of liberal Barak, who gave the Palestinians A LOT. Then that followed with the Intifada- at the end of Barak's rule. The Israelis elected Sharon (who has endorsed a 2 state solution, negotiated with Arafat, and begun dismantling outposts) because they needed someone to protect them. If you "don't get it" (your words) perhaps you should look closely at the positions of the other side. Really, we aren't that crazy.
Uh, this has happened pretty much, as evidenced by their continued support of Arafattheterrorist and lynching of anyone who takes a moderate position on Israel (ie they are collaborators).
F.D. Khan, Even before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the motive behind alot of this funding was an invenstment in peace. I find the logic flawed myself, but for Egypt and Israel, anyway, it seems to have worked. As for the Saudi peace plan, it's a joke. It's a post 9-11 public relations stunt. It doesn't address the security concern that area near Netanya prompts (only 9 miles from the pre-67 border there to the Med), and it proposes redividing Jerusalem, giving Arab control of the Old City, including the Jewish quarter, the Western Wall, and the Mount of Olives (oldest Jewish cemetary in the world). It calls for the arab world to normalize relations, like the peace treaty signed by Egypt in 79, Jordan in 93 and the PA in 94. What do those signatories have in common? None of them have yet to fully normalize relations, despite having pledged to do so. But apparently, this Saudi Peace Plan will change all that? Nonsense. Israel would concede alot, landwise, but Israel is never going to give up the high ground on its border. It makes the entire country impossible to defend. Maybe the wall idea is to change that, and make the land expendable...I honestly don't know. "I look out from those heights and look onto the West Bank and say to myself, 'If I'm the chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, I cannot defend this land without that terrain.' They only have to go to the high ground running north and south in the middle of the country in order to dominate the country. So I don't know about politics, but if you want me to defend this country, and you want me to defend Jerusalem, I've got to hold that high ground." Lt.-Gen Thomas Kelly, USA, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 91 I mean, really, what fears should Israel have of anyone trying to infiltrate or attack its eastern border. The Barak plan was something like 97% of the Territories (the 40% of the West Bank currently held by the PA is around 95% of the population), and offered the Temple Mount in exchange for Palestenians giving up the "right-of-return." The right of return means that 4 million + decendants of Arabs who fled Israel after starting and losing the '48 war should be allowed to have their land back and granted citizenship in Israel. This makes about as much sense as me demanding that the UK give me back the land they took from my great-grandfather during the 20's in Ireland and that me and sister and her kids should all be allowed to move back and become citizens. Arafat rejected it anyway and stepped up the intifada. The real deal is the Palestenians want all of Israel (and all of Jordan for that matter) and anything less is "selling out" from the Palestenian perspective. -Deji
You know what Deji??? I just don't give a damn about Arab-Israeli relations anymore. But what I do care about it the United States of America. As long as we fund Israel, and pay Arab states to be nice to Israel we are costing ourselves billions and are still the bad guy getting our goods and services boycotted and having oil embargos hurt and disrupt our economy. I do place much of the blame of the situation on Israel, simply because they continue to build settlements till today over the remnants of others homes. Do you expect them not to be pissed off about it? I would be. But its not my problem. The same things go on between Hutu's and Tutsi's in Rwanda in Africa, Turks and Russians and everywhere else in the world. I can't save everyone and neither can the US. I think our support should be limited to growing their financial dependance on our products and services while funding education, health and food services to grow potential markets in which to trade with. George Washington in his farewell speech warned us to be weary of foreign entanglements. I think we are being pulled into a conflict that has no end in sight and we are foolish to think we can do anything about it besides anger both sides and waste a hell of a lot of money that could be used elsewhere.
wow...i'm not going to get any work done today. Khan: I agree with what you say. I think the way in which we suppoirt Israel and the Arab States is aniquated, expensive, and of limited long term usefulness. It keeps all these governments in a sort of limbo, where they should either succeed and grow or deteriorate and be replaced with something ideally better. Not to mention, its awfully paternalistic. Unfortunately, the only effort for the reform of despotic regimes in the ME now is the sort of revolution supported by Bin Laden. Well...and ours in Iraq. Israel, left to its own devices seems more than capable of defending itself. It's biggest diplomatic gain in 20 years(Peace with Jordan, though limited) was done without any intervension from the US or anyone else. Take all the leashes off, give the US tax-payers a break, and a solution may come: a war. And I can think of plenty of people, just on this BBS alone, that would spare no expense to avoid one of those. Vik: my numbers came from research I did in '95 when I was studying the ME in college. I believe the numbers are from the GAO. The thing I kept reading was how Israel is the #1 aid recipiant and Egypt is #2, and that it dated back to Camp David. I also more recently saw an itemized list of military aid (just military aid) and it detailed all the goodies we gave away, and that's when I learned that alot of our sexiest hardware is going to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, much of it not for sale to Israel. The itemized list is from a US gov't url, and if you want it, I can probably find it again. I got there via google, so it can't be too hard to track down. MacBeth: I don't understand where you are going with that. It seems like an oversimplification. After Rabin, there were *4* different Prime Ministers, two Likud and 2 Labor. If you mean the ascendency of Ariel Sharon, consult the polls: security, security, security. Cohen: Patton did alot more than slap a soldier. He disobeyed orders, and publicly discussed invading the Soviet Union with re-patriated Nazis (borders on treason). He was a serious political problem for Eisenhower and Truman. Sharon's biggest knock was Sabra and Shatilla. Elie Hobeika (a lebanese plangist) instigated the deaths of 2000 Palestenians on his own, in a move not altogether out of place with the the Lebanese Civil War, but this time, he was under the command of Israeli allies, and the general in charge was Sharon. It was a political contraversy and he took the hit, and was barred from ever being Chief of Staff. I won't defend the massacre of 2000 civillians in any way, and I have my doubts as to whether he could have stopped it or was unwiling to, but he certainly gave no order to kill civilians. Both these guys were respected generals, but known to be headstrong problem children for their military and civilian superiors, and known to take things into their own hands when they felt like it. Same sort of mental profile, and political liabilty, and yet a hero for a people at war because of the public perception of strength. as for the ultra-right: Monitoring them has become the primary effort of Shin Bet (the equiv of the FBI) provoking many on the right to grumble that it seems more important than fighting the terror campaign. Be that as it may, it's hard to argue that the gov't of Israel doesn't take its right wing fringe seriously. Ask any soldier stationed in Hebron what he thinks of Americans. Chances are, he can't stand them, because that's who lives in Hebron, and its his job to escort them through town to shop and do everything else, and the only people the Hebronites treat worse than the soldiers, are the arabs they live next to. Alot of Israelis joke that there are no ultra-right wingers in Israel proper. They say they all live in Brooklyn and the West Bank. In any case, Americans living in Israel suffer some institutional bias due to our countrymen who live in the West Bank. I met a guy from Chicago that ran a bar in Tel-Aviv that couldn't get a gun permit despite continued harassment from organized crime and theft. He said he was turned down for being an American, that Americans have a rep for being quick to anger, and quick to violence, because many of the incidents of incitement among the settlers and religious right-wingers are said to be caused by Americans. Whether this is true or not, that is certainly the stereotype, and the perception. as for Likud: The party of Begin and Zabotinsky always advocated the settlement of "Eretz Israel" as a central goal, hece the backlash against Sharon from his own party. But Sharon is still in power anyway, largely because Israeli public opinion has changed. As I said before, Oslo's one success was convincing Israel the territories were worth giving up for a lasting peace. This idea, now held by the majority, was considered radical in '92. The total and complete conquest of Israel by force has always been the PLO charter (which predates the '67 war). I can only imagine Palestenian opinion would be even more inclined against Israel after losing a war and their land to them. What is important, is that despite the Oslo demands that Palestenians educate for peace, they have been even more insiteful, encouraging martyrdom in every facet of culture, including children's television programs, textbooks, and classrooms. I say that because I've seen it. Some of the Arabs inside the Green Line are actually some of the biggest Likud supporters, because their quality of life has suffered more than the average Israeli, both from xenophobia and economic collapse from their own economies being overly dependant on tourism (taxi drivers, tour guides, olive oil growers, etc). I do empathize with the palestinians, when you see how crappy they have to live at the expense of a despot like Arafat, who even under house arrest, owns rows of Mercedes Benz's and eats finer food than anyone on this bbs. Conflict with Israel is important, to keep the misery index from exploding in his face. I empathize even more when I see how tightly the media is controlled, and how the people are manipulated and lied to and thier children coerced to particiapte in terror. Arafat praises the virtues of child martyrdom. His own wife said there was "no greater honor" for a parent than for a son to martyr himself. Of course, this is before it became acceptable for girls to do it too, and Arafat's wife and daughter live in opulance in Paris. Palestenian Gandhi? The PA killed many advocates for peace and non-violent resistance and dragged them through the street. Even Abbas was scared as hell to do anything. That's why he quit his job. He was scared for his life and his family's. He was no saint, but I think he and Dahlan was serious about trying to reconcille with Israel. Who do they have to turn to? Well..there's the UN, but they can't do much. There's America, and we think we can do alot, but we can't, much to the chagrin of more than few presidents that think they have something new up their sleeve. There's the Arab world, but for them the plight of the Palestenian people is a way to deflect anger away from the corrupt leadership of their despotic regimes. Frankly, it may not be saying much, but the best friend the Palestenian people have are the Israelis, because they are the only ones that truly stand to gain from alleviating Palestenian suffering (besides US Presidents wanting to create a legacy or an upswing in the polls). -Deji
This article failed to explain why KGB would want one single guy, Arafat, to play contradicting double roles - a peacekeeper and a terrorist. That doesn't make sense. Two guys could and should be appointed to play the double roles, one guy to play the nice guy, the other the bad guy, and they cover for each other. It would be a lot easier to operate that way than giving someone double roles and hope that he can cheat the whole world and the American intelligence and administration were stupid enough to let it slip, which is also suggested by the author.
Let us also take a guess as to why the KGB needed to go through the Romanian intelligence for mid-East operations, as the author didn't explain it.
Deji, Well, quality posts deserve a response. Other than commending you on your knowledge of the complex subject at hand, not sure what else to say since we probably don't really disagree strongly on salient issues. I am aware that Patton had some other issues, but none rise to the level of Sharon and Sabra and Shatilla (I am aware of his limited involvement, thats why I used quotes around 'responsible', but the Israeli court found him responsible so that's good enough for me). Apparently, you are not aware of how Palestinian public opinion has changed over time either. IIRC, is has changed fairly significantly with events. American-Israelis and American-Jews arestereotyped by other Israelis. Most interesting, I've never heard that before. Does it include a general dislike? Regardless, I am not yet convinced that Likud has changed one of it's central precepts (the occupied terroritories). Have Likud leaders made any statements against this 'gift from god'? Looks like I found a few things to say anyway....
I'm afraid I cant offer anything better than has already been said, but like Cohen said, quality posts deserve a reply. Even if they are no more than to say Great posts from Deji, clearly stated and level headed posts are at a premium these days so please keep posting.
