Mideast: Why isn't THIS in our news?

Cohen, as you know we are relatively close in our viewpoints.

A few days ago I posted the story below. Unfortuantely the press in this country is not as objective on this issue as the bbc.

-------------------------------------
Interview with Ami Ayalon, Former Head of Israeli Shin Bet
An unconditional withdrawal from the Territories is urgently needed


interview by Alain Cypel, Le Monde


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This interview with Ami Ayalon, the former head if Israeli's Shin Bet, appeared in Le Monde in December 22, 2001, and wsa translated from the original French. It also appears on the very important website, Mid-East Realities (MER)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[Small, lean, dressed in jeans and an open shirt, Ayalon speaks calmly, but forcefully. Ami Ayalon headed the Insraeli Shin Bet (internal security) from 1996 to 2000 during the Prime Ministerships of Bibi Netanayahu and Ehud Barak]

Ami Ayalon: Israeli society, top to bottom, is sinking into confusion. There are no reference points. People mask this reality with swaggering slogans: "We will vanquish terrorism!". At a colloquium, the army chief of staff declares: "We are winning"; he evokes the "superiority of Tsahal"—the Israeli army—and his "feeling that the nation is finding its strength."

Then he adds "there are today more Palestinian terrorists than a year ago" and says there will be even more tomorrow! If we are winning, how come terrorists are multiplying?

In Israel, no one is in touch with reality. This is a consequence of a misperception of the peace process. "We have been generous and they refused!" is ridiculous, and everything that follows from this misperception is skewed. Moreover, our obsession with the Palestinians makes us forget to ask questions about ourselves. What do we want to be? Where are we going? No leader addresses these questions. Thus the confusion and general anxiety.

AC: The majority of leaders though are convinced that time works in favor of Israel.

AA: Since September 11, our leaders have been euphoric. With no more international pressures on Israel, they think, the way is open. This obscures the consequences of our holding onto the Palestinian Territories.

This is not only a moral matter. Our founders saw a state that provided a homeland for Jews and was a democracy. From both points of view, time plays against us! Demographically, it works in favor of the Palestinians. And politically in favor of Hamas and the settlers. But to fight against Hamas, we must evacuate the settlers, whose proximity to the Palestinians reinforces hatred.

Among the Palestinians, the weight of the Islamists is increasing, and also that of intellectuals who used to favor a two-state solution, but who now say: "Since the Israelis will never evacuate the settlements, well, then, there will be a binational state."

This is something I absolutely oppose. It would not be a Jewish state any more. And if it remained a Jewish state while dominating the Arab population, it would not be a democracy.

AC: Do you exclude the possibility of an Israeli victory, despite the power differential?

AA: We have had our "victory"! In 1967, we occupied all the Palestinian lands. Once "terrorism is vanquished," what shall we do? This is absurd. The Palestinians want self-rule. Whoever wants to "vanquish" them, then offer them bread and circuses, understands nothing. The Israeli army is stronger than ever, our secret services are excellent; then why is the problem not resolved? Reoccupying the Palestinian Authority lands, and killing Arafat, what would that change? Those who want victory want an unending war.

AC: Yet, since September 11, many think that Israel can change the regional situation in its favor.

AA: An illusion! September 11 has changed many paradigms in the U.S., but nothing basic in the Middle East. Whatever Arafat's errors, the Palestinian people will continue to exist. As long as the Palestinian question is not resolved, the region will not know stability. Only a Palestinian state will preserve the Jewish and democratic character of Israel.

We do need international political and financial help to resolve that problem and that of the refugees, because as long as the refugee problem persists, even if a Palestinian state exists, it will poison our relationship.

AC: But the Israelis are traumatized by the Palestinian demand for the return of refugees.

AA: Let us stop worrying about what our adversaries say and ask what we, ourselves, want. We do not want the return of the refugees. But we can refuse only if Israel acknowledges unambiguously its role in the suffering of the Palestinians and its obligation to help solve the problem. Israel must accept the principle of the right of return and the PLO must commit itself to not question the Jewish identity of our state.

AC: What do you think of the view put forth by the head of Mossad of Israel in the front line of the "third world war" against terrorism?

AA: Anyone who equals Arafat with Bin Laden understand neither Arafat nor Bin Laden. The latter is the guru of a very harmful sect, but one that is very marginal to Islam; it aims to bring chaos and cares nothing about the international community. But Arafat dreams of being accepted by the international community—since 1993, he has constantly made reference to it, demanding the application of the UN resolutions, while we, Israelis, refuse! If Bin Laden is killed, his sect may disappear with him. If we kill Arafat, the Palestinian people will continue to want its independence.

AC: Do you fear that the Palestinian Territories may become a quagmire?

AA: We say the Palestinians behave like "madmen," but it is not madness but a bottomless despair. As long as there was a peace process—the prospect of an end to the occupation—Arafat could maneuver, incite or repress violence to better negotiate. When there is no more peace process, the more terrorists one kills the more strength their camp gains.

Yasser Arafat neither prepared nor triggered the Intifada. The explosion was spontaneous, against Israel, as all hope for the end of occupation disappeared, and against the Palestinian authority, its corruption, its impotence. Arafat could not repress it. The peace process is what allowed Arafat to be seen as the head of a national liberation movement rather than a collaborator of Israel. Without it, he can fight neither against the Islamists nor against his own base. The Palestinians would end up hanging him in the public square.

AC: From Oslo to Camp David, did Israel miss a rare opportunity for peace?

AA: Yes. It is not all the Israelis' fault. The Palestinians, the international community, bear some responsibility, but we missed an extraordinary opportunity: the international situation was incredibly favorable after the fall of communism, the Gulf war, the emergence of globalization, all these phenomena led Israel to reexamine its own assumptions. Now, we are regressing.

AC: Do you favor a "unilateral separation" from the Palestinians?

AA: I do not like the word separation, it reminds me of South Africa. I favor unconditional withdrawal from the Territories—preferably in the context of an agreement, but not necessarily: what needs to be done, urgently, is to withdraw from the Territories. And a true withdrawal, which gives the Palestinians territorial continuity in a Transjordan linked to Gaza, open to Egypt and Jordan. If they proclaim their own state, Israel should be the first to recognize it and to propose state to state negotiations, without conditions, on the basis of the Clinton proposals, to resolve all pending problems.

 

But it's much easier to say "Arafat is wrong", "Israel is right" so Israel should blow them up. Problem solved.

 

i think what most are concerned with, however, is that Hamas and other groups have said they will not be satisfied until there is no Israel...or at least until these "infidels" are removed from the holy land. i don't think the violence stops with these other solutions...and I don't think Israel is going anywhere soon.

 

Madmax, what the ex Israeli intelligence guy is saying. Screw what Hamas does or doesn't do. Israel should withdraw anyway and then deal with any defensive needs against terorism. He is saying the occupation is not defensible from many perspectives, including (1) militarily it is creating more terrorism than it prevents and (2) from a demographic point of view, barring massive Serbian style ethnic cleansing, it would lead to the Jews being an ethnic and religious minority (3) the continuing occupation is creating problems for Israel's initial values of democracy etc.

 

Really good stuff for a change, thanks.

 

Jordan's king said to be angered by Arafat
By Ben Barber
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Jordan's King Abdullah II tacitly backed Israel's confinement of Yasser Afarat to house arrest, reflecting what a senior U.S. official called growing Arab disillusionment with the Palestinian leader's failure to stop terrorist attacks.

In a meeting with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, King Abdullah "talked about putting Arafat in a corner" and said it was a good idea to do so, the senior official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

The Jordanian monarch told Mr. Powell that he has "no problem" with American pressure on Mr. Arafat to get him to crack down on suicide bombers that have struck repeatedly in Jerusalem and elsewhere inside Israel in recent days, the U.S. official said.

But Jordan's Foreign Minister disputed the U.S. account of the meeting.

"That's not what we said," said Marwan Muasher in an interview. "We think Arafat is in a corner, and we would like to see Arafat get out of his corner.

"We think there are commitments both sides need to live up to. We agree on the need to stop the violence. We also agree on the need for Israel to stop targeted killings and demolition of houses."

The United States has increasingly blamed Mr. Arafat, the Palestinian Authority leader, for spiraling violence in the Middle East while refusing to criticize Israel for using tanks and troops to box him into his Ramallah office on the West Bank.

When the State Department last week abandoned a long-term policy of placing blame for violence on both Palestinians and Israelis, there was little criticism from leaders in the Arab world.

A turning point in U.S. policy toward Mr. Arafat followed the capture last month of a ship loaded with weapons from Iran heading toward the Palestinian coast.

According to the U.S. official, King Abdullah is not the only Arab leader fed up with Mr. Arafat for allowing extremists of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups to attack Israeli civilians.

King Abdullah "is obviously in touch with other Arab leaders," the senior official said.

"That seems to be the predominant Arab view these days," he said, noting that Egypt also approves of pressuring Mr. Arafat.

Mr. Muasher, a former ambassador to Washington, said the king came to urge the United States to engage with Mr. Arafat, who has not been invited to the White House since President Clinton left office.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, however, has made several visits and returns next week.

Speaking to reporters with King Abdullah at his side yesterday, Mr. Powell said that "we have not given up hope" of finding a way to get to a cease-fire.

The king said he hoped to "find a just solution to try and get some sort of relief for Israelis and Palestinians to get themselves out of the cycle of violence."

"It is very apparent that Israelis and Palestinians alike, as peoples, are frustrated and desperate to find a way out of the suffering that is going on in that region.

"At the end of the day, let's forget about the politics and the leadership. The peoples — I believe the majority of Israelis and Palestinians — are just sick and tired of the cycle of violence and want a way out."

King Abdullah, whose wife is Palestinian and whose people are about half Palestinian, said President Bush "in his heart, I know, wants to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians and give hope and security to the Palestinians."

"And that is what we're here to try and achieve in our visit to Washington," he said.

The king will talk with President Bush today at the White House.

Mr. Powell repeated the administration's support for a Palestinian state to exist peacefully alongside Israel with "both respecting each other's right to exist, both living in security with each other."

The administration's special Middle East envoy, Gen. Anthony Zinni, will not return to the Middle East until "we have got things under a greater degree of control than they are now with respect to violence," Mr. Powell said.

Also yesterday, Mr. Sharon said in a published interview that Israel should have "eliminated" Mr. Arafat during its 1982 invasion of Lebanon.

"In Lebanon, it was agreed that Arafat would not be eliminated. To tell the truth, I'm sorry we didn't eliminate him," he told the Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv.

Instead, Mr. Arafat and thousands of Palestinian fighters were evacuated by ship to Tunisia, where they remained in exile until the Oslo accords of 1993 created the Palestinian Authority and allowed him to return to Gaza and the West Bank as its leader.

Palestinians called Mr. Sharon's remarks proof of his deep hostility toward Mr. Arafat.

But Israeli government spokesman Ranan Gissin said that even though Israel has Mr. Arafat surrounded by tanks "today Israel's policy is not to harm him personally."

Yesterday, violence continued in the region as Israeli forces killed two Palestinian gunmen from the Islamic militant group Hamas as they ambushed a convoy headed for a Jewish settlement in the southern Gaza Strip.

The gunmen were shot dead after they detonated a roadside bomb as a truckload of Thai workers passed, then opened fire on troops in the convoy, the army said.

Shortly after the attack, mortar shells hit a settlement in the Gush Katif community, injuring one Israeli. Palestinian witnesses said Israeli forces entered the nearby Khan Younis refugee camp and detained 10 Palestinians at a Gaza checkpoint.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020201-539770.htm

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there will be no peace until the suicide bombings stop; that is the single most important precondition to any talks about withdrawal from the territories, Palestinian statehood, settlement policies, water rights, or anything else. Nothing will change until the attacks against Israeli civilians cease - it is absolutely the first step in resuming the peace process. The Israelis will not pull out of the territories until they can safely do so, despite what a single former Israeli official thinks - or even a small minority - it won't happen. Bank on that.

To think otherwise is not only foolish, it is irresponsible. Nothing will be accomplished until the bombings stop. Period.

 

If you support or even attempt to justify the actions of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or Hezbollah you are a terrorist sympathizer. I believe someone kinda important clarified this.. what was his name??? oh yeah, President George W. Bush!

 

Franchise 2001. No one in this thread, including the ex head of Israeli internal security who is trying to take a realistic approach to decreasing it has tried to justify Hamas and terrorist activity. I guess you were just making a generic statement of some sort.

Treeman, why do you always quote from the Washington Times, Washington failed second paper that the Reverend Moon bought and controlled paper, that is noted for being the most right wing major daily in America? Also, the headline of the Washington Times is deceiving. They say the Jordan King approves of Israel's encirclement of Arafat and then it is denied by a Jordanian source in the body of the story. No wonder aside from the "legitimacy" that they give the right wing, the paper is held in low regard.

It is duly noted that you have parroted the Sharon line of no negotiations or peace as long as there is one suicide bomber, like it is an established fact like the law of gravity. Sharon, at least , knows that this is a way to act like he is for peace while he just wants to continue with annexing land through settlements. Do you not also realize this?

 

<B>To think otherwise is not only foolish, it is irresponsible. Nothing will be accomplished until the bombings stop. Period.</B>

Then the peace process will die, and the suicide bombings will continue. This is where the ridiculous military line simply doesn't work. Israel's leadership reminds me of the military generals in Thirteen Days, who preferred military action over anything else, as though that was the only solution to any problem.

 

glynch:

For starters, I do not always post Washington Times articles. NY Times, Washington Times, MSNBC/NBC/Newsweek, ABC, BBC, Associated Press, Reuters, UPI, and others... I scan all of them daily, and post those articles that I believe are relevant. I have posted articles here from all of these sources.

Why do you always seem to post links to anti-war and socialist sites?

"Parrotted the Sharon line"? It is the mainstream belief in Israel that until the suicide bombings stop, there can be no peace. The "let's withdraw unconditionally" crowd is a distinct minority (quite small, but quite popular in Euro circles - who fund the PNA, coincidentally), despite your efforts to dishonestly present them as representing mainstream beliefs.

Why do you parrott the Arafat line? You're siding with a career terrorist. In fact, you have consistently sided with our enemies from day one of this war. I wonder why that is?

Anyway, the mainstream Israelis are right - there will be no peace until the suicide bombings end. That is not a "the way it should be" statement, that is a simple observation of the "way it is".

Would you like to bet? C'mon, I dare you...

Major:

Sadly, the peace process is pretty much already dead, or at least on hold for the forseeable future. Any peace process that does not include Hamas, PFLP, Islamic Jihad, DFLP, and Hizbollah actually ending attacks is not a viable process. As long as the suicide bombings continue, the Israelis will continue the targeted assassinations. And of course, as long as the targeted assassinations continue, the intifada will continue. And of course, as long as the intifada continues, the IDF will continue its crackdown...

The only way to break the cycle is for the agressor (the suicide bombers in this case) to cease their activity. You do not end cycles of violence by having the defensive side lower their guard - it simply does not work that way.

And BTW, Israel's leadership is very much militarized (most of their leaders have been either soldiers or associated with the Defense Ministry in some way). That tends to happen when your nation is attacked continuously for two and a half generations straight. 53 years and counting.

 

<B>The only way to break the cycle is for the agressor (the suicide bombers in this case) to cease their activity. You do not end cycles of violence by having the defensive side lower their guard - it simply does not work that way. </B>

I disagree. You can treat them at two completely separate issues. On one hand, deal with the peace process as though the suicide bombers aren't there. Move forward with negotiations and plans. You can set their implementation timeframe as the time that the suicide bombings end. That way, you put the complete burden on Arafat, and you make it directly correlate to the peace that he wants. On the other hand, continue to go after the bombers militarily to deal with that issue your own way.

If Arafat walks away from the peace table, fine -- then you at least solely focus the blame on the other side. Managing perceptions is a huge key to making this work, and Israel and the PLO have both done horrible jobs in this respect.

<B>And BTW, Israel's leadership is very much militarized (most of their leaders have been either soldiers or associated with the Defense Ministry in some way). That tends to happen when your nation is attacked continuously for two and a half generations straight. 53 years and counting.</B>

Agreed, and look where it has gotten them. Slowly, world opinion is turning away from Israel. Just because it IS that way doesn't mean it should be or that its an effective solution.

 

I am reminded of the scene in Erik the Viking where High Brazil was sinking, the inhabitants were singing peacefully, and their leader repeatedly reassured the escaping Vikings "Don't worry, it's not happening. I repeat, this is not happening..."

It's kinda hard to pretend that your innocent civilians are not being murdered on a daily basis. You just can't help but notice when the same intersection is hit twice by suicide bombers and gunmen twice in the same week. Perhaps we should pretend that 9/11 didn't happen, so that we can negotiate with Al Qaeda?

Foolish.

The framework is already there - the Mitchell Plan. Unfortunately, it too says that the suicide bombings must stop...

You mean like how he walked away from the Barak deal? Now, I know you'll come back at me with a host of "that was a horrible deal" reasons that Arafat was justified in walking away from it, but the fact stands that it was the best deal ever - ever - offered, and Arafat should have taken it. If he'd shown that he was actually serious about peaceful coexistence by taking that deal, then he would have gotten even more concessions from Israel later on. Instead, he told the Israelis to go screw themselves, and got Sharon elected.

Arafat has never been serious about peaceful coexistence with Israel. He's been a terrorist for over 30 years. I am absolutely baffled to think that some people believe that he's capable of a sudden change of heart now...

You mean that Israel needs a less hawkish, more liberal govt? Well guess what? Been there, done that, didn't work.

The Labor party ran Israel throughout the 90's (with the exception of Netanyahu's term) - throughout nearly the entire Oslo process. Where did it get them? Nowhere. Scratch that - it forced them to rely on Yassir Arafat. And what did that get them? Ariel Sharon.

Arafat is the Palestinians' worst enemy, but for some reason they don't realize that. Elements of our and Europe's left have also fallen for that scam, and look where it's gotten everyone...

 

glynch,

Did King Abdullah comment on Araft being restricted this past week?

Jordan has had problems in the past with various Palestinian groups, so King Abdullah has little fondness for Arafat.

Lets see how the other right-wing Washington paper reported the Powell - King Abdullah meeting.

<A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5043-2002Jan31.html">
King Abdullah Praises Bush's Policy</A>

<i>
WASHINGTON –– King Abdullah II of Jordan praised President Bush's Middle East policy Thursday as striking a "fair balance" to find a way out of violence and toward peace and stability for Israelis and Palestinians.

"The president, in his heart, I know wants to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians and give hope and security to the Palestinians," Abdullah said.

The praise could strengthen Bush's hand in the Arab world as he pursues a strategy of pressuring Yasser Arafat to curb Palestinian attacks on Israel.

U.S. criticism of Israel has been negligible in recent weeks, as criticism of Palestinian leader Arafat has escalated.

Appearing with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Abdullah was asked about his evaluation of Bush's policy.

"When I'm saying a fair balance, (I mean) the president is committed to bringing peace and stability to the Palestinians and the Israelis," the king said. "Obviously, the ongoing cycle of violence has been a tremendous obstacle to us all."

Abdullah, scheduled for breakfast with Bush on Friday at the White House, has lent his support in his three years on the throne to Palestinian demands for an independent state.

The Bush administration has sidetracked U.S. mediation between Israel and the Palestinians, however, until violence subsides.

"We will not give up hope," Powell said. "And we will continue to work with both sides in as balanced a way as we can to get back to a process that will lead to a cease-fire and the negotiations that we must have in due course."

Powell said those negotiations must be based on Israel swapping land for peace with the Palestinians and result in statehood for the Palestinians.

Bush has tried to enlist Arab leaders to support his campaign to end Palestinian attacks, while at the same time offering assurances he intends to implement his endorsement of Palestinian statehood.
<b>
Abdullah's 45-minute meeting with Powell centered on a need to keep pressure on Arafat to stop the attacks, a senior U.S. official said.

The king understood the policy Powell outlined to him and offered no reservations, the official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.
</b>
Jordan's new foreign minister, Marwan Muasher, said later that "what we talked about is that Arafat is in a corner, and we talked about the need to get both Palestinians and Israelis out of the corner."

"We agreed there are commitments that both Israelis and Palestinians need to live up to," Muasher, who was Jordan's first ambassador to Israel seven years ago, said in an interview.

Next week, Ahmed Qureia, speaker of the Palestinian parliament, is due to see Powell and discuss with him "how to find ways and means to go back to the negotiating table," said Hassan Abdel Rahman, the senior Palestinian official in the United States.

Powell is to meet Friday in New York with Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, who for years has favored Israeli concessions to Arafat's Palestinian Authority.

Abdullah told reporters after his session with Powell that he stressed the frustrations of people in the region.

"Let's forget about the politics and the leadership," he said. "The peoples, I believe, the majority of Israelis and Palestinians, are just sick and tired of the cycle of violence and want a way out."

From the outset, Abdullah said, President Bush has tried "to find a mechanism to get both people – both sides – out of it."

"We're working on formulas to be able to achieve that," Abdullah said.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said later he was not aware of any new formula. Boucher said the administration still was interested in a cease-fire and steps toward peacemaking recommended by a commission headed by former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell.
</i>


How about the other right-wing Washington newspaper with a story of 2 months ago with several Arab leaders telling Arafat to control the violence?

<A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A64538-2001Dec5">Arab Leaders Privately Pressure Arafat</A>

<i>
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, Dec. 5 -- With violence escalating between Israel and the Palestinians, key Arab leaders have begun privately telling Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, to do more to curb militant groups in order to preserve the possibility of a return to peace talks and avoid international isolation, Arab and Western officials said today.

In a potentially important rhetorical shift, the leaders of Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, three moderate Arab states whose involvement is key to Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, have avoided any direct criticism of Israeli helicopter and fighter plane strikes launched in retaliation for a series of suicide bombings by Palestinians over the weekend.

Instead, they have publicly put the onus on both sides to curb violence. Also, the officials said, the three countries have warned Arafat privately that, in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, he has little room to maneuver in dealing with Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militant Palestinian groups.

Israel and the United States have demanded that Arafat arrest those involved in suicide bombings against Israel, and the officials said that Arab leaders have made the same point, though they have not said it in public. "They are telling him, do something. It's time to stop it," said one Saudi official familiar with conversations between Arafat and Saudi leaders.

A Western official said similar messages were delivered to Arafat by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah. The official suggested that Arafat was starting to seek help, such as asking Arab governments to curb private contributions to Hamas, also known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, and other militant organizations. The Islamic groups have long posed a challenge to Arafat's authority.

"They are telling him roughly the same thing [U.S. Secretary of State] Colin Powell is telling him," the Western official said of the message to Arafat. "The [Arab] leaders are frightened. They hate [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon, but Arafat is not without culpability, and they know that you can't pull out the old playbook anymore."

A top member of the Saudi royal family expressed what may be a growing frustration with both sides in the conflict. "It has gone beyond blaming and it is time to stop," Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former Saudi intelligence minister, said in an interview this week. "When you see pictures of body parts spread all over the place -- it makes you sick. Who the hell is Sharon or Arafat to cause their people this suffering?"

The current Palestinian uprising has been sustained over 14 months in part through a belief in Arab countries that it is a pan-Arab cause. Arab governments and individuals, particularly the Saudis, have donated tens of millions of dollars to sustain Arafat and his Palestinian Authority, and have made many statements supporting the uprising.

After Mubarak and Abdullah met Monday in Cairo, Egyptian Information Minister Safwat Sharif issued a statement underscoring both sides' responsibility for the bloodshed.

Saudi and Egyptian religious leaders also made pointed condemnations of the Palestinian suicide attacks in Jerusalem and Haifa. The issue is a controversial one among Muslim clerics, with some condemning suicide attacks and others saying that the tactic is acceptable in what they call a defensive war against Israel.

After the attacks in Jerusalem and Haifa, Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, head of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, was quoted in the Egyptian press as saying that Islam "rejects all attempts on human life, and in the name of sharia [Islamic law] we condemn all attacks on civilians, whatever the community or state responsible for such an attack."

Similar comments were issued by a ranking Saudi scholar, Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Subail, a member of the country's senior council of clerics and an imam at the Grand Mosque in Mecca.

<i/>



Mango

 

For the Israelis, it's really more about strategic depth than anything else, Cohen. It's not that they actually want the Palestinians' lands, and they certainly don't want to rule the Palestinian population. They just have a deep-rooted fear of another unprovoked Arab-Israeli conflict (and if history is to judge at all, with good reason, I might add), and they literally do not have the strategic depth to mass, maneuver, and defend for another attack. They need battlespace as long as they're still being threatened by Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt (if Mubarak falls - not unlikely), Saudi, Yemen, Libya... and everyone else who wants to see the state of Israel wiped off the map.

Until they feel safe, I wouldn't expect them to start bending over and coughing up Gaza, W. Bank, the Golan, etc. They truly prefer not to have to occupy these areas (although I'd guess they want to keep Golan Heights and its water, unless there's a genuine peace outbreak throughout the entire region), but they have to maintain freedom of movement in these areas in order to put up a viable defense against another Arab attack. As long as they're threatened, they need the maneuver room.

And I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking that Another general regional war (another large-scale Arab-Israeli war) is no longer possible; it is quite possible, to the contrary. In fact, if fundamentalist govts were to take over in Saudi and Egypt (and those are not unlikely scenarios), they might well join Iran, Iraq, and Syria in one last desperate attempt to wreak revenge and destroy their mutual nemesis... There is a reason behind the Israelis' madness.

As for Rabin being assassinated, he did certainly start the whole Oslo process. But his party also had Peres and Barak to continue Oslo with Arafat (and pretty much stuck with Rabin's policies), and they accomplished nothing in the end. Their strategy was always appeasement. It never worked, because every time a deal felt close, a suicide bomber would bring everyone back to square one. Arafat was supposed to reign in the Palestinian terrorist groups beginning in 1993. He didn't decide that doing so would be a good idea until recently (too late for him, IMO).

In general, appeasement usually doesn't work, certainly not when the person/group you're trying to appease A) breaks ceasefires at will (or allows its allies to do so by proxy), B) speaks out of both sides of the mouth (lies its ass off), and C) wants you dead, and wants your entire nation erased from the map.

 

Cohen,

Yes, that was perhaps simplistic, but still basically true. There is a small minority that wants unconditional withdrawal (it is quite small indeed right now, and consists largely of Israeli Arabs - although not all Israeli Arabs actually identify with the region's Arabic populations), there is a larger minority that wants to actually take the Palestinian lands and expel the Palestinians (the actual Zionists, typically orthodox), and there is a majority (I have seen polls to the effect of 70% or so) that want to withdraw, but not until their safety is guaranteed. So, you're right that there are other factions, but the mainstream belief is now in "no peace without security".

Strategic depth is a military consideration, although due to Israel's compulsory service system, it is widely understood by the general public. There really is no way around it until Israel is assured that it is not going to be invaded again. It might well be quite a long time before it is not a primary part of Israel's national security equation.

I agree that a general regional war is inevitable unless something changes. That is really why the suicide bombings must stop. If Israel starts losing a general regional war, it will quite likely nuke every Arab city for a thousand miles (except perhaps for Jordanian cities). The Arab belief is that the Israelis will not use nukes, and that is an extremely dangerous belief for them to hold, since they will be the recipients... In 1973 Meir actually ordered the nukes loaded on the planes, and had them sitting on the runway at one point. They were one order away from nuclear holocaust. And they still regularly keep at a high state of nuclear alert... The Arabs should not continue to ignore this reality.

Setting a bomb off in a street market is one thing, as is the response. Total national destruction... The Israelis will nuke every Arab in a thousand miles in that event. This cycle of violence eventually leads to a situation where the annihilation of Israel is a possibility, and therefore leads to a possible nuclear holocaust. The Israelis understand this, and that is precisely why they need strategic depth - to win a conventional war, so they don't have to go nuclear. The Arabs do not understand this, apparently. Neither do some of our friends here or in Europe...

The cycle of violence must stop, and the only realistic way to do that is for the suicide attacks to end. One way or another - either the Palestinians crack down on Hamas, PFLP, Islamic Jihad, etc, and the Lebanese/Iranians crack down on Hizbollah; these groups voluntarily cease attacks (highly unlikely) or the Israelis destroy these groups themselves (it is possible that we will destroy Hizbollah ourselves). Otherwise, IMO, the likelihood is that a general regional war will come to pass, and it might very well end in nuclear annihilation of 90% of the ME's population.

Arafat - If Arafat is going to arrest people, he can't keep letting them go - invariably - 24 hours later. That's kind of pointless, and the Israelis aren't falling for it anymore. He will either actually make a determined effort to crack down - and that effort must have visible results - or he is a dead man, IMHO. I personally believe that he's a dead man walking.

Palestinian kids - Well, for starters, their parents should be telling them to stay the f*k away from the battlelines, instead of telling them to help the intifada. Don't throw rocks ar tanks. Don't shoot at IDF soldiers. Don't kick unexploded ordnance. Most importantly, stay off the f*king battlefield - most cfhildren that die there wander into the battlefield (or are actually participating in it). I'd say that their parents ought to be strung up...

The Israelis aren't killing children on purpose, despite what glynch or boy will try to tell you. Stray ordnance sometimes kills innocents, but that just goes back to the "stay the hell away from the battlefield" thing again... But if you tell your kid that he should pick up an AK and fight against adults with heavy weapons (and that does happen), don't be surprised if he doesn't come home for dinner (ever again).

Also, BTW, technically the land belongs to Jordan (West Bank) and Egypt (Gaza). It is not actually Palestinian land, as there has never been a Palestinian state. But that is beside the point, and I largely agree with you. If the PNA actually started cracking down on the Palestinian terrorist groups, then presumably the suicide battacks would stop, and Israel should (and would, IMO) pull out, peace talks could resume, and the Palestinians would eventually get their state.

But as I have repeatedly said, this will not happen until the terrorist attacks cease - one way or another. There is no other realistic way.

 

An update on the reservists who are refusing to serve.

From The Independent Newspaper.

Sign up for our free daily news update
© 2002 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
06 February 2002 18:23 GMT
Home > News > World > Middle East
Sharon suspends reservists as revolt in the ranks grows
By Phil Reeves
06 February 2002
Israel's armed forces have decided to suspend scores of reserve soldiers from their posts in an effort to quell the largest internal revolt in the ranks since the start of the 16-month Palestinian uprising.

The reservists, who include combat officers, have signed a petition saying they will refuse to serve in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip because Israel is "dominating, expelling, starving and humiliating" the Palestinian population.

By yesterday, the petition had 173 names. The figure has risen from 100 in less than a week, adding momentum to an acrimonious national debate. It is the first big rift in Israeli public opinion over Israel's conduct of the conflict since Ariel Sharon was elected Prime Minister in a landslide victory 11 months ago.

The army has reacted with annoyance and unease, not least because it makes wide use of reservists to patrol and guard Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

The refuseniks insist that their objections are principled, and have stressed that they are willing to defend Israel within its pre-1967 borders.

One of them, Lieutenant Ishai Sagi, has described how, during one two-week stint in the West Bank, he was ordered to open fire at Palestinians who picked up stones for throwing at the troops. "There were no specifics about whether [the person] was a child, a woman or an elderly man," he said, "And there were no specifics as to where to shoot [the person]."

He told one interviewer: "I don't think that what the Israeli Defence Forces do in the territories contributes in any way to defending Israel itself ...

"Everything that we do in there – all the horrors, all the tearing down of houses and trees, all the roadblocks, everything – is just for one purpose, the settlers, who I believe are illegally there. So I believe that the [orders] that I got were illegal and I won't do them again."

Also from the Middle East section.