Big Bro Bush Tells Israelis Enough is Enough

glynch.
I am curious why you failed to mention Bush's strong words against terrorist acts and how these acts were the root cause of the current conflict, etc.

 

The Irony of Saddam's recent backing of the Palestinian Suicide Bombers is that Saddam has fought to have his state be completely secular and has struggled against religious extremism in his own country.

That being said, all this talk about how Arafat is not controlling the terrorists is nonsense. I'm sure from a room in his compound that is getting shelled in which he has no power or water, he is commanding the suicide bombers.

The suicide bomber are simply people with no hope left. I completely disagree with their actions and feel the slaughter of innocents can never be justified. But instead of raking up the leaves of the destruction let us kill the roots of hate.

When a man (or woman) loses everything; family, home, freedom, respect; that is the most dangerous person, he/she with nothing to lose. I simply fear this Israeli attack is simply fanning the flames for additional suicide bombers.
Its ironic how Sharon chose to attack the day after the ENTIRE Arab world said they would agree to recognize Israel and its borders as long as it gave the Palestinians a state in the occupied territories. But Sharon and Israel doesn't want to give up the few settlements there. It is my opinion that Sharon and Israel don't want peace, but they want to slowly but surely push the Palestinian's out of the West Bank, Gaza, Golon Heights and Jerusalem. In the meanwhile keep up the fight through efforts to tease with peace, then to attack and take more, piece by piece.

The Barak deal if Actually studied is a Palestinian "state" in which Isreal controls all of the main roads in the state and the Jewish settlements split up most major towns.

 

No. I told him the personal insults (like calling people idiots or saying they were too closed minded so it wasn't worth his time) were inappropriate. If you recall, he apologized.

Later, I argued with treeman's point of view and pointed out in the process that he was guilty of his own brand of hypocracy (decrying everyone else's closed-mindedness but ignoring his own).

I never told him what he posted was inappropriate or had no place here. I said what he posted was boring and a waste of bandwidth IMO but I never told him he had to stop. I had the same problem with him that some have charged ZRB with in the Rockets' forum: redundnacy.

 

I think there has to be international law for some things...we have to have some ways to regulate use of waterways, certain things regarding trade, etc. But I'm skeptical of international law governing domestic events. I'm skeptical of international bodies imposing their values on other cultures. I'm particularly skeptical of world criminal courts...

 

Depends on how you interpret the level of "control" in question. Do I think that Arafat is directly telling the terrorists when & where to act? No. Do I think that he's given the green-light for them to act with impunity? Yes. All the information released by the Israelis SEEMS to show that Arafat & those in his inner circle (like the PA finance director) have direct involvement in, if not planning, then funding & procuring weapons for suicide attacks.

Don't you find it interesting that there hasn't been a single suicide attack since the Israeli offensive began?

I agree wholeheartedly that the terrible conditions the Palestinian people have been forced to live in (by both the Israelis & the PA leadership) have been a factor in the willingness of some to be "martyrs" for their cause. But to say that despair & a lack of hope are the sole reasons for the terrorist attacks, while ignoring the constant stream of quasi-fascist anti-Semitic bile that emanates from many figures of authority in the region is ludicrous.

Check out some of the statements in this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/international/middleeast/04HAMA.html

"Forty were killed and 200 injured--in just two operations," another of the leaders, Mahmoud al-Zahar, said with a smile. . . .

The goals of Hamas are straightforward. As Sheik Yassin put it, "our equation does not focus on a cease-fire; our equation focuses on an end to the occupation." By that he means an end to the Jewish occupation of historical Palestine.

and, even more telling:

Hamas wants Israeli withdrawal from all of the West Bank and Gaza, the dismantling of all Israeli settlements and full right of return for the four million Palestinians who live in other states. After that, the Jews could remain, living "in an Islamic state with Islamic law," Dr. Zahar said. "From our ideological point of view, it is not allowed to recognize that Israel controls one square meter of historic Palestine."

Mr. Shenab insisted that he was not joking when he said, "There are a lot of open areas in the United States that could absorb the Jews."

 

This is what I was referring to.

It certainly seems that you are showing a bias towards those who agree with you, just like you think that DaDakota did. There has been a lot of repitition from both camps on this matter, but you only felt compelled to indict treeman.

Maybe reading viewpoints consistent with yours don't bore you as much?

 

Buck,

I agree very much with you that the Arab/Palestinian leadership are ignorant and inefficient, I have often posted about how Arab governments exploit the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to gain support in their own lands. Look at Iraq for example, realizing the gift of money to suicide bombers will make him look like he is the lone leader truly trying to help the Palestinians will make it harder for leaders to join the US in taking him down.

But we must face facts, and that is that people will continue to fight for their homes and their family in the occupied territories. Unless they are driven out or killed (both of which seem to be happening with frightening ease) they will continue to fight.
Yes, many will wait and wait for peace, but many have been waiting for over 30 years.

My opinion is that if there is despair, then groups will emerge like Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc. to quench the thirst of the pain and hate that many Palestinians are going through. The suicide bomber in the Passover Hotel Massacre had seen his father tortured by Israeli soldiers and the girl last week had her home and family destroyed and had lived her entire life in a Refugee camp in a tent with lack of running water and hygene.

Just like these refugee camps are a haven for bacteria and disease, it also creates a disease in the mind of pain, anguish and despair which causes people to think that they will go to paradise if the murder innocent civilians.

I heard a Palestinian women when asked about the rationale behind suicide bombings of innocents instead of army personel, she responded something to the effect of : We do not feel safe in our homes, they are bulldozed and destroyed without warning, our men disappear at night, they are tortured, we have no security or peace of mind, so the suicide bombers want Israeli's to feel the insecurity the Palestinians feel on a daily basis. We want them to feel a portion of our pain and fright of our every day lives.

Something to think about.

 

Originally posted by F.D. Khan
...That being said, all this talk about how Arafat is not controlling the terrorists is nonsense. I'm sure from a room in his compound that is getting shelled in which he has no power or water, he is commanding the suicide bombers.

FD,

Rarely does you logic or even-handedness fail you, but I think it did on this one.

This is still an unknown, and far from a nonsensical assumption.

He certainly can still initiate bombings from his compound (if he is involved) with a cell phone (he doesn't need water to do it , and I thought that power had been restored anyway). Regardless, the salient issue is not whether he is doing it now, but has he been in control of them (or at least some of them ) all along.

The suicide bomber are simply people with no hope left. I completely disagree with their actions and feel the slaughter of innocents can never be justified. But instead of raking up the leaves of the destruction let us kill the roots of hate.

When a man (or woman) loses everything; family, home, freedom, respect; that is the most dangerous person, he/she with nothing to lose. I simply fear this Israeli attack is simply fanning the flames for additional suicide bombers.

Agreed.

Its ironic how Sharon chose to attack the day after the ENTIRE Arab world said they would agree to recognize Israel and its borders as long as it gave the Palestinians a state in the occupied territories.

Ironic how he did it after several back-to-back, serious suicide bombings including one on Passover. C'mon FD, lets get serious.

Or maybe its ironic that the suicide bombings increased when it became apparent that Saudi Arabia was proposing such a plan.

I don't like Sharon, but he was played here.

But Sharon and Israel doesn't want to give up the few settlements there. It is my opinion that Sharon and Israel don't want peace, but they want to slowly but surely push the Palestinian's out of the West Bank, Gaza, Golon Heights and Jerusalem. In the meanwhile keep up the fight through efforts to tease with peace, then to attack and take more, piece by piece.

Israel should give up all occupied territories, including settlements.

If there wasn't a slew of suicide bomnbings prior to the recent action, I could possibly agree with the 'attack and take more' argument. But since the bombings came first, I won't.

 

There is a significant difference and here's why.

Before treeman left, I felt compelled to point out that his contribution on the Middle East represented a far more significant number than anyone else. I decided to leave it alone and simply tell him "good luck" because I felt it was over the top.

But, I did do the research. From March 1 to April 1, there were 24 opinion threads posted on the ME crisis. There were six additional that were simply a posting a news story from Yahoo or CNN. His assumption was that boy and glynch posted as much on the subject as he did.

I found that, out of the 24 opinion threads posted, treeman had 12 of them. glynch and boy represented 7 of those and 5 others were from others. What is more significant is that, during a stretch of 5 days when treeman did not post on the board, not a SINGLE thread on the ME was started by anyone.

My point was that his interest in the ME was driving a discussion that would otherwise represent only a minority of posts on the BBS. He disagreed and I found proof otherwise.

In addition, since he began posting to the BBS, he initiated only 4 threads out of about 80 that were not regarding the Middle East.

Finally, he made a habit to use the terms idiot(s), hopeless, ignorant, un-informed, naive, gullable, stupid, narrow-minded, etc. on a regular basis. If you recall, in one more spirited thread, I took as hard a stance towards Elvis Costello and dimsie as I did towards treeman for the same reasons.

This is more about cleaning up the condecention and insults that exists on the board rather than attempting to exert control over a particular person or idea.

 

Thanks Jeff!

 

Originally posted by glynch
Cohen, I didn't mention Bush's words that Palestinian terrorism are the root of all the problems etc and his condemnation because we have heard him say this numerous times.. What was new was his more evenhanded approach.

But if someone was not familiar with Powell's speech, your title and 'summary' would mislead them terribly.

Cohen,why don't you mention that the policies of Sharon, who you disagree with have aggravated and contributed greatly to the number of suicide bombers or Palesinian terrorist activities every time you condemn the Palestinians? A similar question to yours and really no answer needed.

I cannot mention, in each and every post how Sharon aggravates the situation. Still, I did mention in this thread that 'I don't like Sharon'. I really believe that he got played. Some have likened the present situation to two grumpy old men with a long history between them and personal vendettas, and many others are dying because of it. I think that is probably fairly accurate.

I have asked before. Are you still against peacekeepers in the region?

Absolutely. For the same sound, logically reasons that I have mentioned over and over, it only serves to help terrorists and does not allow Israel to defend itself.

ARe you for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops from the cities they just invaded in the last 10 days?

Probably. Are you for forcing the PLO to stop suicide bombers?

Are you in favor of the Arab peace plan that was proposed the day before Sharon invaded? Bush seemed to be in favor of it.

I don't know of all the details. I'm for the Israelis to give up all settlements and East Jerusalem. I am not certain how the 'right of return' should be handled.

Surely you are for more than the so called "negotiations" while settlement builders continue hoping to create a reality on the ground that can never be negoitated away.

If they keep building them, too bad. The right thing to do is to give them up entirely. I don't understand how anyone can argue that they shouldn't be given up (100% not 95%).

IMHO you would look more even handed if you would admit that what Israel is doing in the occupied territories is "terrorism". If you want you can call it "immoral violence".

That is your opinion based on whatever evidence you have ammassed. That is very different than presenting misinformation (e.g. reporting only half of a story).

I have not labeled it anything in the past, or present. If the Israelis only do what we did in Afghanistan, I would label it self-defense. There are certainly reports of instances where it does not sound like Palestinian civilians are being shown the protection and respect they deserve. I am hesitant to 'label' it anything since I have no hard evidence, but I do believe that the IDF has begun to cross the line.

That is not a bias of mine, just caution before making a serious conclusion. I use the same caution when considering whether Arafat commands suicide bombers.

 

Jeff,

You certainly don't owe me one, so thanks for taking the time to clarify your intent to me. I agree that condescention and lack of respect has no place here (at least for non-trolls), and now understand that that is what you were correcting.

Sorry for implying anything else.

 

No problem. As someone who has been here a long time AND who is a "moderator" (whatever that means ), I realize that I need to be careful about what I say and how I say it.

I have gone over the line with a couple people in the past. I usually don't. I think there has just been an ongoing concern over the past year that the Hangout has gotten a little unruly. As a result, it is necessary to try and keep things as civil as humanly possible.

Thanks for your response.