Is Israel stupid?

If only the real world was actually that simple.....

 

That has been well established as a lie. The Intifada was in the works for months. They used Sharon as a convenient excuse.

 

Sure...but who decides if it's relevant? Not trying to push things, DD, but if you're the one saying I do something all the time, wouldn't it be easy to find another example? I really disagree...


unless


you see it as irrelevant unless the issue in the thread title is about pasy US actions...but to me that's not what makes something relevant. For example, if we're in a thread, and people are saying that the US doesn't target civilians, it's gonna come up, and be relevant...like, for example, in this thread I definitely see it as relevant, considering you were bringing our perspective and our policy into it. If you're gonna do that, it's relevant, and at least one other poster in here saw the relevance...But the problem as I see it is that A) You are already suspicious of me...for example, you saw pre-meditation in my asking for a definition which wasn't there...as shown in my Sympathy For The Devil thread, I was actually questioning the entire labeling of freedom fighter vs. terrorist, and the idea that we have that the first is something we do, the other is something the other guy does, automatically. and B) We basically disagree on historical relevance.

 

All I know is you couldn't get me on an Israeli bus. No way...no how.

Taxi, walk, run, hitch, bike, moped...anything but getting on the wagon of death. I don't care where I have to go. Is it worth dying a horrible death over? Hell no.

They need bomb detection devices mounted to all sides of those buses. They each have a bomb tracking machine gun which pops out and targets the suicide bomber(head shot) when an explosive device is detected. This will target suicide car bombers as well.

I think alot of Israelis try to go about their lives like they live in normalcy...until they ride the bus.

 

If you wouldn't have inserted

I would have refrained from posting.

I am under the impression that your ancestry traces to Pakistan.
There is some financial aid to that country from the US, but not as much as Israel gets. So yes, I have a very small amount of my tax money going to another country/state that displays a huge degree of <i>religious intolerance</i>. You wish to rank/quantify this by the amount of money that it costs the United States. Let us proceed along that path.

Pakistan and the religious schools (madrassas) there helped foster the Taliban which took control of Afghansitan and gave bin Laden & al Qaeda a base for their operations. Over the years, there has been some linkage/contact between bin Laden, Taliban and the Pakistani <b>ISI</b>. There have been strong rumors that there were several people in the Pakistani <b>ISI</b> hierarchy had advance knowledge of the 9-11 attacks on the US and failed to take forceful action to help prevent it. The 9-11 attacks have had a huge financial impact on the world economy and an additional unmeasured emotional impact.

Could the 9-11 attacks have been prevented if Pakistan had a different social-philosophical climate than it does? Definitely unknown.......but it is possible.

Nice reads on the current situation in Pakistan.
<a HREF="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EF11Df03.html">The Taliban revisited in Pakistan</a>

<a HREF="http://www.saag.org/paper8/paper706.html">PAKISTAN: A Political Deadlock</a>

<a HREF="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/EF12Ag02.html">Afghanistan: Enduring terrorism</a>

<a HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2958050.stm">
Pakistan province cheers Sharia</a>

<a HREF="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/03/1054406190827.html">Assembly votes to introduce sharia</a>

<i>
Islamist ruling parties in Pakistan's sensitive North West Frontier Province have ordered compulsory prayers for the population and will create a Taliban-style Department of Vice and Virtue to enforce their ruling.

The provincial assembly's unanimous vote to introduce sharia, or Islamic law, fulfils an election promise that has worried the national government and its ally, the United States.

The move is part of a campaign by fundamentalists to turn the whole of Pakistan into a Taliban-style state.

Sharia will override all other laws in the local courts.

"All the evils of society will be crushed," the assembly bill reads. It further promises that corruption will be rooted out, nudity and vulgarity wiped out and the life and property of the individual protected.

The six-party Alliance of Islamic parties, the Mutahidda Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), which rules the province, said all offices, shops and schools would be closed at prayer time so that all males could go to the mosque. The Department of Vice and Virtue is to recruit young zealots to enforce the ruling on the streets.

The MMA parties were ardent supporters of the Taliban and still support its guerilla war against US forces in Afghanistan.

After the bill was passed, MMA supporters went on a celebratory rampage in Peshawar, the provincial capital, tearing down advertising hoardings depicting women, destroying satellite cable television connections and attacking offices of foreign multinationals as the police stood by.
</i>

Considering that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and a population of roughly 150 million, the above troubles me greatly. Whether it troubles you, is something that only you can decide.

There seems to be a slight but perceptible shift in sentiment on the Israel - Palestinian situation on this BBS, but it is hard to completely sway me (and likely others) to your viewpoint when you throw in things about <i>religious intolerance</i> in Israel, while you discount the impact that <i>religious intolerance</i> in the Pakistan - terrorism realm has on the world economy.

Interesting results from a recent US poll:

<a HREF="http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030603.asp?Version=p">POLL ANALYSES: June 3, 2003 Widespread Support for Palestinian State But public skeptical about peace prospects</a>


President Bush would like to have some significant gains on the Israel - Palestinian situation in 2003 and not let it drift into the 2004 election year. Sharon has no real incentive for closure on the matter and leting it drift into the <i>future</i> is likely fine with him. Arafat has been striving for <i>Palestine</i> well before 1967, so settling on an agreement roughly along the 1967 border couldn't be viewed as a total victory for him. Hamas has an ultimate goal of Palestine from <i>the River to the Sea</i>, so any agreement roughly along the 1967 border would be viewed as a stepping stone to the final goal. Yes, the attack against Rantisi was a really bad idea. Yes, the settlers are a detriment to meaningful progress in any Israel - Palestine agreement.

<b>In theory</b>
If Israel did strike a deal with the Palestinians and opted for a protection scenario of the <i>Security Fence</i> and the resultant checkpoints at crossings, it would not help the economic situation of those living in the Palestinian state. Yet, it would be difficult to oppose a security fence for Israel while knowing that there were still elements in the Palestinian society that were bent on eliminating Israel from the map.

 

Deir Yassin.... Jenin.... same freakin thing, different freakin time...

Just like the good ole Iraqi Information Minister, FD Khan plays the same game of spreading MISINFORMATION!

Let's talk Deir Yassin for a moment.

The United Nations resolved that Jerusalem would be an international city apart from the Arab and Jewish states demarcated in the partition resolution. The 150,000 Jewish inhabitants were under constant military pressure; the 2,500 Jews living in the Old City were victims of an Arab blockade that lasted five months before they were forced to surrender on May 29, 1948. Prior to the surrender, and throughout the siege on Jerusalem, Jewish convoys tried to reach the city to alleviate the food shortage, which, by April, had become critical.

Meanwhile, the Arab forces, which had engaged in sporadic and unorganized ambushes since December 1947, began to make an organized attempt to cut off the highway linking Tel Aviv with Jerusalem - the city's only supply route. The Arabs controlled several strategic vantage points, which overlooked the highway and enabled them to fire on the convoys trying to reach the beleaguered city with supplies. Deir Yassin was situated on a hill, about 2600 feet high, which commanded a wide view of the vicinity and was located less than a mile from the suburbs of Jerusalem. The population was 750.

On April 6, Operation Nachshon was launched to open the road to Jerusalem. The village of Deir Yassin was included on the list of Arab villages to be occupied as part of the operation. The following day Haganah commander David Shaltiel wrote to the leaders of the Lehi and Irgun:

I learn that you plan an attack on Deir Yassin. I wish to point out that the capture of Deir Yassin and its holding are one stage in our general plan. I have no objection to your carrying out the operation provided you are able to hold the village. If you are unable to do so I warn you against blowing up the village which will result in its inhabitants abandoning it and its ruins and deserted houses being occupied by foreign forces....Furthermore, if foreign forces took over, this would upset our general plan for establishing an airfield.

The Irgun decided to attack Deir Yassin on April 9, while the Haganah was still engaged in the battle for Kastel. This was the first major Irgun attack against the Arabs. Previously, the Irgun and Lehi had concentrated their attacks against the British.

This was not an easy battle.

According to Irgun leader Menachem Begin, the assault was carried out by 100 members of that organization; other authors say it was as many as 132 men from both groups. Begin stated that a small open truck fitted with a loudspeaker was driven to the entrance of the village before the attack and broadcast a warning to civilians to evacuate the area, which many did. Most writers say the warning was never issued because the truck with the loudspeaker rolled into a ditch before it could broadcast the warning. One of the fighters said, the ditch was filled in and the truck continued on to the village. "One of us called out on the loudspeaker in Arabic, telling the inhabitants to put down their weapons and flee. I don't know if they heard, and I know these appeals had no effect."

Contrary to revisionist histories that the town was filled with peaceful innocents, residents and foreign troops opened fire on the attackers. One fighter described his experience:

My unit stormed and passed the first row of houses. I was among the first to enter the village. There were a few other guys with me, each encouraging the other to advance. At the top of the street I saw a man in khaki clothing running ahead. I thought he was one of ours. I ran after him and told him, "advance to that house." Suddenly he turned around, aimed his rifle and shot. He was an Iraqi soldier. I was hit in the foot.

The battle was ferocious and took several hours. The Irgun suffered 41 casualties, including four dead.

 

Post continued...


So how many people died?

Surprisingly, after the “massacre,” the Irgun escorted a representative of the Red Cross through the town and held a press conference. The New York Times' subsequent description of the battle was essentially the same as Begin's. The Times said more than 200 Arabs were killed, 40 captured and 70 women and children were released. No hint of a massacre appeared in the report. “Paradoxically, the Jews say about 250 out of 400 village inhabitants [were killed], while Arab survivors say only 110 of 1,000.” A study by Bir Zeit University, based on discussions with each family from the village, arrived at a figure of 107 Arab civilians dead and 12 wounded, in addition to 13 "fighters," evidence that the number of dead was smaller than claimed and that the village did have troops based there. Other Arab sources have subsequently suggested the number may have been even lower.

In fact, the attackers left open an escape corridor from the village and more than 200 residents left unharmed. For example, at 9:30 A.M., about five hours after the fighting started, the Lehi evacuated 40 old men, women and children on trucks and took them to a base in Sheikh Bader. Later, the Arabs were taken to East Jerusalem. Starting at 2:00 P.M., residents were taken out of the village. The trucks passed through the Orthodox neighborhood of Mea Shearim after the Sabbath had begun, so the neighborhood people cursed and spit at them, not because they were Arabs, but because the vehicles were desecrating the Sabbath. Seeing the Arabs in the hands of Jews also helped raise the morale of the people of Jerusalem who were despondent from the setbacks in the fighting to that point. Another source says 70 women and children were taken away and turned over to the British. If the intent was to massacre the inhabitants, no one would have been evacuated.

After the remaining Arabs feigned surrender and then fired on the Jewish troops, some Jews killed Arab soldiers and civilians indiscriminately. None of the sources specify how many women and children were killed (the Times report said it was about half the victims; their original casualty figure came from the Irgun source), but there were some among the casualties. Any intentional murder of children or women is completely unjustified. At least some of the women who were killed, however, became targets because of men who tried to disguise themselves as women. The Irgun commander reported, for example, that the attackers "found men dressed as women and therefore they began to shoot at women who did not hasten to go down to the place designated for gathering the prisoners." Another story was told by a member of the Haganah who overheard a group of Arabs from Deir Yassin who said "the Jews found out that Arab warriors had disguised themselves as women. The Jews searched the women too. One of the people being checked realized he had been caught, took out a pistol and shot the Jewish commander. His friends, crazed with anger, shot in all directions and killed the Arabs in the area."

Contrary to claims from Arab propagandists at the time and some since, no evidence has ever been produced that any women were raped. On the contrary, every villager ever interviewed has denied these allegations. Like many of the claims, this was a deliberate propaganda ploy, but one that backfired. Hazam Nusseibi, who worked for the Palestine Broadcasting Service in 1948, admitted being told by Hussein Khalidi, a Palestinian Arab leader, to fabricate the atrocity claims. Abu Mahmud, a Deir Yassin resident in 1948 told Khalidi "there was no rape," but Khalidi replied, "We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews." Nusseibeh told the BBC 50 years later, "This was our biggest mistake. We did not realize how our people would react. As soon as they heard that women had been raped at Deir Yassin, Palestinians fled in terror."

How did people react?

The Jewish Agency, upon learning of the attack, immediately expressed its “horror and disgust.” It also sent a letter expressing the Agency's shock and disapproval to Transjordan's King Abdullah.

The Arab Higher Committee hoped exaggerated reports about a “massacre” at Deir Yassin would shock the population of the Arab countries into bringing pressure on their governments to intervene in Palestine. Instead, the immediate impact was to stimulate a new Palestinian exodus.

Just four days after the reports from Deir Yassin were published, an Arab force ambushed a Jewish convoy on the way to Hadassah Hospital, killing 77 Jews, including doctors, nurses, patients, and the director of the hospital. Another 23 people were injured. This massacre attracted little attention and is never mentioned by those who are quick to bring up Deir Yassin. Moreover, despite attacks such as this against the Jewish community in Palestine, in which more than 500 Jews were killed in the first four months after the partition decision alone, Jews did not flee.

The Palestinians knew, despite their rhetoric to the contrary, the Jews were not trying to annihilate them; otherwise, they would not have been allowed to evacuate Tiberias, Haifa or any of the other towns captured by the Jews. Moreover, the Palestinians could find sanctuary in nearby states. The Jews, however, had no place to run had they wanted to. They were willing to fight to the death for their country. It came to that for many, because the Arabs were interested in annihilating the Jews, as Secretary-General of the Arab League Azzam Pasha made clear in an interview with the BBC on the eve of the war (May 15, 1948): “The Arabs intend to conduct a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”

References to Deir Yassin have remained a staple of anti-Israel propaganda for decades because the incident was unique.

It's not personal Khan, but if I see something that I believe is false, you will get a rebuttal from me.

 

Mango,

You don't have to convince me of the negatives of Pakistan. I have been there and seen first hand that madness of religious fanaticism. I have been to madrassas to witness what I see as a puritanical form of the religion that spawns such idealism that people could kill civilians and claim it was god's will. I have been in areas that you would only see in movies like "Kandahar". My grandfather was a General in the Army and I have had dinner at General 'President' Musharraf's home, and have relatives in the people's party of Pakistan. I fight more vehemently for political, social and economic reform in my own nation than anywhere else in the world.

I temporarily stopped funding to a school that I set up in my grandfather's village because they began religious teachings against my wishes. I work with educational groups and the Rotary International in hope of bringing education and literacy to the country.

But I do not claim that Pakistan's actions are rightous and that they are not at fault. I blame every Politician in that country, every 'landowner' for their scheming to defraud those who they have vowed to protect. I scorch the government of Pakistan at every instince that I can and I would love it if the US stopped giving what little assistance it gives to Pakistan today. The main reason they have recieved any assistance is because of their help in the War on Terrorism in Afghanistan. But I don't believe we should support totalitarian, authoritarian regimes.

When we assist a government we are funding their operations and we are liable for their actions. Just as someone funding terror is responsible for the outcome, we must regulate who we give money to and how it is used.

Watching US Apache Helicopters shooting AMERICAN missles into the middle of a city block is not my idea of spreading America's good seed.

There were people defending Israel's action, so I stated what I felt was relevant. If people are defending the horrific actions done, then they deserve every word stated. You don't see me in here defending Hamas or Al-Queda or a government in the Muslim world, because I stand for what is right and true. I stand for the US economic future.

Our relationship with Israel is a NET NEGATIVE. First we give the nations billions annually when they only have a population of a few million people, then we defend their horrific actions and give them every possible military weapon to do with as they please. Their actions have caused outrage against the US, which translates to boycotts of US goods and services. The anti-americanism is rising globally and most of our companies are multi-nationals. We are not a commodity based economy, but a service based one. We must not alienate ourselves from much of the world based on our affilitations and unwavering support of the nation of Israel.

 

F.D. Khan,

When you are <i>calmer</i>, your posts are stronger and easier for me to agree with in principle.


That was information about Pakistan that I don't remember you presenting before and it was interesting to read.

In regards to Pakistan, I don't see political-social progress as likely in the near future. Even if the small foreign funding from the US and elsewhere is withdrawn, I fail to see how that will foster positive change in that country. Since it has been over five decades since the Partition, the trend for the various ruling governments in Pakistan has not been favorable. I am unsure what would get things pointed in the right direction. If you have some insight that I lack on this topic, it would be interesting to read.

Relatives in the PPP? Very interesting.

 

Well this thread is rather lengthy so I apologize if this has been addressed; but after today's latest helicopter attacks, it's pretty obvious that Sharon is going to continue trying to play Bush and us for all he's worth.

Remember back last year when Sharon first invaded the West Bank and Jenin and Bush said stuff like "he needs to leave, now!" and Sharon basically said go to hell? Well, after we do Israel a HUGE favor by invading Iraq, taking out a huge threat to them and sucking up a lot of arab rage that would otherwise be directed on them, Sharon rewards us again by paying lip service to peace but continuing with the same aggressive tactics (while providing nice pictures of American weapons killing palestininans for al jazeera, great!)

The way I see it, nothing productive is going to happen in this area ever until Sharon and Arafat are both out of the picture.

 

My sentiments exactly. They are like two old west gunfighters, neither willing to back down, and no progress will be made until they've each had their last gunfight.

 

First of all... is Bush the president of Israel or the president of the US? He has no control over what happens and shouldn't expect Sharon to listen to everything he commands.

I also didnt know that invading Iraq was for Israel.... thats a new one. I thought it was for WMD or oil .

He dismantled outposts.. the first step in dismantling settlements. However, Hamas ( Homosexual Arab Men for Anal Sex) continue to shoot rockets at Israelis. You can honestly say that Israel has no right to go after these terrorists?

 

Franchise 2k1, please read my post before you respond to assertions that you manufacture yourself and attribute to me. This wastes my time and yours.

For Sharon to publicly defy Bush is humiliating to Bush and the US, and Sharon knows that. He just doesn't care. I assert that he should be more cognizant of our concerns

How in god's name did you gather that conclusion from this sentence: "Well, after we do Israel a HUGE favor by invading Iraq, taking out a huge threat to them and sucking up a lot of arab rage that would otherwise be directed on them"

Find one place in that sentence where I said we invaded Iraq BECAUSE of Israeli interests? THere aren't any, because I never said that. However, it is an undeniable fact that no Saddam does, indeed aid Israeli interests, at least in the short term. It is also undeniable that the Israelis felt the same way and supported such an invasion. However, this does not equal causation.

Again, Franchise 2k1, find ONE place in my previous post wher I said "Israel has no right to go after these terrorists" I will save you the time, don't bother, cause it ain't there.

I thought it was obvious to most readers that what I was criticizing was the manner and timing of Israels (re: Sharon's) recent actions, not their rights to protect themselves. Apparently not.

I'm sorry to be so harsh but it just annoys me sometimes when people criticize me based on their own misperceptions rather than anything I said or did.

 

RMT, Do you think Sharon should not go after the terrorists? When pressured by the US, Abbas stated that he would not (or maybe could not). IMO, someone has to do it.

 

I think he has no choice but to go after the terrorists, unfortunately.

The point of my post is that I feel nothing of substance will happen until both Sharon and Arafat are gone. New, forward-thinking leadership is needed on both sides so real progress can be made towards a solution and an end to the bloodshed. The new Israeli leadership will have to be able to keep the hard-liners in check just like the new Palestinian leadership will have to keep the terrorist groups in check.

Like I said yesterday, new leadership, that finally realizes that the only thing violence leads to is more violence, is what is needed on both sides. Sharon and Arafat have too much bad blood that neither one can get past.

 

What is it with the generalizations today? How does criticism of Sharon mean that you also think Israel should not be able to defend itself from terrorism? Nobody has said that in six pages of this thread yet.

This is the same problem that I have with the bush administration sometimes; the WAY you do things in international affairs, and the way it is perceived by others, is often times far, far more important than the substantive things you do themselves.

 

Well, isn't everyone criticizing Sharon for trying to kill Hamas terrorists? If they are criticizing the death of civilians, that's one thing, but they are critizing the very act of going after terrorists.

I understand your 2nd point, I think Bush could improve his relations and still stick to his guns.

 

I wasn't. And saying that Israel shouldn't go into a retaliatory death spiral of Apache attacks on streetcorners right after the professing their commitment ot the "roadmap" does not equate to saying that Israel shouldn't try to get back at terrrorists.

 

So what exactly does this mean? When should Israel go after terrorists then?