On 2002-04-07 19:17, Eric A Meece wrote:
Do Arabs want to kill Jews? I don't know, but this statement by Tristan seems a bit exaggerated. I also think Arabs would be more accomodating if Isreal did not occupy and oppress the lands rightfully belonging to Arab peoples.

Why is that when Israel gives the Arabs very generous peace terms the arabs reject them. Because they say death to the Jews, the amount of anti-semitism in Arab society is amazing, not to mention pro-Nazi views.

Have a look at this website, it contains quite scary stuff.

http://www.memri.org/main.html

If these people really want peace, they can have it overnight. Just agree to two secure states within the 1967 borders, with international control of the Temple Mount; no right of return to previous ownership of land, but right to immigrate at your own expense to the other state to live under that state's laws.

The plan you propose will fail, the Arabs will never honor their side of the bargain. The vast majority of the Arab public is hell bent on driving Israel to the sea and killing every Jew.

Tristan Writes... The plan you propose will fail, the Arabs will never honor their side of the bargain. The vast majority of the Arab public is hell bent on driving Israel to the sea and killing every Jew.

Plan B might be ethnic cleansing. Israel is contemplating "transfer." Basically, the Israeli army makes life so miserable in the West Bank and Gaza that the arabs will spontaneously voluntarily decide to move elsewhere.
As I see it, US aid has given Israel superiority in conventional all out war. This doesn't bring security on the homeland terrorist front. Both factions want Jerusalem more than they want peace. Both factions are clinging to a hope that if they can make the other side miserable enough, they will have to give ground.

I've heard a few Arab commentators reversing the ethnic cleansing "transfer" language. If the heroic martyrs make life miserable enough inside Israel, maybe the Jews will go back to Russia, Poland, Germany and other places (where they belong.)

Historically, making people miserable makes them stubborn. People won't give up on violence until it is absolutely clear that violence will fail. While some outside forces are calling for restraint, trying to get talks going again, is there anything or anyone that would pull back the Arab side of the violence? If not, why would one expect the Israelis to pull back? Meanwhile, the current Israli administration was elected because the people perceived that the peace process was not working. Security was the election issue. They are not the people to make talks work, assuming the Israeli people thought talks would work.

It might be possible at times to break a spiral of violence, but after a certain point all out conflict might be necessary to get a resolution. We are near that point. We might have passed it.

On 2002-04-08 06:49, Bob Butler 54 wrote:

It might be possible at times to break a spiral of violence, but after a certain point all out conflict might be necessary to get a resolution. We are near that point. We might have passed it.

This time, I fully agree with you. I personally think the Arab-Israeli Conflict has passed the point of no return, and may soon combine with our War on Terrorism to drag us into a full scale war with the entire Islamic World. And it's anyone's guess how that would turn out. Though I'm enough of a right wing neanderthal to hope that it would not end with the Islamic Crescent being raised over the bombed out ruins of the Capitol Building, signifying our total unconditional surrender.

Both the West and Islam will annhilate each other's cities with nuclear weaponry.
This is not a good development for either side. Support the movement for Millenial kids to stay out of the conflict. If we stay out of the Fourth Turning conflict by abandoning our imperialistic policies it will not be too late. Here is what is coming with the forces of secular revolution in the Arab world getting ready for thier shot at struggle against Western colonialist interests.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...ixnewstop.html

Arafat 'teams up with Saddam to plot attacks'
By Charles Laurence and Inigo Gilmore in Ramallah and Philip Sherwell in Nablus
(Filed: 07/04/2002)


COLIN POWELL, the US secretary of state, left Washington on his Middle East mission last night amid reports that Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat were planning to stage joint terrorist attacks in the region.

Senior officials of Saddam's General Intelligence Agency (GIA) are reported to have held talks with Mr Arafat's Palestinian Authority to identify potential targets, according to Western intelligence experts.


Israeli soldiers help priests, evacuted from Bethlehem, out of an armoured vehicle
They have been passed details of a meeting in Baghdad at the end of last month when an Arafat aide is said to have provided a list of strategic sites in Israel and Saudi Arabia that might be attacked in the event of American air strikes on Baghdad. The list of possible targets was presented to officials at the GIA, which is controlled by Uday Hussein, Saddam's eldest son."



It is ironic that the leaders of the proletarian struggle for the Arab world may finally end up being socialist leaders such as Saddam and Arafat instead of the failed Islamists like Osama bin Laden. Abandon impeialism and apologize to the Arab world now for our support of Israel.

Eric A Meece wrote:

... The solution is simple and clear-cut...

If these people really want peace, they can have it overnight. Just agree to two secure states within the 1967 borders, with international control of the Temple Mount; no right of return to previous ownership of land, but right to immigrate at your own expense to the other state to live under that state's laws.

I would only modify this by making land available. The Israelis must abondon the settlements, or nothing will get done. Once abandoned, make them avaiallble for returning Palestinians.


I agree that the right of return to land within Israel is out, and it's not going to happen in any case. This would be a very generous alternative. Any bets on the Palestinians taking this deal if it was offered? I'll say no. Too much hubris.

Sorry I haven't been posting much guys. Between separating from my soon-to-be-ex-wife, starting a brand-new job, moving into a new apartment, and my Dad's heart attack...well, there's only so much time.

Anyway, after they wheeled my Dad in for his quadruple-bypass last Tuesday evening, my sister and I were directed to wait in the Fourth Floor/Surgical Tower Waiting Room. Or, for short, as the signs indicated:

4T/Waiting.

I'm not sure Isreal would ever agree to giving up the settlements. After all, there are Arabs living in Isreal too; why should Jews not be allowed to live in Palestine? I don't know if there is a shortage of land, or if that is what the Arabs want. I think they should be given help to rebuild their society and their cities that have been impoversihed and attacked for so long.

For that matter, the so-called Jewish settlements (which should be considered part of Palestine) should be open to Arab settlers too if they can move there; but I imagine none would want to for a long time.

Tristan: I just saw a poll on national TV that said 60% of Saudi Arabs hate America. When asked why, 75% said because of the Isreal-Palestinian conflict. Settle that conflict on the obvious terms I have mentioned, and the hate goes away; not only of Americans but of Jews. The only motive for "hatred of Jews" is the occupation of Palestine. It is not because Arabs are Nazis. I know the Arabs rejected Barak's peace plan; but it was not the settlement I mentioned above; the Barak plan didn't go far enough.

I said the hate goes away; but as I said the only real problem is not the specifics of the conflict, but the desire for revenge for past hurts and killings.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-04-08 20:29 ]</font>

On 2002-04-08 20:20, Eric A Meece wrote:
I'm not sure Isreal would ever agree to giving up the settlements.

Pet peeve (I don't mean to pick on you, Eric, specifically). Can people spell Israel correctly? Its "a" before "e", not the other way around. Thanks. :smile:

Jenny the Grammarian.

_________________
Why does it have to take a disaster to acknowledge the beauty of being alive? -- Maharaji

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jenny Genser on 2002-04-09 09:29 ]</font>

On 2002-04-08 19:06, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:
Sorry I haven't been posting much guys. Between separating from my soon-to-be-ex-wife, starting a brand-new job, moving into a new apartment, and my Dad's heart attack...well, there's only so much time.

Anyway, after they wheeled my Dad in for his quadruple-bypass last Tuesday evening, my sister and I were directed to wait in the Fourth Floor/Surgical Tower Waiting Room. Or, for short, as the signs indicated:

4T/Waiting.

Aren't we all waiting for the other shoe to drop? :sad:

I hope your Dad is recovering nicely. Good luck. My prayers are with you.

Eric proposes... I said the hate goes away; but as I said the only real problem is not the specifics of the conflict, but the desire for revenge for past hurts and killings.

I've been thinking a bit more on spirals of violence. I don't remember S&H dwelling much on the escalating conflicts that lead into fourth turning wars. As far back as Waco / Ruby Ridge / OKC, I have been watching for spirals. The internal red / blue spiral has apparently cooled off. I'm not sure if the internal Israel / Palestine spiral and the US / Arab Terrorist spiral (Lebanon, African embassies, USS Cole, September 11th) should be considered distinctly separate, one and the same, or muddled. My inclination is to say muddled.

In the spiral, we have preliminary incidents (Bleeding Kansas), last straws (Ft Sumter) and last minute compromises (Crittenden Compromise.) Crittenden was a serious proposal to avoid war by promising the South that the US Constitution would never be modified to ban slavery in the South. It was under discussion even as shell were falling on Sumter. It might be compared to Chamberlain's trip to Munich to guarantee "Peace in our time," or Britain's offer to allow the port of Boston to be reopened when the tea is paid for and taxes are accepted.

Another bit of language is the "point of no return." This might have been the Harper Ferry's raid on the Civil War spiral. While mobilization didn't start, and compromises were still being discussed by reasonable men, the unreasonable men were already entrenched in incompatible positions.

No, I can't propose a method to precisely gauge the point of no return. Let's just suggest that well meaning men still discussing compromise can't guarantee that the soft brown stuff isn't already on a collision with the rotary air impeller. Churchill certainly recognized the Munich compromise for what it was.

Back in modern times, I would suggest that the unreasonable men have enough political and military resources to block reasonable compromise. In general, as I see it, but the US and Saudi Arabia would prefer compromise. Both Israel and Palestine distrust the peace process, have incompatible goals, and believe further use of force can achieve important objectives that cannot be achieved at the table. For a while, the reasonable me might try to reign in the spiral, while the unreasonable men try to push things over the edge.

At the peace table, we could perhaps draw a green line, near the 1967 borders. If a fourth turning conflict start, it will likely start with a conventional war, ethnic cleansing, with sealed borders between Israel and Palestine. Terrorist tactics become more awkward with sealed borders, but not impossible.

I dislike ethnic cleansing. However, with the west dominant in conventional warfare, our opponents will use unconventional warfare. All war is immoral. Our propaganda claiming one form of warfare is more moral than than others will not move an opponent who cannot achieve victory if he fights on our terms. Thus, terrorist tactics are essentially inevitable. Israel will not be able to fight terror with open borders. Thus, they are very likely to resort to ethnic cleansing, forcing all Arabs out of their territory. Palestinians would respond in kind. No, this is not reasonable and desirable, but we might eventually have to move from avoiding war to finding a path to a stable victory. I for one don't see such a path.

Dubya wanted to define the conflict as civilization against terrorists. Osama wanted to define it as Islam against Imperialist Western invaders. Dubya clearly won the battle on the ground in Afghanistan, but is losing on the definition of ideals front.

I am not sure whether Sadam is really getting ready to join the game, or whether Dubya is concocting excuses for his agenda against Iraq. If most of the Arabs are siding with Palestine, Turkey might be siding against Iraq. My guess is that Sadam does have weapons of mass destruction, intended to deter an invasion of Iraq. Using them before the US invades would likely trigger the US invasion. If the US is going to invade anyway, would Sadam and Arafat launch a dire first strike? Could Sadam release weapons for proxy use with plausible deniability? Would such a weapons use be a "last straw" leading to all out conflict?

I can applaud the Saudi peace initiative, and encourage the US to send diplomats seeking peace in our time. The reasonable men cannot, however, stubbornly refuse to make peace until the unreasonable men stop using violence. Won't work. Can't get there from here. Might not be able to get there anyway.

Eric A Meece wrote:

I'm not sure Isreal would ever agree to giving up the settlements. After all, there are Arabs living in Isreal too; why should Jews not be allowed to live in Palestine?

There' no reason why Jews should be excluded from the West Bank and Gaza. but the settlements are not the result of personal choice - they were planted there. Does anyone want to ague about the motivation of Menachem Begin? There is no queston that the settlers were <s>encouraged</s> bribed to move there with the full intent that, once there, they would not be likely to leave willingly and they would never be forced.


This was a political move by an extreme political leader - as extreme as any involved in current activities. Remember, Begin was the leader of the IZL that bombed the King David Hotel in 1946, killing over 90 British administrators. I find it impossible to believe that he intended the settlements as housing - or even as temporary defensive outposts.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David '47 on 2002-04-09 11:21 ]</font>

Thanks Jenny Genser; I do often misspell Israel; mainly because it's always pronounced Is-real. I have to think of it like I think of the angels; Rafael, Michael, etc. Or like a Christmas song; what was it?

I know you're right about the settlements David; although I think now the settlers DO want to stay there, or else they would be willing to move back. My general principle here is that everything in the past can't be undone, and that goes for the expelling of Arabs from Israel too, or that the Palestinians used to demand the destruction of Israel, etc. I doubt that Israel would agree to the destruction of the settlements; it would be hard enough to get them to agree to release sovereignty over them. Barak didn't even offer that.

Nothing along these lines will ever happen unless we the USA step in and demand a resolution of this situation, on penalty of no further support to either side. Just doing what Bush is doing, saying "we expect a pullout without delay," etc., will not work unless both sides understand there are consequences if they don't follow our instructions.

Halocaust or no, there is no reason for us to support a nation that carries out terror in support of a military occupation. Nor a nation that terrorizes another nation's population with suicide bombs.

With regard to the Bush administration's desire to torture (potentially innocent) suspects:

(For info and discussion purposes)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/elkins/elkins60.html

What Rough Beast?

by Jeff Elkins

I?ve written before about State-sponsored torture in the United States, long before the events of September 11th, 2001. However, even though torture hasnot been uncommon in America, it has never been openly discussed as a practical policy, nor have the so-called ?opinion elites? of our nation endorsed it.

That?s obviously changing.

The battle cry for the return of the iron maiden seems to be coming mostly from the formerly liberal left ? pundits such as Alan Dershowitz have openly called for torture of suspects in our ?war against terrorism.? Devotees of Fox News and the National Review may have also heard the clarion call for the return of the State?s Spanish Inquisition ? I don?t regularly watch or read either, but I wouldn?t be surprised. Rich Lowery of NR wants to nuke Mecca, so I don?t suppose a few needles under the occasional Arab fingernail would bother him much.

And just recently, columnist Mark Bowden of the Philadelphia Inquirer has weighed in with his support of torture. Specifically the torture of Abu Zubaydah, a reputed senior leader of al-Qaeda, captured recently by US Special Forces, during a raid in Pakistan.

Here is Bowden?s column in its disgusting entirety.

Bowden?s own city is famous for the so-called ?nickel ride,? where petty criminals are treated to the charming practice of being handcuffed and slammed around in black marias until they suffer spinal injuries causing paralysis. Bowden apparently wants this Philadelphian custom to go national.

The arguments Bowden raises are typical. What if a terrorist had planted a nuclear bomb, etc, etc ? to which I say, so what? If Bowden and others of his ilk think for a minute that the State will reserve its use of torture merely for hidden nuclear bombs, they are delusional fools. The State will eventually torture you for a parking ticket ? if it is allowed to torture at all.

The common argument is also reduced to something along the lines of ?What if a criminal had buried your wife alive. You have three hours to save her. Would you torture??

Again, I say so what. Anything I do as an individual affects me and my soul personally. I?ve got to live with the consequences of my actions. That?s totally different from granting the State a warrant to torture.

The real concern here is the ease with which these idiots of the punditocracy are willing to blithely toss away centuries of American tradition. A tradition that says when the local town clown tortures a prisoner in the cells of city hall and we citizens find out we are angry. And we haul the errant deputy into court and make sure he?s serving time.

And another tradition that says that our journalists will stand up for our rights and serve as our guard dogs against an overbearing government. Can you trust the Mark Bowdens of the US press to stand up for your rights? I?d say no, not if they are willing to grant the US government the right to torture prisoners.

?And what rough beast, its hour come round at last Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born??

I fear that Mark Bowden in his deepest heart of hearts knows the name of the beast. I ?m ashamed that the Bowdens of our country are not in line to protect us.

Are you?

April 9, 2002

Long repetitive message deleted...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Webmaster on 2002-04-09 17:20 ]</font>

The poster above is probably another Mr. or Mrs. Spam. Shut up your %&^*&^&*^ lips up, I am who I am.


Mr. Sbarro here to save the day and the conversation. What happened to past British opposition to supporting American military entanglements? Why do even members of the once socialist Labour Party now back military action against Saddam.

"Hands Off Iraq"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.p...15&searchText=

April 7, 2002

Bush's reckless talk gives China the
jitters

By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor

BEIJING -- Growing unease is beginning to show from
behind the facade of celestial calm that President Jiang
Zemin and China's collective leadership like to project to
the outside world.

China is facing numerous threats. First, the growing
worry in Beijing that the Bush administration has decided
to adopt a more confrontational policy toward China. The recent leaking
of U.S. plans to use nuclear weapons in the event of a major clash over
Taiwan and/or North Korea, as well as President George Bush's
extraordinary reckless and dangerous "axis of evil speech," caused
great consternation across Asia, especially in Beijing.

A recently concluded naval entente between the U.S. and India is seen in
Beijing as a further move by Washington to strategically isolate China
and threaten its maritime interests. India is now acquiring state-of-the-art
naval technology from Russia, including, likely, an aircraft carrier, two
nuclear submarines, long-range maritime bombers and powerful
anti-ship cruise missiles that have only two possible uses: either against
China, or against the U.S. Pacific Fleet. The U.S. has been winking at
Israel's sale of advanced nuclear technology, conventional weapons,
and electronic technology to India, while blasting China for providing
limited military help to Pakistan and Iran.

This column recently learned the CIA has increased monitoring and
agent activities in the northern frontier regions of Laos and Burma, both
of which are considered important military areas by China.

Recent threats by the Bush administration against North Korea are
taken by China as a potential threat to its northern borders. Thanks to
the "axis of evil" speech, reconciliation between the two Koreas has
been derailed, at least for now, much to Seoul's anger and
embarrassment.

SENSITIVE BORDER REGION

On top of all this, the government in Beijing is increasingly concerned by
the establishment of a constellation of permanent U.S. military bases in
neighbouring Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia - right next to
China's most sensitive western border region, Sinkiang, the centre of
China's nuclear program and where there is unrest among ethnic
Muslim Uighers. Just to the south lies another strategic western
province, Tibet. The last time U.S. military forces came too close to
China's border - during the Korean war - Beijing sent 500,000 troops to
drive American forces back from the Yalu River.

Though China's leadership will not say so publicly, in private fears are
being expressed that the Bush administration is becoming increasingly
bellicose. Some critics say even borderline irrational. Bush's war talk
and mammoth increase in defence spending have convinced many here
that somehow those old Cold War demons - the "Pentagon
military-industrial revanchist, imperialist ruling circles" as the
communists used to say, have risen from the grave.

The current bloody Mideast crisis is also unnerving Asian governments,
many of them friends of the U.S.: there is widespread incomprehension
at how the world's sole superpower appears to be led around by its
appendage, Israel, and unable to even impose minimal UN resolutions
on Ariel Sharon's government while threatening to invade Iraq for defying
UN resolutions. Bush's comatose, feeble, finger-waving response to the
Mideast crisis has left Asians wondering about the focus, priorities, and
mindset of the White House. Making matters worse, Bush - who calls
himself a free trader - recently imposed steel tariffs that caused a storm
of anger in China and South Korea.

In contrast to Washington's swaggering assertiveness, China's cautious
leaders have focused on building good trade relations with the U.S., and
attracting more badly needed foreign investment. The anniversary of the
nasty fracas last year caused by the collision of a prying U.S. military
aircraft and a Chinese fighter was ignored by China's state media, a
sure sign Beijing wants to keep relations on an even keel. The only
exception to China's benign behaviour has been the occasional threat
towards Taiwan backed by choreographed movements of military
forces.

China is not ready for any foreign confrontations. Its entry into the World
Trade Organization threatens the livelihood of 850 million inefficient
farmers who can't compete with grains from the U.S., Canada and
Australia. Some 200 million more workers may soon be laid off by dying
state industries that are due for closure. China's big four banks are
wobbling dangerously. In short, China is performing the last and most
perilous part of its high wire trapeze leap from socialism to the free
market. Much could yet go wrong.

There is also growing worry here that the Bush administration's super
hawks will try to take advantage of China's self-absorption and internal
economic problems to advance U.S. interests in the Western Pacific
and Central Asia. Hardliners are raising alarms about U.S. intentions,
claiming once again that Washington is surrounding China with hostile
forces. Beijing is convinced Bush's proposed anti-missile defence shield
is aimed directly at neutralizing China's small force of elderly ICBMs. As
a result, China has been forced to speed up its program to develop
modern, mobile ICBMs, possibly with multiple warheads.

China, as always in its long history, would prefer to mind its own
business. But the outside world may just not let the Middle Kingdom
alone.


Eric can be reached by e-mail at
margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com.

Is it possible for the webmaster to remove junk like "this conversation is finished" from the thread or would that be a horrible violation of free speech and whatnot? Please advise.

On 2002-04-09 14:44, alan wrote:
Is it possible for the webmaster to remove junk like "this conversation is finished" from the thread or would that be a horrible violation of free speech and whatnot? Please advise.

It is spam, not free speech.

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry040902.asp

In this article the writer is comparing the war that is happening between the Israelis and the Palestinians to the Spanish Civil War.

Sign of a 4T?

On 2002-04-10 00:03, Tristan Jones wrote:


In this article the writer is comparing the war that is happening between the Israelis and the Palestinians to the Spanish Civil War.

Sign of a 4T?

In Mr. Lowry's article it tries to fit Stalinist links on one party; but, that would make the other party allied with Hitler and Mussolini. Is it the case that Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair are filling those roles and Mr. Sharon is Franco? Or is it just plain silly?

Zionists have too much political power in this country. They turn every opponent of thiers into the next Hitler.

Is Saddam the next Hitler?
Is Arafat the next Hitler?


Why not Sharon as the next Hitler?

Eric writes... Halocaust or no, there is no reason for us to support a nation that carries out terror in support of a military occupation. Nor a nation that terrorizes another nation's population with suicide bombs.

One of the major US networks carried a "man in the street" interview of a Jeruselem Israeli. He thought it necessary to build a Wall, put Them on one side, Us on the other, and he didn't much care where the Wall was built. Not surprising. This was tried in Northern Ireland. This is not, however, what Frost meant about strong fences building good neighbors.

My eyebrows went up, however, when he described this as the "Final Solution."

_________________
We shall not have Freedom from Fear, everywhere in the world, while we forget the other three.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bob Butler 54 on 2002-04-10 12:01 ]</font>

I heard an Israeli peace activist last night, and I asked him what should be done with the settlements. He seemed to know a lot about what Israelis might accept, and thought having the settlers move back to Israel would be more acceptable to them than leaving them in Palestine under a Palestinian state; and that these settlements often consist of land forcibly taken from Arabs; so probably David is right; although I think it will take a while before Israel agrees to this, considering what has happened. I imagine peace is now a ways off; not possible under the current leadership of both sides.

"The New Sophists", by Will Warren

The Sophist Thrasymachus said: Might makes right,
In Plato?s Republic?s first book;
That justice belongs to the strong in a fight;
No rebuke need the mighty brook.

Then Socrates told of his doubts (at great length)
That justice inheres in the strong,
As he showed (one would think) that weakness and strength
Aren?t related to right and wrong.

In these vastly enlightened times, there are those
Who agree with the Sophist Greek,
With a minor inversion: the side he chose?
They think justice belongs to the weak.

The wretched and poor can't do wrong?don't you see??
The successful can do no right;
The downcast are blameless, new Sophists agree:
All is justified by their plight.

Set off nail bombs in pizzerias? That?s fine:
The losers can never do wrong.
Blow up a Passover Seder? It?s benign:
How else can the weak fight the strong?

The problem with Hitler was power, it seems:
Impoverished Hitlers are fine;
We ought to indulge them in their noisy dreams
Of a Judenrein Palestine.

And when Israelis decline to play their role
In this happy, bloody dream,
And fight as they must, with survival the goal?
?It?s grotesque,? invert-Sophists scream.

They tell us it?s justice and peace they proffer,
That it?s peace and justice they crave.
To Israelis, the only justice they offer
Is the wasteland peace of the grave.

http://unremittingverse.blogspot.com....html#75160543

Nice poem, firemind.

Besides the Israelis the Palestinians have an attitude problem towards peace as well.