Anybody agree, or disagree, with me that the reason Arafat won't stand up and tell his people to stop using terrorist suicide bombings is because most of the groups would not listen to him (they haven't been listening for two years), and the world would realize and Arafat would have to admit that he really doesn't lead or speak for all the Palestinians anymore?

And what do you think is going to happen when Netanyahu gets elected (Pretty sure this is a definite thing) again? Will he manage to squash Palestinian terrorist groups and Arafat, or will it lead to the out and out war the two sides have been teasing each other with for years?

I really can't understand why it is that people think we can get anywhere by dealing with Arrafat. He's a figurhead, nothing more. He holds no control over the various factions that keep sending suicide bombers into isreal. Personaly, I don't think he ever has had any REAL control over that region.

And, I'm realizing that many Arabic countries see us as the puppet master behind the Israelis for some reason. True, we have sold them weapons and equipment and such. Maybe I'm missing an important precedent that would warrant the point of view that Israel is a dog on a leash that we (the US) can reign in or let loose at will.

Actually, after I've read a few Arab newspapers and their political cartoons and editorials always show Israel as controlling the US, and that was why many of those countries hated us. I remember one cartoon in particular had Uncle Sam with a big Star of David on his hat. I don't know where they get that idea, obviously propaganda...

Consider what God tells Abraham, the father of modern day Israel, in Genesis 3:12: "And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse." It just so happens that the U.S., the most afluent and powerful nation on earth, is also the nation that is most friendly with Israel. Lets keep supporting them.

Doesn't anyone remember the USS Liberty?

RD

Arabs get the idea from the fact that we do bend to Israel alot, on account of huge zionist lobbies in our government. Some of it is propaganda, but as I think we're gonna see within the next decade or so, Israels gonna start doing whatever it wants, and we will have to be a lot rougher with them. It'll start with withdrawing all funding, then refusal to sell arms, then just us going as "peacekeeping" (aka laying the smack down) forces for the whoel region.

Personally, I can't wait to see what happens in 20-25 more years when the water runs out and the water wars begin....

What happened to the Liberty?

The USS Liberty was a US surveillance ship watching the Israelis massacre Palestinian civilians in the 1967 war.
They (Israel) realized this info getting out would hurt their cause so they rocketed the ship killing 37 US servicemen. They said it was an accident and apologized but what they didn't know was there was also a couple of surveillance aircraft overhead.
The water wars have already started. They don't want to give back the Golan Heights they say because it offers stategic high ground (true) but what they don't say is because it gives them control of the major water in the area which deprives the Lebanese and Palestinians of access to it.
Since I live here and since the last discussion on this topic turned ugly I would like to propose we agree to have this on a civil basis. As I write there are thousands of Saudi civilians surrounding our consulate having an anti-american anti-israeli demonstration. A week ago they threw moltov cocktails into the Bahrain embassy, ransacked the McDonalds..(the bastards).. and one demonstrator was killed by the police.

I think I may have heard about the Liberty, now that you explained more. Just goes to show, they aren't our friends, they are allies, using us for what they can.

On the score of massacres and killing innocents, I think the Palestinians are in the lead.

water control is just one of the reasons the area is strategic high ground, but mainly, it provides that "buffer" area Isreal is always after, since in places they are less than 100 miles from one border to the other. I think Israel will be fixed alright for water, since work has already begun on a pipeline from Turkey to Israel under the Med. Plus they have treaties with Egypt and Saudi (rich enough to afford desalinization). The war will turn real ugly when All the dust bowl countries can't get water unless it is shipped in. And it will still be a couple decades before all the natural fresh water souces in the region are gone...

Addendum to the USS Liberty comment. 34 servicemen were killed and 171 wounded. Many of these sailors were in life boats when they were fired upon by the Israelis.

RD

William!!! I was wondering when you were going to post on the subject....I agree with the suggestion to keep this thread as civil as possible (unlike the last middle-east dialogue). Will remain civil as long as there are facts presented...

You are incorrect about the USS Liberty, plain and simple. The circumstances that you give in your version of the history are unfounded.

With regard to the USS Liberty, I would strongly recommend the following link for a well documented history of the event that addresses ALL issues raised in the previous posts:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/liberty.html

Also, here are a number of reports and their findings for quick reference. ALL OF THEM HAVE FOUND THAT THE INCIDENT WAS AN ACCIDENT:

------------------------------------------------------
US Investigations
------------------------------------------------------
#1)U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry June 10-18, 1967
FINDING: The attack was a case of mistaken identity. Calm conditions and slow ship speed may have made American flag difficult to identify. No indication the attack was intended against U.S. ship.

#2)CIA Report June 13, 1967
FINDING: The attack was not made in malice and was a mistake.

#3)Joint Chiefs of Staff Fact Finding Team (Russ Report) June 9-20, 1967
FINDING: Outlined "findings of fact," but did not make any findings about the actual attack.

#4)Clifford Report July 18, 1967
FINDING: No premeditation, but "inexcusable failures" by Israeli forces constituing "gross negligence."

#5)Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 1967 FINDING:Secretary of Defense McNamara testified he supported conclusion that the attack was not intentional.

#6)Senate Armed Services Committee Feb. 1, 1968
FINDING:No conclusion. Secretary McNamara makes comparison of attack on Liberty to that on Pueblo with regard to uncertainty about what was happening at the time of the incident.

#7)House Appropriations Committee April-May 1968
FINDING:Navy communications "foulup" and no conclusion regarding Israeli actions. Much of report remains classified.

#8)House Armed Services Committee May 10, 1971
FINDING:Critical of Navy communications, no conclusion regarding Israeli actions.

#9)Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 1979 FINDING:Responding to critical book by Liberty crewman James Ennes, Senate investigation found no merit to his claim attack was intentional.

#10)National Security Agency 1981
FINDING:Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculations and egregious errors.

#11)House Armed Services Committee June 1991 FINDING:Responding to request from Liberty Veterans Association, Subcommitte on Investigations launched probe that concluded there was no evidence to support allegations made by the Association and no reason for further investigation.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Israeli Investigations
-----------------------------------------------------------
#1)Ram Ron Commission June 12, 1967
FINDING:The attack was made "neither maliciously nor in gross negligence, but as the result of a bona fide mistake. Also notes that the Liberty made a mistake as well by carelessly approaching a war area.

#2)Preliminary Inquiry July 1967
FINDING:There was no malicious intent and no deviation from the standard of reasonable conduct that would justify a court-martial.

#3)IDF History 1982
FINDING:The attack was a result of an "innocent error."
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: A.J. Cristol, "The Liberty Incident," Ph.D. dissertation, University of Miami, 1997, pp. 86-113.
------------------------------------------------------------

As far as Arafat is concerned, he didn't speak out againt terrorism for a number of reasons. In one sense, Discord is right; he didn't speak out against terrorism because he DOESN'T speak for groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad. Publicly denouncing them would do 2 things-- show his impotence as well as sign his own death warrent at the hands of those groups. He would lose on both sides.

There is also another VERY big reason that has more bearing on the matter: because he was once, OPENLY, one of the biggest proponants of terrorism in the region. He didn't all of a sudden grow a conscience and renounce those tactics...he simply decided that he would gain more (mostly in the way of world opinion for the plight of the palestinians) if he acted more like the fox than the lion.

IMHO, in light of Arafat's past role of terrorist, his unwillingness to follow the Oslo Accords, refusal to crack down on terrorists in the West bank and Gaza, his refusal of Clinton's peace plan a year ago, his refusal to denounce terror in Arabic to the arab world, his coordinating shipments of arms from Iran, using his compound as a stockpile and safehouse for known terrorists, and most recently using his police forces and Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade to blow up dozens of civilians, I don't see how anyone could believe that he was ever interested in a real peace. Negotiations for a palestinian state, yes. But not a peace.

As far as Isreal's operations in palestinian cities and camps...it should continue until it is deemed that the have sufficiently disposed of bomb labs,
weapons stockpiles, and terrorists-- until it's objectives are completed--like ANY military operation should be run. You can't negotiate anything when you are being blown up daily. The Palestinians DO deserve a state, but it should be next to Isreal, not over it's ashes.

Village idiot here.
I haven't been to Israel so I am hoping that someone can educate me on this:
Why can't Israel defend itself against these suicide bombers? Please don't reply with, "the best defense is an strong offense." My question is more specific to internal defense.
Are the weapons being produced in Israel? Are their borders that porous?

While trying to put everything in simplest terms...Say everyone in the US hates people from Ohio (we really don't hate people from Ohio, just the ones who drive). Ok, so now the people of Ohio (Ohioans??) are surrounded by people who hate them, and some water. How does the state of Ohio get in a position where it cannot defend itself?. Especially, if Ohioans have been dealing with this hatred for thousands of years.

Brock-
How well is the US doing with keeping illegal Mexicans et al and drugs from crossing the US borders?...

I didn't give any circumstances. They sank the boat.
They killed US servicemen. They SAID it was an accident. They killed alot of Palestenian civilians while they were doing it. Just like they are doing for the past eighteen months.
I don't think it will matter what you and I think, or the US government for that matter, THEY are going to do whatever they want without regard to US needs. end of story.

You did give circumstances. You wrote that the Isrealis were massacring civillians, and that they attacked the Liberty to get rid of "witnesses." BOTH statements are untrue. As is the fact that the Liberty sank (it didn't, but I'm not going to split hairs over a tragedy).

And it [Israeli actions preceding the attack on the Liberty] had NOTHING to do with palestinian civilians, but rather Egyptian TROOPS.

We both know Isreal is not attacking helpless palestinian civilians over the past 18 months, so why write it?

And pertaining to your last comment-- how exactly are Isreali actions at odds with US needs? And more importantly, Isreal has to OK everything it does pertaining to it's national security with the US?

Alright, I started a good thread.

William, of course they're gonna do what they want, they are sovereign country, and, while they will consider the opinions of other nations, they will ultimately do what they want/feel is necessary, just like we ultimately do. It's what sovereignty is all about. But I'm glad you're bringing out the cons in Israel, this kinda seemed like it was going to become a real pro-Israel thread. I think that Palestinians are more in the wrong, due to my personal belief that all terrorists are cowardly scum, but Israel does do things that don't meet approval, quite often.

Oh yeah, the Liberty thing reminded me of this, didn't we actually set up the Gulf of Tonkin incident as an excuse to commence hostilities? Or was that a conspiracy theory, can't remember....

EH, "#1)U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry June 10-18, 1967 FINDING: The attack was a case of mistaken identity. Calm conditions and slow ship speed may have made American flag difficult to identify." Not doubting you or your sources, and I'm not a squid type, but wouldn't calm conditions and a slow moving ship make it EASIER to see the flag?

Brock, the border situation is not quite black and white. It's not Palestinians on one side of a line and Israelis on the other. The areas aren't perfectly defined, Palestinian land is in Israel, some Israelis live in Palestinian land, and some Palestinians live in Israeli land. Then, you throw in Israeli arabs, who aren't Palestinians, but are arabs from the region, and look just the same. But they are full fledged, all rights granted, citizens of Israel. Hell, I know Israeli jews who you couldn't tell apart from Palestinians. So you can't just pick a guy out by looks and say "He's Palestinian, check him for bombs." He could be anything. And anything other than a complete lock down, checking ids at every door and road intersection would stop the suicide bombers. It would also deadlock the country...

Oh, and the Oslo accords were flawed from the start. Well meaning, but not possible, and neither side lived up to them. Clinton's actions (nearer to the end of his last term), actually made the situation worse, since most saw it as him trying to rush a legacy (President that made peace!), and he did rush things, and I think everyone remembers the especially heavy fighting that broke out after his final attempts. His last try actually helped inflame the sides to a degree...

And I like Ohio!

Discord-- picture a still flag on a pole; without wind of any sort (atmospheric or caused by being underway), it will drape over itself and will be less visible/recognizable than it would if it were flying nice and rectangular with a broad cross section.

The major problem that I have with juxtaposing Isreali and Arab transgressions is that 1)there is absolutely no moral equivalency between the two, and 2)we view Isreali actions far removed from their reality, which is sometimes preferable for making moral judgements provided we have all the facts (which we don't all the time), but is extremely unrealistic as far as evaluating policy. Case in point: what did we (Americans) know or understand of the problem of terrorism before 9/11? The complexities that arise from trying to defend yourself from an unknown enemy?
Mistakes that are made, people that are marginalized, the tension that rises, etc...

"Also notes that the Liberty made a mistake as well by carelessly approaching a war area. "

Couple of points to consider:

The ship was in international waters.

It was a surveillance ship, they are suppossed to collect information, hard to do if you don't get near the action.

Ref the Gulf of Tonkin:

No it was not a conspiracy, it was a mistake made (in part) because other classified operations were taking place (Read SOG By Plaster).

The crew thought they were under attack, the North Vietnamese thought the ship was supporting a South Viet Namese operation.

Wrong place, right time.

The USS Liberty was an intel ship collecting info on the war between Egypt and Israel.

EH - I have not read your source and am sure that these findings are legit. I just believe they are flawed.

Two Israelis came forward, one was a pilot and another an ops officer. Both said they knew it was an American ship before any shots were fired. The Liberty recorded Israeli planes overhead long before the attack began.

How do you confuse a US Navy AGTR class ship with a 40 year old Egyptian horse transport? You could say mistaken identity or sensor error up until the torpedo boats were firing at the ship.

One last thing about the US Govt and Israel. A politician is committing career suicide if he speaks out against Israel. The press and the politician's opponents will label that person an anti-semite in a heartbeat.

Ennes' words

Desiring to not support Israel doesn't make you an anti-semite.
RD

I don't think that desiring not to support Isreal make you anti-semitic either. But leveling unfounded and ubsubstantiated claims about Isreali (and by extension, Jewish) actions and motivations will, at the very least, make one suspect of bias, which may or may not be political suicide.

Remember Marty's quote in another thread about Ockhams Razor?

"other things beings equal, the simpler of two explanations is to be preferred. The Latin translates to: entities are not to be multiplied unnecessarily."

At the most basic level, can you explain to me the logic of a country the size of New Jersey, with the surrounding arab world atttacking at all at once, attack the worlds largest superpower and it's ONLY ally at the time?

The controversy around the USS Liberty has endured for some time, so I don't fault you on bringing it up, or questioning rebuttals, sources, etc. But at least research some more, rather than post breif and skeptic questions to discredit dozens of findings, both official and scholarly.

To make it easier for you and others, here are some facts (TE-sorry for posting the entire excerpt, but it seems that people don't like to follow links)

"...although it arrived too late to fulfill its original mission--most of Sinai had already fallen to Israel, so there were no Egyptian troops there to spy on--the Liberty nevertheless began patrolling between Port Said and Gaza, in a lane rarely used by commercial freighters and declared by Egypt as off-limits to neutral shipping. On June 8, just before six o'clock in the morning, an Israeli pilot reported finding a naval craft ("gray, bulky, with its bridge amidships") 70 miles west of Gaza. Though he did not report seeing a flag, he made out the hull marking "GTR-5," which was enough for Israeli commanders to identify the ship as the USS Liberty and to mark it as a neutral vessel on their control board. But at eleven o'clock in the morning, the watch at Israeli naval headquarters changed. The new officers, following procedures for removing old information and assuming the Liberty had sailed away, cleaned the board. For Israeli forces, the Liberty had ceased to exist.

It would prove a key error. Less than a half-hour later, Israeli soldiers in the Sinai coastal town of El Arish heard a violent explosion. The cause was probably a detonation in an ammunition dump, but when the Israelis saw a ship off the coast, they assumed it was bombarding them, prompting the Israeli navy to dispatch three torpedo boats. The boats' commanders had standing orders to fire on any vessel going faster than 20 knots--a speed then attainable only by warships--and, miscalculating their target's speed as 30 knots, they prepared to attack.

At that point, the Liberty turned toward Egypt. Worried they would lose their prey, Israeli naval commanders called in the air force. Two Mirages quickly swooped in. Returning from a bombing run, they were armed only with 30millimeter cannons and air-to-air missiles--hardly ideal for attacking a boat. But, failing to see either flags or markings on the ship, they strafed it. Minutes later came a second group of planes, equally ill-suited for a naval engagement: They carried napalm, a weapon used against land targets. But they dropped their canisters anyway, and one set fire to the deck, enshrouding the ship in smoke.

It was at this junction that one Israeli pilot finally recognized Latin, not Arabic, letters on the hull, prompting Israeli air controllers to call off the action immediately. But, thanks to a breakdown in communications--again, a common occurrence in the heat of battle--the order never reached the navy. Israeli torpedo boats caught up with the Liberty just as one of the American sailors on board, heedless of McGonagle's order not to fire on the approaching craft, opened up with a deck gun. The Israeli captain consulted his intelligence manual, concluded that the ship shooting at him was the Egyptian naval freighter El Quseir, and fired back torpedoes. Just one hit, but it killed 25 men. The torpedo boats then closed in and circled the ship, strafing it with machine-gun fire, until the captain of one boat saw "GTR-5" on the hull. He immediately halted fire, extended help to the Liberty, and called for rescue helicopters.

For many years following the attack, these details remained unknown--hidden in classified U.S. documents. And, in their absence, conspiracy theories flourished. The most damning made its debut in 1979, when Jim Ennes Jr., a former officer from the Liberty, published a book, Assault on the Liberty, arguing that the Israelis knew precisely who and what they were attacking. The Liberty's hull was distinctly marked, Ennes wrote, and a large American flag flew from its mast; yet Israeli ships and planes fired anyway. The motive? Israel, Ennes said, wanted to hide its impending conquest of Syria's Golan Heights, an invasion Washington opposed. The fact that the Israelis offered to assist the ship when they could easily have sunk it, or were unlikely to risk conflict with their most important ally, did not daunt Ennes."

[taken from "1967 Six Day War" by MICHAEL OREN, which will be published by Oxford University Press in 2002. Found at ]http://www.thenewrepublic.com]

EH, gotcha on the flag, I was thinking of merchantmen where the flag is painted on the ship...

About Ockham's Razor, though, governments, being political animals, simply don't follow it. By their very nature, entities are multiplied unnecessarily, and they often are too complex for such a simple solution. I am not saying theIsraelis did or did not purposely fire on the Liberty, I don't know. But considering the twisted way politicians think, Israel might have saw firing as a better way to keep it's only ally. Maybe they thought the US seeing warcrimes or just general atrocities being commited would make them rescind their alliance, and Israel felt they could better explain an "accidental" shooting than they could explain razing innocent villages. Maybe it was seen as the lesser of two evils...

Not saying this is true, just putting it up for consideration, since politics never really seems to follow the simplest explaination....

LESSER OF TWO EVILS!!?? You can't be serious. The Isrealis may be severe people living in a tough region, but they aren't inhuman monsters.

Point taken about Ockam's razor, to some degree.

One thing still hasn't been adressed. How would FIRING on a ship cover up alleged atrocities? Sinking it might....but the Isrealis didn't finish their attack and, more importantly, THEY were the ones who reported the incident to the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, radioed for medical airlifts, salvage assistance, and flew a U.S. naval attaché to the Liberty.

I don't see it.

(but I respect you for playing the devil's advocate and starting up good debate)

And if anyone STILL has questions about the incident, I recently found an excellent examination (well documented as well) of it:

http://www.shalem.org.il/azure/9-Oren.htm

Equally critical of both sides for negligence...

EH, I will defer to your presentation of the "Facts" on the USS Liberty at least as far as what is in the official reports, however, you probably are aware that "official" reports just like any public record are subject to filtering, bias and just plain distortion to fit whatever political agenda the preparer of the report has.
Unless the US media is more biased than I remember it being I don't see how you could have missed the living technicolor photos of women and children being shot by Isreali (and by default American) bullets in the last 18 months. I have treated medically the trauma suffered by Palestenians in the latest Isreali ethnic cleansing and I know the dozens of people I have seen were not terrorist but just ordinary people trying to go to school or shopping. The Isrealis have also done a great job of shooting at news journalist, UN officials or anyone else trying to find out what they are up to.
As for my statement about them biting the hand that feeds them: You would think that with what we (America) needs to do about terrorism they would help us by trying to find a peaceful solution to their domestic problems. Instead they have now created a situation where no arab countries can help us fight our war on terrorism without loosing face with their own citizens.

I consider myself to be a person who looks at boths sides of an issue and forms a rational reasoned opinion based on facts as much as they are attainable. Censorship works both ways and usually both sides employ it. No one likes to be brutally honest. I feel that the Isrealis by their recent aggressive actions have exploited a situation purely for their own benefit with total disregard to the needs of their main benefactor(the US) and hampered our responce to 9-11. It is for this reason we cannot use Saudi soil to stage for a responce in the middle east. Right now the mid-east command is being transferred from Riyadh to Qatar where we can operate without restrictions. Without the current Isreali/Palestenian situation we would have had the full support of every Islamic country we maintain diplomatic relations with.
I tried to look at your referenced site at shalem.org.
Probably because it is a site which only presents the Isreali view, I found I was blocked from accessing it by the Saudi national server here. We have a problem getting to any internet sites that deal with pornography or anti-Islamic views.

Although I tend to believe that the USS Liberty incident was a really bad case of friendly fire I thought it timely to remind everyone of some history regarding Israel, massacres and Sharon’s part in it all.

(BBC News) -- First elected to parliament in 1977, Mr Sharon masterminded Israel's disastrous invasion of Lebanon in 1982. As defense minister he sent the Israeli army all the way to Beirut, a strike which ended in the expulsion of Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from Lebanon. The move stopped the PLO using Lebanon to launch attacks against Israel, but also resulted in the massacre of hundreds of Palestinians by Lebanese Christian militiamen in two Beirut refugee camps under Israeli control. Mr. Sharon was removed from office in 1983 by an Israeli tribunal investigating the 1982 Lebanon invasion, finding him indirectly responsible for the killings

(Reuters) -- Christian militiamen started a three-day killing spree in Sabra and Shatila on September 16, 1982, after being let in by Israeli soldiers who sealed off the two camps when they occupied the western sector of the Lebanese capital. The militiamen massacred more than 1,000 men, women and children in one of the worst atrocities of Lebanon's 1975-90 civil war while the Israeli soldiers ringing the camps stood by.

I don't think any country has a clean atrocity record and Israel is no exception.

EH, by shooting at the Liberty, they sure stopped it's surveillance, and it would be easier to claim friendly fire (especially by providing help right after) than make up a reasonable excuse for being caught shooting civillians. But like you said, just devil's advocate hypothetical.

William, from all I had heard, the Saudi's were letting us run fewer missions and wanted us out of their country more than a year ago, before the current Israeli/Palestinian troubles, and before 9-11 and the war on terror. I heard that from people coming back at the time. I didn't think them kicking us out was a recent development.

I still think killing innocents as a result of collateral damage, or overzealous troops (as long as they are dealt with accordingly) is infinitely better than Palestinains PURPOSELY targeting the women, children, and innocent men for the overwhelming majority of attacks.

This conflict has been going on forever, no one has ever held the region in peace for long. And the current troubles won't be over until one sides wins. Then, eventually, the winner will be besieged by someone new. Call me a pessimist, but that region is a nexus for violence....

It all goes back to the battle of the birthright between Abraham's children, Issac (the son promised by God) and Ishmael (the illegitimate, but firstborn, son of Abraham and his wife's maidservant).

Discord, read the link I posted. It's long, but is worth it and will answer many hypotheticals.
----------------------------------------------------------
William,
In an earlier post I referenced not one, not two, or four, or five, but ELEVEN separate investigations into the incident. It is improbable that every one of these investigations, over four and a half decades, have all been manipulated when a simpler and more plausible answer is at hand.

You say that you are "a person who looks at boths sides of an issue and forms a rational reasoned opinion based on facts as much as they are attainable"...but you state yourself that you are unable to access any websites or media that is considered anti-islamic. Explain how, living in Saudi Arabia, you are able to get anything that isn't unbiased to the benefit of the Arab world, knwn for it's repressive censorship?

You keep on talking about the Palestinian civilians that are massacred daily by Isreali's. Are civilians shot? Yes. On purpose? No. NEWSFLASH.....militants and terrorists have been using their own civilians as cover for quite some time. It works pretty well too, especially when CNN replays a civilian casualty on the news again and again.

So you treat wounded Palestinians...in Saudi Arabia? Presuming you currently do, explain how that places you in any position to determine how, why and where they were shot. You see trauma wounds, not events as they unfold on scene.

You are deluding yourself if you believe that the Isreali-Palestinian conflict has anything to do with the Arab world's opposition to the war on terror. They were against our bombing Afganistan for Christ's sake! It has little to do with Isreal, but rather anti-western sentiment.

And again you state that Isreal is acting against the needs and interests of the US. HOW? By fighting terrorism? Maybe they should sit on their hands while kindergartens are blown up until Colin Powell reaches an understanding with Arafat...
or until US troops are sent to the region to do the job that is the responsibility of the IDF? Just like we should have waited for Saudi Arabia to take care of the Taliban and al-Quaeda?

Isreali's HAVE NOT shot at reporters and other officials. Actually, it was Palestinain terrorists that shot and critically wounded Spanish reporters a week and a half ago as the drove through the West bank, with the film broadcast live on Univision, a hispanic television station.

I don't think Isreal has clean hands or an unblemished past... only that the deaths of civilians, especially in recent months, have not been deliberate civilian attacks-- and is certainly not as bad as the Arabs who sacrifice 12 year old children...

You are ignorant if you believe there is a peaceful solution to people wanting to exterminate you. Appeasement does not work in the face of tyranny. But I forgot, you like to ignore history in favor of your personal opinion...

EH, I wondered how long it would take before you started making scurilous comments and derogatory statements about my views.
Yes we do treat, here in Saudi Arabia, Palestinians injured in the Palestinan areas. They do not have medical facilities that will handle the volume and severity of injuries. We have the facilities , helicopters and jets to transport them anywhere in the world if needed. That is one of Saudi Arabia's contributions to help these people. All the surrounding Arab countries are giving similar aid. You sir are the one who is "Ignorant". I invite you to come and see the scores of these victims that Hamas and Hezbollah are hiding behind, as you implied. Did you not get to see the little boy killed by Isreali machine gun fire while hiding behind his father ? It was one of the few uncensored bits of video that was broadcast in the US. His father had been trying to escort him to school. Since that happened 16 months ago the Israelis have been very careful to keep news reporters and anyone with cameras away from their activities and believe me they do continue.I can, if needed ,supply more information than you care to read ,about women on the way to the hospital being shot in the head or school children being killed by Isreali snipers. So far 1600 plus Palestinians have been killed.Do you know what has just happened in Jenin? Hundreds of people masacred and the Israelis are busy bulldozing their houses and trying to hide the bodies. Even the Red Cross is having a difficult time getting in to help.

I was not taking about a policy of appeasement. I am talking about a policy of Israel removing their troops and civilian "settlers" back to their own country and out of their neighbors lands. I firmly believe in the doctrine of "man protecting his castle"
but not when that man is in his neighbors back yard shooting at his neighor and his family. The Palistinian's are fighting to protect their homes and families by the only means at their disposal. They don't have Apaches, F-16s, M-16s, night vision capability and yes nuclear weapons (which were STOLEN from the US by who ?) They do have molotov cocktails, a few rusty Khalishakovs, some RPGs, C4, rocks to throw and a spirit that the Nazi-style tactics of Israel will never extinguish.
Isn't it ironic that the very people my father fought to liberate are now as bad as their former oppressors, the Nazis ?

William,
My "scurilous" comments stem from your deliberately inflammatory choice of words like genocide, ethnic cleansing, and comparing Isreal to nazi Germany-- a comparison that is so grossly innaccurate that I find it almost hard to take other statements you make seriously. As a Jew, I don't think I could think of anything more insulting, so if you want to keep the dialogue a dialoge and not a litany of insults then keep it factual and accurate.

With regard to the CNN footage of the little boyand his father. Unbelievably tragic, as are all civilian deaths. But CNN panned the shot on the Isreali soldiers, not the whole scene which included Palestinian terrorists firing from the other side. The two were killed in a crossfire. Not executed by snipers or targeted by soldiers fire.

Keeping it factual, it is terrible that innocent homes are bulldozed. But it isn't a malicious or capricious action by Isreal. Many homes are used by gunmen as sniping positions on Jewish settelments, and mined so that wen the Isreali's clear the houses, they are blown up. So far, 23 Isreali soldiers were killed in this manner in Jenin alone. Yes, this is their only available means of fighting the Isreali army that is better equipped. But then don't complain about actions taken by a government backed into corners with zero alternatives. Not having international monitors on the ground, while detrimental to Isreal, prevents more unneeded casualties. They aren't hiding dead bodies, their preventing them.

As far as the settlements go; I will agree with you. I think they are a major roadblock to reaching an agreement with the Palestinians, and Sharon does it deliberately. He does so because of the ideology that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are Isreal's from the '67 war, and having a confrontational attitude, believes that "Isrealis should be able to live anywhere in Isreal." I have mixed feelings about this (as do many isrealis) but that is what negotiation is for. If it meant peace, the majority of Isrealis would cede the areas. But like most things, it isn't as simple as just giving land for peace.

Incedentially, Isreal is THE ONLY country in history that is asked to return land won in a war from aggressors. In your analogy, a better decription would be" two men arguing over a variance done on their property, and while in court, one man shoots the other mans child and dog for playing where he beleives his property to start.

Listen, do I think all Palestians are terrorists and gunmen? No-- actually from personal experience I happen to know that the only thing most palestinians want is to be able to have a decent life with self government. It is their leaders (like Arafat) that have a vision of a map without Isreal, and who kill or brutalize anyone opposing, or suspected of opposing, their rule. The idea of Arafat being elected is as funny as the elections held in Iraq, the Congo and other oppressive countries. there is no fredom of speech, free exchange of ideas, and that is one of the more detrimental features of the PA. Being in Saudi Arabia, did you hear of news about Arafats militia killing dozens of "collaborators," palestinians who helped the IDF get known terrorists? No trial or anything, just shot in the head. Not being sarcastic-- genuinely curious.

Good lord william. You have gone and compared the Israelis to the Nazis.

and a spirit that the Nazi-style tactics of Isreal will never extinguish.
Isn't it ironic that the very people my father fought to liberate are now as bad as their former oppressors, the Nazis ?

I don't really know what to say. I am now beyond any real words to address this.

Did anyone here ever take a second to think that if the Palestinians quit blowing up civilian targets, they have a legitimate reason to wage war on Isreal?

I know for damn sure if some kicked me out of my home town with US manufactured arms, I'd for damn sure be picking up anything that hurt the people who told me to leave and fight back. Remember Palaistineans don't have the means or arms the Isreali's have at thier disposal.

And contrary to the popular belief, Anti-Zionist, IS NOT anti-semetic. I'm sure if I lost my home, I could assimilate into the neigboring towns, but should I have too?

I gotta go with Wolvie here, bubba. Israel and Nazis? That's too far gone, man. Nazis were created to and tried to take over the world, Israel is defending their land, which, technically owns all the land the Palestinians are on. THEY LEFT IT, IT ISN'T THEIR'S. Israel lets them stay there, and if they can't win it by fighting without people brainwashed from childhood to be homicide bombers, then they don't deserve to win it.

Interesting point brought up on Fox News: the whole culture of some of these refugee camps the Israelis are blasting is geared to make terrorists. You can't just hit the terrorists, you have to hit the culture, or else it will just produce more. Stop the cause, not the product. The Israelis did not start the fighting between Palestinian controlled areas and Israel. Hell, they let the Palestinians come in and control the land, do you think they would have done that if they knew the Palestinians would start bombing resturaunts, killing all kinds of arabs as well as Jews?

Sorry, but the Israel/Nazi comparison is insane, and shows extreme ignorance, or at the very least such extreme bias that it really clouds your judgement.

I know you see some f***ed up stuff stitching up people, but realize that the Israeli hospitals are seeing the exact same thing, you just don't see the mutilated Israelis and Arab Israelis because they have their own hospitals.

And a hell of a lot of the support the Saudis are giving the poor Palestinians is in the form of money given specifically for homicide bombing and their families, to entice more people to die... How does that tip the cosmic scales? "We stitch up the ones the Israelis shoot, then turn around and pay kids to go kill themselves and 20 other innocents." They are just as big a (guilty) part of the cycle as any else....

This is great, the 9-11 post has turned into me and Info having a decent discussion, I need controversy! Marty, get in here and raise some hell!

Before Marty arrives to "Raise some hell" I'm going to go ahead and concede as I know he is by far a bigger....uh, hell raiser....than me.
I did not enter this discussion to raise hell, make anti-israeli statements or play mental masturbation with anyone. I had hoped to have a genuine dialog about the the two sides to this issue. For over four decades I had the opinion, like most Americans, that for some reason we owed unswerving loyalty and support to Israel and that muslims were just a bunch of oil-rich backward thinking "camel-jockeys"
Now after three years in Kuwait and two in Saudi Arabia and having visited several other Islamic countries, I have learned that this attitude is based purely on ignorance and biased news presented in the US media. I don't depend only on the local TV and radio for information. I have access to uncensored information on the internet, as long as it doesn't contain blatantly anti-Islamic views.
Let me leave you with one question: Germany has just announced it is suspending arms supplies and aid to Isreal to signal their protest of Israeli activities in West Bank, Gaza and Golan. Germany is THE biggest supporter of Israel in Europe. Why do you think they would take such drastic action unless there was real cause to do so?
Discord, The problem is Israeli troops are NOT in their own land. The Palestinians never left their lands voluntarily but were forceably moved to refugee camps.What they are fighting over is land Israel claimed outside their pre1967 borders on the pretext it was for a security buffer. What it is being used for is a place to put "settlers" from all over the world who are being used as a human shield between Israel proper and the "subhuman" arabs around them.
There was relative peace between Israel and their neighbors for many years. The last Israeli Prime Minister to come close to making a lasting peace accord with the Palestine Liberation Organizion, was assasinated by Jewish extremist, shot down in the streets of Jerusalem along with his body guards. The current crisis developed when Ariel Sharon was elected and started his latest episode of exterminating Palestinians. Sharon, if he lives long enough, will be tried as a war criminal for his past and present atrocities. Isn't it funny how the people who agreed to testify against him for the Sabra and Shatila massacres have been disappearing and dying in mysterious "accidents" one by one?
EH, you have a right to your views but stop pissing on my leg and telling me its raining.

Anyone who cares to can educate themselves on the true history of the current crisis by reading the below text. They follow the development of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict from the 1800s to the present. If you want an objective and informed opinion that is.

The Decadence of Judaism in Our Time
Author: Moshe Menuhin (Jewish Rabbi)

Palestine: Through the fog of Propaganda
Author: M.F. Abcarius

Dispossessed: The Ordeal of the Palestinians
Author: David Gilmour

Palestine: The Reality
Author J.M.N. Jeffries

Some simple questions for the discussion:

1. Should Israel return to the pre-1967 borders?

This would be similar to the US giving back Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California to Mexico. I think a better solution would be to establish a security zone in the West Bank and Golan Heights between Israel and Palestine. The amount of land lost to the security zone could be added by the Surrounding Arabic neighbors to ensure Palestine has the same size country. My reason for this is based on the initial loss of Palestine was created by an attack by Arabic countries, Syria and Egypt.

2. How can the Arabic community help in responding to world terrorism?

All the Arabic countries can provide a force to effectively chase down, detain, and provide justice to the terrorists in this area. This would show the world that terrorism is not acceptable to the Arabic community and establish a pro-active response method.

3. How can Israel and Palestine establish positive relations?

If the above to suggestions were accomplished then Israel would have no reason to continue aggressive responses to terrorism. It would establish their position with their Arabic neighbors and Palestine position with Israel. Then if Israel continues to make cross-border incursions (remember that the present actions are not cross-border but inside Israel's own borders) then the world's countries in particular the US would have to withdraw support for Israel.

Look forward to y'alls comments!

William, don't go! We're having fun. Just because folks are sticking to their beliefs and not changing to yours doesn't mean it's not a genuine dialogue. The whole hell raising thing was me just kidding.

And like I said, I know you have seen some bad stuff in the Arab countries, and that has swayed your opinions, but you have to admit you are now biased, and will be until you spend time in Israel and see things from their side also. You have seen it from the US and from the Arab side, but how can you say you're being objective when you haven't been to Israel and seen the things they go through? If you started out in Israel treating kids with shrapnel wounds from homicide bombers just because their parents picked that restaruant to eat in, would you still call Israelis Nazis?

The current fighting started before Sharon was elected, it started when he visited a holy site, and Palestinians increased violence, everyone started calling it a new Intifada. Yes, Sharon did the visiting, but the Palestinians started that round of violence. Yes Israelis kill other Jews in Israel, but you still haven't addressed Muslims in Saudi paying for Palestinians to go kill themselves. Is that not as bad? And the homicide bombers kill other Arabs in their attacks. Is that not as bad?

And I was talking about 1948, when the Palestinians initially left the area, but yes, the Israelis did take the land, but they took in war with other armies, conventional style. "Land belongs to the children of whoever stole it last." I say they won it fair and square, at least they didn't use terror tactics. It was preemptive defense. As long as Palestinians fight with only cowardly terror tactics, I think they are more in the wrong.

I do not blindly back Israel, I think they should be using police tactics to stop terrorism. I don't back Palestine, I think they ought to either get the balls to fight a real fight, or sit down and live with what they got. But I'm not gonna say I'm objective when I experience traumatic scenes from only one side (sure to sway bias). And I'm not gonna stand by, (when I know a lot of good Israelis, good friends), and let you compare them to some of the most evil vile people who ever walked the earth. I do not think you are being objective, some of your comments are a little extreme. Do you really think Sharon is going to face war crimes trials? He's gonna lose to Netanyahu and fade into history. Israelis aren't rounding up Palestinians and giving them zyclon-b showers, they're fighting back and forth with an enemy. Nazis steamrolled over everyone, whether they fought or not. If Palestinians quit fighting, so would the Israelis, but they won't cause they all conditioned to want to be martyrs, and their families are all getting paid by your heroes, the Saudis.

Did someone call my name? How is it that William is slamming me before I even post on this thread?

I haven't posted because EH has done pretty well with my point of view-as has Discord. William's not as fun as Info! William actually tries to back up his words.

Anyway, here's the deal with the Palestinian Authority-they are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites and cowards who send children out to die for them.

Also, the Palestinians have never had a country. Palestine was a British mandate not a state for the Palestinians. After the UN recognized Israel and the Arabs attacked why is it that none of the neighboring Arab countries took in the Palestinian refugee's?

In recent years we've had this "land for peace" deal. Oh, the Palestinians are so peaceful they are willing to give up killing innocents if they get some land back in the deal? Except that when offered over 90% of what he wanted Arafat said "no thanks."

It's well known that Arafat talks out of both sides of his mouth, one view when speaking Arabic and another when speaking English. This is a war that will end only one way-the Israeli's will crush the Palestinians and then they'll have some peace.

Sadly, my points aren't very controversial.

Osin-I thought the Jews were the son's (and daughters) of Shem. That's why there are Semites and anti-Semites.

As to this bulldozing over houses--EH is correct. The Israeli's were giving warnings over loudspeakers for people to get out of the houses before they bulldozed them. According to numbers given out today by both the Red Cross and the Red Crescent the number of people killed in Jenin is 36 Palestinians (4 of whom were confirmed as innocent victims) and 23 Israeli soldiers.

As to Media bias--pick up Newsweek the cover story about the two girls, one a homicide bomber (portrayed as sadly heroic) and one an innocent victim and I think you'll see on which side the bias lies.

I just about puked when I saw the Newsweek cover. That is sickening. Anyone else think glorify a suicide bomber (commonly called a TERRORIST) should be considered a case of treason due to our current stance on terrorism? Nah, only in my dreams would the Government get the balls to go after the media and win.

Matt

A little history may help out here:

In the 1920s, among their final acts as victors in World War I, the British and French created the states that now define the Middle East out of the ashes of the empire of their defeated Turkish adversary. In a region that the Ottoman Turks had controlled for hundreds of years, Britain and France drew the boundaries of the new states, Syria Lebanon and Iraq. Previously, the British had promised the Jewish Zionists that they could establish a "national home" in a portion of what remained of the area, which was known as the Palestine Mandate.

But in 1921 the British separated 80 percent of the Mandate, east of the Jordan, and created the Arab kingdom of "Transjordan." It was created for the Arabian monarch King Abdullah, who had been defeated in tribal warfare in the Arabian Peninsula and lacked a seat of power. Abudllah's tribe was Hashemite, while the vast majority of Abdullah's subjects were Palestinian Arabs.

What was left of the original Palestine Mandate - between the west bank of the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea - had been settled by Arabs and Jews. Jews, in fact, had lived in the area continuously for 3,700 years, even after the Romans destroyed their state in Judea in CE 70. Arabs became the dominant local population for the first time in the 7th Century CE as a result of the Muslim invasions. The Arabs were largely nomads who had no distinctive language or culture to separate them from other Arabs. In all the time since, they had made no attempt to create an independent Palestinian state west or east of the Jordan and none was ever established.

In 1948, at the request of the Jews who were living in Palestine, the United Nations voted to partition the remaining quarter of the original Mandate to make a Jewish homeland possible. Under the partition plan, the Arabs were given the Jews' ancient home in Judea and Samaria - now known as the West Bank. The Jews were allotted three slivers of disconnected land along the Mediterranean and the Sinai desert. They were also given access to their holy city of Jerusalem, but as an island cut off from the slivers, surrounded by Arab land and under international control. Sixty percent of the land allotted to the Jews was the Negev desert. Out of these unpromising parts, the Jews created a new state, Israel, in 1948. At this time, the idea of a Palestinian nation, or a movement to create one did not even exist.
At the moment of Israel's birth, Palestinian Arabs lived on roughly 90 percent of the original Palestine Mandate - in Transjordan and in the UN partition area, but also in the new state of Israel itself.

There were 800,000 Arabs living in Israel alongside 1.2 million Jews. At the same time, Jews were legally barred from settling in the 35,000 square miles of Palestinian Transjordan, which eventually was renamed simply "Jordan."

The Arab population in the slivers called Israel had actually more than tripled since the Zionists first began settling the region in significant numbers in the 1880s.The reason for this increase was that the Jewish settlers had brought industrial and agricultural development with them, which attracted Arab immigrants to what had previously been a sparsely settled and economically destitute area.

If the Palestinian Arabs had been willing to accept this arrangement in which they received 90 percent of the land in the Palestine Mandate, and under which they benefited from the industry, enterprise and political democracy the Jews brought to the region, there would have been no Middle East conflict. But this was not to be.

Instead, the Arab League - representing five neighboring Arab states - declared war on Israel on the day of its creation, and five Arab armies invaded the slivers with the aim of destroying the infant Jewish state. During the fighting, according to the UN mediator on the scene, an estimated 472,000 Arabs fled their homes to escape the dangers. They planned on returning after an Arab victory and the destruction of the Jewish state.

But the Jews -- many of them recent Holocaust survivors -- refused to be defeated. Instead, the five Arab armies that had invaded their slivers were repelled. Yet there was no peace. Even though their armies were beaten, the Arab states were determined to carry on their campaign of destruction, and to remain formally at war with the Israeli state. After the defeat of the Arab armies, the Palestinians who lived in the Arab area of the UN partition did not attempt to create a state of their own. Instead, in 1950, Jordan annexed the entire West Bank.

As a result of the annexation and the continuing state of war, the Arab refugees who had fled the Israeli slivers did not return. There was a refugee flow into Israel, but it was a flow of Jews who had been expelled from the Arab countries.

All over the Middle East, Jews were forced to leave lands they had lived on for centuries. Although Israel was a tiny geographical area and a fledgling state, its government welcomed and resettled 600,000 Jewish refugees from the Arab countries.
At the same time, the Jews resumed their work of creating a new nation in what was now a single sliver of land. Israel, had annexed a small amount of territory to make their state defensible, including a land bridge that included Jerusalem.

In the years that followed, the Israelis made their desert bloom. They built the only industrialized economy in the entire Middle East. They built the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. They treated the Arabs who remained in Israel well. To this day the very large Arab minority, which lives inside the state of Israel, has more rights and privileges than any other Arab population in the entire Middle East.

This is especially true of the Arabs living under Yasser Arafat's corrupt dictatorship, the Palestine Authority, which today administers the West Bank and the Gaza strip, and whose Arab subjects have no human rights. In 1997, in a fit of pique against the Oslo Accords, Palestinian spokesman Edward Said himself blurted this out, calling Arafat "our Papa Doc" - after the sadistic dictator of Haiti - and complaining that there was "a total absence of law or the rule of law in the Palestinian autonomy areas."

The present Middle East conflict is said to be about the "occupied territories" - the West Bank of the Jordan and the Gaza strip - and about Israel's refusal to "give them up." But during the first twenty years of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel did not control the West Bank. In 1950, when Jordan annexed the West Bank, there was no Arab outrage. Nor did the Middle East conflict with the Jews subside.

The reason there was no Arab outrage over the annexation of the West Bank was because Jordan is a state whose ethnic majority is Palestinian Arabs. On the other hand, the Palestinians of Jordan are disenfranchised by the ruling Hashemite minority. Despite this fact, in the years following the annexation the Palestinians displayed no interest in achieving "self-determination" in Hashemite Jordan. It is only the presence of Jews, apparently, that incites this claim. The idea that the current conflict is about "occupied territories" is only one of the many large Arab deceits -- now widely accepted -- that have distorted the history of the Middle East wars.

Hope this is helpful.

Shoot Marty, I think you might have ended the debate! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

Well this thread had a short life, thanks to Marty. Good job.

(Seriously, this isn't meant in jest, good post. Now let's all go back to the 9-11 thread and stir some sh1t up!!)

Matt

I'm sorry if I spoiled all the fun!

Just when I was about to stick my nose in <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

Go ahead Info! Say something to piss Marty off so he can try and redeem himself!

Marty,
YOUR WRONG! j/k <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Second that....Wrong,Lots left to be said here.....I just ain't got time to reply right now.

I'll be waiting for that reply!

I think he better hurry before this turns into the "make fun of Info and Marty catfighting" thread.... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />