Deja Vu as 'peace' activists spit on Diggers
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that one of the blokes off Big Brother is over there (gordon), goes to show how smart he is
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And now we have the trade unions threatening to strike to stop food and supplies reaching our forces…
What troubles me the most about many of the protestors who I have seen interviewed is how almost all mention that the reason why we should not become involved is a fear of retaliation by terrorists. That must surely be the ultimate ‘NIMBY’ cop-out – “we know the baddies are out there doing terrible things to other people, but if we don’t annoy them, maybe they’ll leave us alone.”
I think it’s a bit late for that.
As for "I don't know too much about SH, but GB must be stopped...." give me strength! The clown knows that now that he's a 'celeb', he has to keep his name in the lights if he wants to remain one and his publicist will have told him that this is a good way to do so.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Brisbane,Qld,Australia
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like many others I watched CNN in horror on 11th September 2001. Several weeks later I visited the World Trade Centre site. First I paused at the small makeshift shrine with cards and flowers dedicated to those lost. Tears filled my eyes as I read the lines written for the ones who would never again walk through the doors of happy homes, families shattered forever.
Around the corner I was almost sick. Here were stands with glossy photos of aircraft crashing into buildings. People queued to spend their ten, twenty, fifty dollars. As I passed I tried to imagine in which room the American man next in line would display his mounted copy.
Next I moved to the area beneath the viewing stand with many people, mostly Americans, talking to the NYPD men and women behind the barricades. It was a Sunday and very crowded. What I wanted to hear was the thoughts of ordinary people and the answer they had to the one question I felt every American must ask. An hour and a half passed, and I moved away in somber mood and some bewilderment.
The Space Shuttle tragedy results in a twenty-four hour, seven days a week investigation. An aircraft crashes and the data and voice recorders are recovered to discover the cause, yet airliners are hijacked and flown into buildings and no one asks the reasons for a depth of hatred so intense that not only could this despicable atrocity be contemplated but executed.
I visited the USA 22 times last year and recently returned to the place known as “Ground Zero”. There was much change. The demolition work had long finished and some new construction was apparent. The biggest change, however, was in me. I found the answer to that question. Not in the words of Presidents or Prime Ministers or mainstream ‘Murdoch’ type media but in the suffering of the peoples of Chile, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Brazil, Peru, the Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Honduras and Mexico. Not just Latin America but closer to home, Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia, Laos, and Cambodia, and of course the intolerable and unspeakable tragedy of the Middle East.
Unfortunately all these have one common thread and it is this common thread stretching from the 11th September 1922 that no one, least of all our government, wishes to examine as Australia becomes a fully paid up member of the “Coalition of the Killing”.
I have a lot of trouble putting faith and trust in the country that nurtured Osama bin Laden and fostered Saddam Hussein. It was the CIA’s “Operation Cyclone” that armed and trained the zealots who would became al-Qa’ida and The Taliban. Saddam was a favored American puppet, weapons and money thrown at him when his actions were one with his sponsors. It was probably not so much the invasion and occupation of Kuwait, as the USA has little trouble with one country occupying another’s land, but more the independence of this action that so enraged them.
The majority (15) of the hijackers of 11 September were Saudi nationals but Afghanistan was attacked. A stone-age country bombed further back into the stone -age. More innocent civilians, not al Qa’ida or Taliban, perished than the 2792 just as innocent lost in the Twin Towers. Whilst we mourn the latter and rightly condemn the crimes against humanity in NY, the families and children of Afghanistan are dismissed as nothing more than what must be the most disgusting term of the American dialect, collateral damage.
These poor people suffered so much under their previous government of oppressive thugs and drug traffickers that they were glad to see The Taliban, which is certainly saying something. Not only this but a terrorist organization set up camp in their back yard.
The bombing was justified because these terrorists were wanted, dead or alive. So what was the result of 62 innocent deaths a day? The Taliban, once welcomed in Washington and entertained by Unocal (the oil company) in George W’s Texas, were evicted. This should have been good news, but unfortunately were replaced by the ‘Northern Alliance’. This ‘friendly to the west’ bunch being the same thugs and drug traffickers previously in control. The new President, Hamid Karzai, was employed by a subsidiary of Unocal, the US ambassador is a senior executive of Unocal and the pipeline (only now possible) to carry the oil and gas from the vast deposits of the Caspian Sea will be built by Unocal.
Things have changed though. According to the new Minister of Justice, “The Taliban used to hang the victims body in public for four days. We will only hang the body for a short time, say fifteen minutes, after a public execution.”
And, by the way, where is Osama bin Laden? Who?
The villain of the month is Saddam Hussein.
Incredibly many Americans believe Saddam was directly involved in 911 (an atrocity now reduced to three digits coinciding with the emergency telephone number) and some have even mixed up Saddam and Osama bin Laden. Murdoch, his175 editors (who all think just like him) and cohorts have done a remarkable job. Perhaps the Austrian ‘T’ shirt aimed at American tourists, a big marsupial with red line through and the words: MOZART – NOT KANGAROOS, could be modified and employed.
A war will now go ahead. Marketed in the US as in the national interest with rugged Bruce Willis type military images and jingoistic slogans, Enduring Freedom (goes better with Coke).
Scott Ritter (former UNSCOM inspector) tells us that 95% of weapons were destroyed, chemical weapons have a shelf life of around 6 years and there are no nuclear weapons or capabilities. We are now debating the whereabouts of useless sludge, GNMPG of missile engines and why a scientist does not want to be left alone in a room with people who may well be graduates from The School of the Americas.
Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. No one will or can defend him, but just as I am not John Howard and my children are not John Howard, Iraq is not populated by 23 million Saddams. We are told that minimum collateral damage will occur as civilians will not be targeted, but liberated. Harlan Ullman, military strategist, has devised the concept on which the war plan is based. The “Shock and Awe” scheme will use 800 cruise missiles in 2 days, “you have this simultaneous effect -rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima -not taking days or weeks but minutes”. George Bush, Tony Blair or The Pentagon has yet to explain how it will only be Saddam and the Republican Guard who are shocked and awed.
I find it hard to believe one man has managed a fantastical pea and thimble trick outsmarting a team of expert weapons inspectors using CIA intelligence and technology from the age when phone conversations can be monitored from space and aircraft navigated with pinpoint accuracy. If in fact such superior intellect was used to construct something out of bits and pieces from here and there, like an oxygen device on an Apollo spacecraft, then perhaps the results could be compared to what else is around. The international communities weapons inspectors could find no shortage of WMD, both nuclear and chemical, if they looked a little further to the west. Why are they limited to Iraq? We now come to the age-old question of good and bad stuff. Whilst the very moral Tony Blair was condemning Iraq he approved a shipment of chemical weapons for Israel. Must have been from the good batch of mass destruction.
The evangelical Christian fundamentalists in the left seat of the White House have the capability to destroy our planet several times over. This awesome fire power is more than enough to contain the most enthusiastic despot. The question is why now? A 10.4M barrel a day habit (and rising), the lesson in anthraxing their own people not appreciated or perhaps just impatient for Armageddon when the Jews will be converted to Christianity and all will march triumphant arm in arm with George Bush and Jerry Falwell to the Pearly Gates. Hope they got it right, as there will be hell to pay if Allah greets them on arrival.
Colin Powell thumps the UN desk and Donald Rumsfeld waves 1441 in the air. This is what the world wants, and this is justification for invasion. By the same logic the world also wants resolution 106,111,127,167,171, 228, etc (64 in total) complied with and 1435 must also justify invasion. Instead “There will not be a safe place in Baghdad. The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before”. This is what awaits millions of children in Iraq whilst Israel, currently violating (now) 65 resolutions, receives US$3 billion (PA), F-16’s, attack helicopters, tanks, bulldozers and, of course, WMD. The Palestinians have WMD consisting of little more than sticks and stones and in some cases tragically, for both sides, themselves in this brutal and illegal occupation of what is their own land. Didn't we fight the Gulf war over an almost identical issue? To add to this we may recall Isreal's blocking of the UN from the site of the Jenin massacre and Ariel Sharon's "personal responsibility" for the 1982 massacres of Sabra and Chatila and Rifaat Assad's in the massacre at Hama. Israel's staunchest ally is the US.
Perhaps if the world’s wishes were enforced a little less selectively there would be two skyscrapers still standing in Lower Manhattan and those innocent people could have all joined their families over a turkey dinner just two months later .
500,000 children are now dead. Saddam Hussein has indeed caused much suffering but the bulk of this is not his work. “A report by the United Nations Secretary – General in October 2001 says that the obstruction of $4 billion of humanitarian supplies (approved by the Security Counclil) by the US and British governments is by far the main cause of the extreme suffering and deaths in Iraq.” Is it any wonder that both Dennis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck resigned in disgust?
Not only this but we find when Saddam Hussein was carrying out his worst atrocities (hundreds of villages razed in Northern Iraq and chemical weapons and machine guns against 6800 Kurds in Halabja in1988) his close allies were the US and UK governments.
- How very moral, how very right.
The William Safires mockingly ask people who are prepared to march in the streets for their beliefs, “and with whom would you replace him?” Perhaps before answering we could review what the ones he supports have in mind.
The ‘London brigade’ is a joke, not even able to agree on a time to meet, most having a career interest in a US invasion. As well Ahmad Chalabi and Kanan Makiya have little credibility among Iraqis, and this talk of promoting democracy is farcical as the majority are Shi'ite.
What they want is a new Saddam. Saddam MkII. A 'stable' Saddam, an obedient Saddam, one who does what he is told when he is told, just like the old one before the puppet became the Frankenstein monster.
To answer the original question Dennis Haliday’s interview in “Al Haram” (30/12/02) could be referenced along with an Iraqi’s view, “Iraqi’s will not be pawns in Bush and Blair’s war game”, Kamil Mahdi, The Guardian, (20/02/03).
Spitting on someone who is prepared to give their life in defense of their country is far more than shameful. Hopefully the lessons of Vietnam and Veterans have been learnt and this disgraceful incident not repeated. I am very pleased to report that mention was made at the Brisbane rally of the immense and selfless contribution our defense force men and women make to our country, and the wish that every single one of them returns safely home to their families. I am also pleased to report that this was not only met with loud applause but cheers.
It is not often, Wiley, I find myself in disagreement with you. Two years ago I would have written exactly as you have, but that was before I stood overlooking a demolition site that was once a world landmark. A cool afternoon with a slight breeze that carried a light but pungent odor I had not known before. This was a combination of earth, building rubble and human remains. Mangled railway tracks and a squashed SUV, amazingly mag wheels in perfect condition, were amongst the debris to be carted away. I lost track of time and as I listened to those around me one thought kept haunting me. Why?
My wife and I have done a great deal of research and have found, just as we experienced in '89/90, the truth is sadly lacking from our mainstream media.
Tony Blair's damning evidence on Iraq was plagiarised from an American students twelve year old thesis, cut and pasted spelling mistakes and all. Collin Powell took this to the UN thus extending the lie to the world.
Tony Blair (7/11/02) scares London with warnings of imminent terrorists attacks (the day before the UN vote). The colour code for this type of alert is 'amber'. This was not activated and remained on 'black special', just as it was before this dire threat. In Australia curious terrorist packs were expensively and theatrically mailed to each houshold. This "vital" information (excluding fridge magnate) could have just as easily, and far more cheaply, been imparted via newspaper advertisemants. In America credible threats of another 11 September type attack were headline news. Several days later in the bowels of the same papers it could be found that the source was discredited and the threat disregarded. Strangly enough this did not grace any front pages.
Same old recipe, same old sine curve, 'deja vu' (acute & grave beyond my skill) it is.
If we plot events so far to that sine curve and project it forward it can be seen that 2 to 3 days before the next crucial UN vote we are due for another major event/revelation. Perhaps Osama bin Laden will be dredged up again or maybe the greatest cache of nuclear weapons ever known to mankind will be found in a Basra Road out house. Hopefully there will not be a repeat of the sinister anthrax episode. And just for good measure who should we find up to his ears in the middle of all this but our old adversary, the other joint managing director!
So what is this really all about? I have yet to read a more succinct explanation than from our own, now American citizen, pillar of society, protector of moral values and correctness, Rupert Murdoch. A mere three quotes from his recent interview are all that is needed to clear the air. From The Guardian (11/02/03):
1 He (Murdoch) reiterated that the “greatest thing to come out of this [war]” would be cheap oil, which he believes would benefit the world economy more than any tax cut ever could.
2 Mr Murdoch said that the price of oil would be the war’s main benefit. “The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 a barrel for oil. That’s bigger than any tax cut in any country.”
3 “We’re keeping our heads down, managing the business keeping our profits up. Who knows what the future holds? I have a pretty optimistic medium and long- term view but things are going to be pretty sticky until we get Iraq behind us. But once it’s behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else,” he told Fortune.
To Mr Murdoch’s obvious caring, warmth and concern for the Iraqi people (who’s blood he has factored into every barrel), I would add Strategic control and Israel, and that would be about it in a nutshell.
Around the corner I was almost sick. Here were stands with glossy photos of aircraft crashing into buildings. People queued to spend their ten, twenty, fifty dollars. As I passed I tried to imagine in which room the American man next in line would display his mounted copy.
Next I moved to the area beneath the viewing stand with many people, mostly Americans, talking to the NYPD men and women behind the barricades. It was a Sunday and very crowded. What I wanted to hear was the thoughts of ordinary people and the answer they had to the one question I felt every American must ask. An hour and a half passed, and I moved away in somber mood and some bewilderment.
The Space Shuttle tragedy results in a twenty-four hour, seven days a week investigation. An aircraft crashes and the data and voice recorders are recovered to discover the cause, yet airliners are hijacked and flown into buildings and no one asks the reasons for a depth of hatred so intense that not only could this despicable atrocity be contemplated but executed.
I visited the USA 22 times last year and recently returned to the place known as “Ground Zero”. There was much change. The demolition work had long finished and some new construction was apparent. The biggest change, however, was in me. I found the answer to that question. Not in the words of Presidents or Prime Ministers or mainstream ‘Murdoch’ type media but in the suffering of the peoples of Chile, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Brazil, Peru, the Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Honduras and Mexico. Not just Latin America but closer to home, Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia, Laos, and Cambodia, and of course the intolerable and unspeakable tragedy of the Middle East.
Unfortunately all these have one common thread and it is this common thread stretching from the 11th September 1922 that no one, least of all our government, wishes to examine as Australia becomes a fully paid up member of the “Coalition of the Killing”.
I have a lot of trouble putting faith and trust in the country that nurtured Osama bin Laden and fostered Saddam Hussein. It was the CIA’s “Operation Cyclone” that armed and trained the zealots who would became al-Qa’ida and The Taliban. Saddam was a favored American puppet, weapons and money thrown at him when his actions were one with his sponsors. It was probably not so much the invasion and occupation of Kuwait, as the USA has little trouble with one country occupying another’s land, but more the independence of this action that so enraged them.
The majority (15) of the hijackers of 11 September were Saudi nationals but Afghanistan was attacked. A stone-age country bombed further back into the stone -age. More innocent civilians, not al Qa’ida or Taliban, perished than the 2792 just as innocent lost in the Twin Towers. Whilst we mourn the latter and rightly condemn the crimes against humanity in NY, the families and children of Afghanistan are dismissed as nothing more than what must be the most disgusting term of the American dialect, collateral damage.
These poor people suffered so much under their previous government of oppressive thugs and drug traffickers that they were glad to see The Taliban, which is certainly saying something. Not only this but a terrorist organization set up camp in their back yard.
The bombing was justified because these terrorists were wanted, dead or alive. So what was the result of 62 innocent deaths a day? The Taliban, once welcomed in Washington and entertained by Unocal (the oil company) in George W’s Texas, were evicted. This should have been good news, but unfortunately were replaced by the ‘Northern Alliance’. This ‘friendly to the west’ bunch being the same thugs and drug traffickers previously in control. The new President, Hamid Karzai, was employed by a subsidiary of Unocal, the US ambassador is a senior executive of Unocal and the pipeline (only now possible) to carry the oil and gas from the vast deposits of the Caspian Sea will be built by Unocal.
Things have changed though. According to the new Minister of Justice, “The Taliban used to hang the victims body in public for four days. We will only hang the body for a short time, say fifteen minutes, after a public execution.”
And, by the way, where is Osama bin Laden? Who?
The villain of the month is Saddam Hussein.
Incredibly many Americans believe Saddam was directly involved in 911 (an atrocity now reduced to three digits coinciding with the emergency telephone number) and some have even mixed up Saddam and Osama bin Laden. Murdoch, his175 editors (who all think just like him) and cohorts have done a remarkable job. Perhaps the Austrian ‘T’ shirt aimed at American tourists, a big marsupial with red line through and the words: MOZART – NOT KANGAROOS, could be modified and employed.
A war will now go ahead. Marketed in the US as in the national interest with rugged Bruce Willis type military images and jingoistic slogans, Enduring Freedom (goes better with Coke).
Scott Ritter (former UNSCOM inspector) tells us that 95% of weapons were destroyed, chemical weapons have a shelf life of around 6 years and there are no nuclear weapons or capabilities. We are now debating the whereabouts of useless sludge, GNMPG of missile engines and why a scientist does not want to be left alone in a room with people who may well be graduates from The School of the Americas.
Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. No one will or can defend him, but just as I am not John Howard and my children are not John Howard, Iraq is not populated by 23 million Saddams. We are told that minimum collateral damage will occur as civilians will not be targeted, but liberated. Harlan Ullman, military strategist, has devised the concept on which the war plan is based. The “Shock and Awe” scheme will use 800 cruise missiles in 2 days, “you have this simultaneous effect -rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima -not taking days or weeks but minutes”. George Bush, Tony Blair or The Pentagon has yet to explain how it will only be Saddam and the Republican Guard who are shocked and awed.
I find it hard to believe one man has managed a fantastical pea and thimble trick outsmarting a team of expert weapons inspectors using CIA intelligence and technology from the age when phone conversations can be monitored from space and aircraft navigated with pinpoint accuracy. If in fact such superior intellect was used to construct something out of bits and pieces from here and there, like an oxygen device on an Apollo spacecraft, then perhaps the results could be compared to what else is around. The international communities weapons inspectors could find no shortage of WMD, both nuclear and chemical, if they looked a little further to the west. Why are they limited to Iraq? We now come to the age-old question of good and bad stuff. Whilst the very moral Tony Blair was condemning Iraq he approved a shipment of chemical weapons for Israel. Must have been from the good batch of mass destruction.
The evangelical Christian fundamentalists in the left seat of the White House have the capability to destroy our planet several times over. This awesome fire power is more than enough to contain the most enthusiastic despot. The question is why now? A 10.4M barrel a day habit (and rising), the lesson in anthraxing their own people not appreciated or perhaps just impatient for Armageddon when the Jews will be converted to Christianity and all will march triumphant arm in arm with George Bush and Jerry Falwell to the Pearly Gates. Hope they got it right, as there will be hell to pay if Allah greets them on arrival.
Colin Powell thumps the UN desk and Donald Rumsfeld waves 1441 in the air. This is what the world wants, and this is justification for invasion. By the same logic the world also wants resolution 106,111,127,167,171, 228, etc (64 in total) complied with and 1435 must also justify invasion. Instead “There will not be a safe place in Baghdad. The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before”. This is what awaits millions of children in Iraq whilst Israel, currently violating (now) 65 resolutions, receives US$3 billion (PA), F-16’s, attack helicopters, tanks, bulldozers and, of course, WMD. The Palestinians have WMD consisting of little more than sticks and stones and in some cases tragically, for both sides, themselves in this brutal and illegal occupation of what is their own land. Didn't we fight the Gulf war over an almost identical issue? To add to this we may recall Isreal's blocking of the UN from the site of the Jenin massacre and Ariel Sharon's "personal responsibility" for the 1982 massacres of Sabra and Chatila and Rifaat Assad's in the massacre at Hama. Israel's staunchest ally is the US.
Perhaps if the world’s wishes were enforced a little less selectively there would be two skyscrapers still standing in Lower Manhattan and those innocent people could have all joined their families over a turkey dinner just two months later .
500,000 children are now dead. Saddam Hussein has indeed caused much suffering but the bulk of this is not his work. “A report by the United Nations Secretary – General in October 2001 says that the obstruction of $4 billion of humanitarian supplies (approved by the Security Counclil) by the US and British governments is by far the main cause of the extreme suffering and deaths in Iraq.” Is it any wonder that both Dennis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck resigned in disgust?
Not only this but we find when Saddam Hussein was carrying out his worst atrocities (hundreds of villages razed in Northern Iraq and chemical weapons and machine guns against 6800 Kurds in Halabja in1988) his close allies were the US and UK governments.
- How very moral, how very right.
The William Safires mockingly ask people who are prepared to march in the streets for their beliefs, “and with whom would you replace him?” Perhaps before answering we could review what the ones he supports have in mind.
The ‘London brigade’ is a joke, not even able to agree on a time to meet, most having a career interest in a US invasion. As well Ahmad Chalabi and Kanan Makiya have little credibility among Iraqis, and this talk of promoting democracy is farcical as the majority are Shi'ite.
What they want is a new Saddam. Saddam MkII. A 'stable' Saddam, an obedient Saddam, one who does what he is told when he is told, just like the old one before the puppet became the Frankenstein monster.
To answer the original question Dennis Haliday’s interview in “Al Haram” (30/12/02) could be referenced along with an Iraqi’s view, “Iraqi’s will not be pawns in Bush and Blair’s war game”, Kamil Mahdi, The Guardian, (20/02/03).
Spitting on someone who is prepared to give their life in defense of their country is far more than shameful. Hopefully the lessons of Vietnam and Veterans have been learnt and this disgraceful incident not repeated. I am very pleased to report that mention was made at the Brisbane rally of the immense and selfless contribution our defense force men and women make to our country, and the wish that every single one of them returns safely home to their families. I am also pleased to report that this was not only met with loud applause but cheers.
It is not often, Wiley, I find myself in disagreement with you. Two years ago I would have written exactly as you have, but that was before I stood overlooking a demolition site that was once a world landmark. A cool afternoon with a slight breeze that carried a light but pungent odor I had not known before. This was a combination of earth, building rubble and human remains. Mangled railway tracks and a squashed SUV, amazingly mag wheels in perfect condition, were amongst the debris to be carted away. I lost track of time and as I listened to those around me one thought kept haunting me. Why?
My wife and I have done a great deal of research and have found, just as we experienced in '89/90, the truth is sadly lacking from our mainstream media.
Tony Blair's damning evidence on Iraq was plagiarised from an American students twelve year old thesis, cut and pasted spelling mistakes and all. Collin Powell took this to the UN thus extending the lie to the world.
Tony Blair (7/11/02) scares London with warnings of imminent terrorists attacks (the day before the UN vote). The colour code for this type of alert is 'amber'. This was not activated and remained on 'black special', just as it was before this dire threat. In Australia curious terrorist packs were expensively and theatrically mailed to each houshold. This "vital" information (excluding fridge magnate) could have just as easily, and far more cheaply, been imparted via newspaper advertisemants. In America credible threats of another 11 September type attack were headline news. Several days later in the bowels of the same papers it could be found that the source was discredited and the threat disregarded. Strangly enough this did not grace any front pages.
Same old recipe, same old sine curve, 'deja vu' (acute & grave beyond my skill) it is.
If we plot events so far to that sine curve and project it forward it can be seen that 2 to 3 days before the next crucial UN vote we are due for another major event/revelation. Perhaps Osama bin Laden will be dredged up again or maybe the greatest cache of nuclear weapons ever known to mankind will be found in a Basra Road out house. Hopefully there will not be a repeat of the sinister anthrax episode. And just for good measure who should we find up to his ears in the middle of all this but our old adversary, the other joint managing director!
So what is this really all about? I have yet to read a more succinct explanation than from our own, now American citizen, pillar of society, protector of moral values and correctness, Rupert Murdoch. A mere three quotes from his recent interview are all that is needed to clear the air. From The Guardian (11/02/03):
1 He (Murdoch) reiterated that the “greatest thing to come out of this [war]” would be cheap oil, which he believes would benefit the world economy more than any tax cut ever could.
2 Mr Murdoch said that the price of oil would be the war’s main benefit. “The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 a barrel for oil. That’s bigger than any tax cut in any country.”
3 “We’re keeping our heads down, managing the business keeping our profits up. Who knows what the future holds? I have a pretty optimistic medium and long- term view but things are going to be pretty sticky until we get Iraq behind us. But once it’s behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else,” he told Fortune.
To Mr Murdoch’s obvious caring, warmth and concern for the Iraqi people (who’s blood he has factored into every barrel), I would add Strategic control and Israel, and that would be about it in a nutshell.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BrisBoy;
Very thought provoking and well worthy of another read. Congratulations on an entertaining and reasonable aside to the present.
Whatever happens, however it happens, and whenever it happens, one can only ask that our "Diggrs" are not treated in the same way as the Vietnam vet's were.
See Ya mate.
Very thought provoking and well worthy of another read. Congratulations on an entertaining and reasonable aside to the present.
Whatever happens, however it happens, and whenever it happens, one can only ask that our "Diggrs" are not treated in the same way as the Vietnam vet's were.
See Ya mate.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aust
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brisboy, if this war was just about oil then the US would have cut a deal with Saddam 13 years ago. It would have been cheaper and easier. If the US is as cynical and amoral as you would have us believe, then the political or moral fallout of such a deal wouldn't worry them. The argument that they went to war with Saddam because he had the temerity to be independent (and not because he threatened regional stability and a large amount of the world's supply of oil) frankly doesn't stand up.
You don't mention is the reasons that the US backed Saddam against the Ayatollah and Osama against the USSR. Why not? Surely these are relevant to the discussion.
The situation faced today, whatever its root causes (and you have summed some up quite nicely), must be addressed today. I don't subscribe to Mr Ritter's views on Iraq's WMD capabilities. Nor do most of his companions from UNSCOM. I don't think there is much doubt that Iraq has WMD capabilities. The "doomsday" scenario of a WMD being traded with a group like Al Quaeda and used in downtown USA is not as far fetched as it was when Tom Clancy wrote the "Sum of All Fears". The thought of hijacked jet aircraft crashing into the WTC is pretty out there to me as well, yet we know it happened.
You don't mention is the reasons that the US backed Saddam against the Ayatollah and Osama against the USSR. Why not? Surely these are relevant to the discussion.
The situation faced today, whatever its root causes (and you have summed some up quite nicely), must be addressed today. I don't subscribe to Mr Ritter's views on Iraq's WMD capabilities. Nor do most of his companions from UNSCOM. I don't think there is much doubt that Iraq has WMD capabilities. The "doomsday" scenario of a WMD being traded with a group like Al Quaeda and used in downtown USA is not as far fetched as it was when Tom Clancy wrote the "Sum of All Fears". The thought of hijacked jet aircraft crashing into the WTC is pretty out there to me as well, yet we know it happened.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never has it been more important for each of us to put our THINKING CAPS on. Nothing (in the media) is as it seems. Even people with good intentions can be utilized to aid what they are against. In matters of politics/war/money/power, unfortunately, it will be hard for the average citizen to know the TRUTH. So, I beleive, do what BEST you can and beware of prejudice (opinion before the fact), look after YOURSELF and THOSE YOU LOVE. It's a jungle out here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tks Bris Boy for sharing what you know.
Tks Bris Boy for sharing what you know.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Brisbane,Qld,Australia
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bitter balance,
Thank you for your response. As mentioned towards the end of my post I did not say this was just about oil.
Your point about cutting a deal with Saddam 13 years ago is valid. I will begin my response with a personal observation. Politicians in general appear to have little concern for long term planning. In the US the political cycle is 4 years, which is about the limit of foresight and future planning.
The 10.4 m barrels a day quoted in my previous post comes from what is known as the Cheney report after the former head of Halliburton oil services group and now vice president. It predicts that imported oil would need to rise to 16.7 million barrels a day by 2020.
Saudi Arabia is the traditional supplier of oil to the US. 13 years ago it was a “stable” and reliable source, however today it is seen as a powder keg that is going to explode from within. Half the population of 22m is under 25 and half of these are unemployed. Many want to see the end of the ruling royal family. General opinion is their days are numbered. If Saudi Arabia fell into the hands of Muslim fundamentalists and exports were stopped, there will be an obvious shortfall. 13 years ago this was probably not a consideration but today it is and in the quest for future supplies “there is nothing like the ultra-cheap-to-produce reserves in Iraq sitting just below the desert sands.”
I did not argue that “they went to war with Saddam because he had the temerity to be independent”, more along the lines this probably got up their noses more than anything else. The war was because another’s land was invaded and occupied. This is clearly unacceptable. A parallel was drawn in my previous post and as you make no mention of this I will assume you agree with me and appreciate the hypocrisy.
The Nixon administration, chastened by the debacle in Vietnam, had concluded that US interests could be better protected by local surrogates than the direct use of US troops. In Iran the nationalst Prime Minister Mossadeq was overthrown in 1953 and replaced with the puppet Sha Mohammed Pahlevi. Things went OK for a while but as we know these types of regimes have a shelf life. When things went bad for the Sha Saddam became the new representative. For an excellent insight into your Saddam/Ayatollah question I would recommend the work of Stephen R. Shalom, from whom I will quote:
“In the gulf conflict, the United States officially declared its neutrality and announced it would not provide military aid to either side. In fact, however, for most of the war the US tilted heavily towards Iraq. In 1982, Washington removed Iraq from its list of nations supporting international terrorism, even though the State Departments human rights report that year found continuing Iraqi assassinations of dissidents abroad. The Reagan administration secretly provided arms to third countries (mainly Egypt, Jordan and Kuwait) for transfer to Iraq and helped broker billions of dollars of European weapons sales to Bagdad. Additionally, Washington winked when Iraq bought US helicopters, claiming they were for “recreation” and Nixon administration veterans arranged a deal to provide Iraq with Romanian military uniforms.
The US privately urged Iraq to carry out more attacks on Iran, especially on economic targets, and provided Iraq with intelligence information (particularly data allowing Iraq to assess its bombing raids on Iranian oil terminals and power plants). In the last year of the war, the US secretly gave Iraq military advice. And the US directly intervened on Iraq’s side when a US armada was sent into the Gulf to provoke and engage Iranian naval units.
But US assistance did not go only to Iraq. The Reagan administration also covertly provided Iran with anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, as well as intelligence information – until the Iran-Contra revelations blew the cover on the operation. The result of funneling aid to both sides, of course, was the prolongation of the war.
The US was not the only country to follow such a cynical policy. Among many others was Israel. According to former Mossad officer Victor Ostrovsky, Israel leaked to Iran and to Iraq the location of the other sides tankers whenever Israeli analysts estimated that the vessels had a better than even chance of getting through.”
References to the freedom of information data or CIA and declassified documents sourced are also provided with the above. I thought that would probably cover the “cynical” and “amoral” arguments as well but you did ask about Osama/USSR.
The US backed, trained and financed Osama bin Laden against the USSR as at this time the latter was a bitter enemy. The Soviet Union was the “Evil Empire” of the cold war.
For this I would recommend “The Clash of Fundamentalisms”, Tariq Ali. I will quote from an interview in the book taken from ‘Le Nouvel Observateur’ (15-21/1/98), with President Carter’s National Security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski :
Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [From the Shadows] that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahidin in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
A: Yes, according to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahidin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24th Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was 3 July, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the President in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
A: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?
A: Regret What? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russian into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
A: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? A few crazed Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Mr Brzezinski is active in the current Bush administration specifically in planning the looming war. A quote from John Pilger is apt at this point in also referring to Zbigniew Brzezinski, “and those few crazed Muslims replied on September 11, 2001.
bitter balance, upon what do you base your statement “I don’t think there is much doubt that Iraq has WMD capabilities”? When such a sweeping statement is made it should be either suffixed with, in my opinion, and the reasoning for that opinion or the proof provided to back it up.
I do subscribe to Mr Ritter’s views which I believe have been reinforced by the current weapons inspectors inability to find anything of substance, but this argument can wait until the completion of inspections so I will leave it here.
I do agree with you that something must be done today. It is what to do where we differ. What is needed immediately is to rid the whole Middle East of weapons of mass destruction - not blow someone’s children to kingdom come.
From this beginning Dennis Haliday’s plan could be commenced.
What we are doing is going to create a whole lot more crazed Muslims, and in all honesty, considering the treatment of some peoples of the Middle East compared to others I think they may just have a point.
Thank you for your response. As mentioned towards the end of my post I did not say this was just about oil.
Your point about cutting a deal with Saddam 13 years ago is valid. I will begin my response with a personal observation. Politicians in general appear to have little concern for long term planning. In the US the political cycle is 4 years, which is about the limit of foresight and future planning.
The 10.4 m barrels a day quoted in my previous post comes from what is known as the Cheney report after the former head of Halliburton oil services group and now vice president. It predicts that imported oil would need to rise to 16.7 million barrels a day by 2020.
Saudi Arabia is the traditional supplier of oil to the US. 13 years ago it was a “stable” and reliable source, however today it is seen as a powder keg that is going to explode from within. Half the population of 22m is under 25 and half of these are unemployed. Many want to see the end of the ruling royal family. General opinion is their days are numbered. If Saudi Arabia fell into the hands of Muslim fundamentalists and exports were stopped, there will be an obvious shortfall. 13 years ago this was probably not a consideration but today it is and in the quest for future supplies “there is nothing like the ultra-cheap-to-produce reserves in Iraq sitting just below the desert sands.”
I did not argue that “they went to war with Saddam because he had the temerity to be independent”, more along the lines this probably got up their noses more than anything else. The war was because another’s land was invaded and occupied. This is clearly unacceptable. A parallel was drawn in my previous post and as you make no mention of this I will assume you agree with me and appreciate the hypocrisy.
The Nixon administration, chastened by the debacle in Vietnam, had concluded that US interests could be better protected by local surrogates than the direct use of US troops. In Iran the nationalst Prime Minister Mossadeq was overthrown in 1953 and replaced with the puppet Sha Mohammed Pahlevi. Things went OK for a while but as we know these types of regimes have a shelf life. When things went bad for the Sha Saddam became the new representative. For an excellent insight into your Saddam/Ayatollah question I would recommend the work of Stephen R. Shalom, from whom I will quote:
“In the gulf conflict, the United States officially declared its neutrality and announced it would not provide military aid to either side. In fact, however, for most of the war the US tilted heavily towards Iraq. In 1982, Washington removed Iraq from its list of nations supporting international terrorism, even though the State Departments human rights report that year found continuing Iraqi assassinations of dissidents abroad. The Reagan administration secretly provided arms to third countries (mainly Egypt, Jordan and Kuwait) for transfer to Iraq and helped broker billions of dollars of European weapons sales to Bagdad. Additionally, Washington winked when Iraq bought US helicopters, claiming they were for “recreation” and Nixon administration veterans arranged a deal to provide Iraq with Romanian military uniforms.
The US privately urged Iraq to carry out more attacks on Iran, especially on economic targets, and provided Iraq with intelligence information (particularly data allowing Iraq to assess its bombing raids on Iranian oil terminals and power plants). In the last year of the war, the US secretly gave Iraq military advice. And the US directly intervened on Iraq’s side when a US armada was sent into the Gulf to provoke and engage Iranian naval units.
But US assistance did not go only to Iraq. The Reagan administration also covertly provided Iran with anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, as well as intelligence information – until the Iran-Contra revelations blew the cover on the operation. The result of funneling aid to both sides, of course, was the prolongation of the war.
The US was not the only country to follow such a cynical policy. Among many others was Israel. According to former Mossad officer Victor Ostrovsky, Israel leaked to Iran and to Iraq the location of the other sides tankers whenever Israeli analysts estimated that the vessels had a better than even chance of getting through.”
References to the freedom of information data or CIA and declassified documents sourced are also provided with the above. I thought that would probably cover the “cynical” and “amoral” arguments as well but you did ask about Osama/USSR.
The US backed, trained and financed Osama bin Laden against the USSR as at this time the latter was a bitter enemy. The Soviet Union was the “Evil Empire” of the cold war.
For this I would recommend “The Clash of Fundamentalisms”, Tariq Ali. I will quote from an interview in the book taken from ‘Le Nouvel Observateur’ (15-21/1/98), with President Carter’s National Security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski :
Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [From the Shadows] that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahidin in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
A: Yes, according to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahidin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24th Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was 3 July, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the President in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
A: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?
A: Regret What? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russian into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
A: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? A few crazed Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Mr Brzezinski is active in the current Bush administration specifically in planning the looming war. A quote from John Pilger is apt at this point in also referring to Zbigniew Brzezinski, “and those few crazed Muslims replied on September 11, 2001.
bitter balance, upon what do you base your statement “I don’t think there is much doubt that Iraq has WMD capabilities”? When such a sweeping statement is made it should be either suffixed with, in my opinion, and the reasoning for that opinion or the proof provided to back it up.
I do subscribe to Mr Ritter’s views which I believe have been reinforced by the current weapons inspectors inability to find anything of substance, but this argument can wait until the completion of inspections so I will leave it here.
I do agree with you that something must be done today. It is what to do where we differ. What is needed immediately is to rid the whole Middle East of weapons of mass destruction - not blow someone’s children to kingdom come.
From this beginning Dennis Haliday’s plan could be commenced.
What we are doing is going to create a whole lot more crazed Muslims, and in all honesty, considering the treatment of some peoples of the Middle East compared to others I think they may just have a point.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BrisBoy, if you want to simplify the cause of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon to Israel's refusal to comply with some UNSC resolutions made under article 6 on the UN charter and not article 7 (Do your own homework on the difference) as the ones against Iraq then you are nothing better than an apologist for the murder of thousands of innocent people by suicidal Muslims who have been suitably brainwashed by the teachings of fundamentalist Mullahs with senses of logic as distorted as yours.
Personally I am fed up with reasoning such as yours which provides links, however obscure to the WTC attacks to Israel and then using flawed information to somehow try and make out that if Israel rolled over and gave Yasser Arafat carte blanche to carry out his stated aims of wiping Israel and all the Jews living there from the face of the earth ( and I don't mean his English language statements but those in Arabic) all would be hunky dory and we could all go home and forget about the threat of international terrorism from a minority of Muslims and their supporters whose ideals and aims are similar to those of an older religion that had a similar philosophy when it too was also much younger. The teaching by influential religious leaders that anyone not if their faith is an infidel (or as in the past a heretic) and therefore worthy of death, especially if it means martyrdom is the sick reality at the core of this problem.
If you were intelligent and honest enough to research your twisted logic a bit more deeply you would know that Israel was blockaded by the Egyptians in 1967 at the straits of Tiran. That was a UN classified act of war. The UN themselves withdrew their peace keeping troops from the Sinai at the demand of the Egyptians so that they could get closer to the border of Israel and launch their final attempt at destroying the Jewish state. Israel subsequently took out the Egyptian and Syrian air forces and pre-emptively attacked the Egyptian and Syrian troops that were massed on their borders and subsequently took control of the Sinai Peninsula from the Egyptians and the Golan Heights from the Syrians.
The Jordanians who were the sovereign rulers of the area known as the West Bank were warned to stay out of the conflict but they ignored those warnings and Israel retaliated against their opening of a third front and took control of the West Bank. All this took six days, hence the name of that conflict, The Six Day War.
The UNSC haggled for months over resolution 242 which was led by the USSR in an attempt to win the political war because of their embarrassment at their protégés Egypt and Syria being so totally humiliated. The core of UN resolution 242 which so many of you like to ignore is the wording that Israel should return the occupied territories in return for negotiated peace. Which bit of 'land for peace' do you not understand?
For years Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the PLO refused to accept that Israel had a right to exist, never mind peacefully or otherwise. After the Yom Kippur war in 1973 when the Egyptians and the Syrians tried to regain their occupied land by force, ie. by not abiding by the UN resolution 242 (land for peace) it took the courage and foresight of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat to start the peace process and a negotiated peace was agreed. Israel returned all of the Sinai and dismantled all the settlements it had allowed to be built there since 1967. Unfortunately Egypt didn't want the Gaza Strip. Even when they did control it before the 1967 war they did nothing to aid the Palestinians that were living there under their control.
Later when King Hussein of Jordan also saw that the Israelis and the Palestinians were negotiating he also signed a peace treaty with Israel but gave up his rights to the West Bank and left it to the Israelis and the Palestinians to negotiate over. At this time the PLO had still not removed the aim of the destruction of the State of Israel from their charter.
During all this time the Palestinians had a vibrant economy linked directly with the Israeli economy. Hundreds of thousands of palestinians worked in Israel. Tourists were able to visit and spend huge amounts of money to help their economy. It wasn't ideal. It never can be when living under occupation but that occupation was being negotiated away. Israel agreed to pull out of all the main Palestinian areas and let the Palestinian Authority control almost every aspect of their lives.
Unfortunately during all this two of the most able leaders that Egypt and Israel had were assassinated. Both by religious fundamentalists who had been indoctrinated with their preachers twisted interpretations of their religious beliefs. Unfortunately Yasser Arafat didn't think things through too carefully and realising that he would be sidelined once there was a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians he, yes Yasser Arafat was the one who actually broke off the negotiations and declared the Intifada with calls for 'Shahid' (martyrs, ie. suicide murderers). In doing so he brought down the current state of affairs on his head and that of his people. Under constant attack, the Israelis had no option but to do whatever they could to protect their people from the suicide murderers that were once again being indoctrinated by evil men who twisted the meaning of their religion and brainwashed young and fertile minds into believing that their murderous actions would be rewarded in their afterlife.
Inevitably the intifada caused the breakdown of the Palestinian economy. Israel's economy too has been devastated by the intifada but it is the Palestinians who are suffering the most because of the breakdown of the economy. The Israelis voted in a right wing, hard line government, unfortunately with the balance of power held by minority, extreme right wing religious parties due to the proportional representation system of elections there.
Apart from the right wing extremist parties I know of no other group in Israel who want to control the West Bank and the millions of Palestinians who live there but until they are able to organise themselves a leader who is not as corrupt and stupid as Yasser Arafat there is not going to be any real improvement for them. No doubt eventually there will be a change but who knows when? I remember the incredulity when Sadat announced he was coming to Jerusalem to talk peace and again when Arafat entered into negotiations. no one believed it was possible at the time.
To blame the deaths of the victims of the WTC attacks on Americas support of Israel, the only democratic nation in the Middle East is an insult to me personally and also to everyone who is not so easily able to be swayed by twisted logic and false propaganda. Why not blame it on the British and the French who carved up the region after clearing out the Ottoman Empire or the Romans. What did they ever do for us? I find it hard to stomach the unspoken prejudices that conveniently take flawed arguments back to Israel and then stop there.
If you actually read the main resolutions of the UN and had the intelligence and the lack of prejudice to understand the differences between the different UN charters (explained here) they were drafted under, your argument would be valid but in this case it is deeply flawed and presents offensive logic based on obvious, deep rooted prejudices. But you'd deny that wouldn't you!
Personally I am fed up with reasoning such as yours which provides links, however obscure to the WTC attacks to Israel and then using flawed information to somehow try and make out that if Israel rolled over and gave Yasser Arafat carte blanche to carry out his stated aims of wiping Israel and all the Jews living there from the face of the earth ( and I don't mean his English language statements but those in Arabic) all would be hunky dory and we could all go home and forget about the threat of international terrorism from a minority of Muslims and their supporters whose ideals and aims are similar to those of an older religion that had a similar philosophy when it too was also much younger. The teaching by influential religious leaders that anyone not if their faith is an infidel (or as in the past a heretic) and therefore worthy of death, especially if it means martyrdom is the sick reality at the core of this problem.
If you were intelligent and honest enough to research your twisted logic a bit more deeply you would know that Israel was blockaded by the Egyptians in 1967 at the straits of Tiran. That was a UN classified act of war. The UN themselves withdrew their peace keeping troops from the Sinai at the demand of the Egyptians so that they could get closer to the border of Israel and launch their final attempt at destroying the Jewish state. Israel subsequently took out the Egyptian and Syrian air forces and pre-emptively attacked the Egyptian and Syrian troops that were massed on their borders and subsequently took control of the Sinai Peninsula from the Egyptians and the Golan Heights from the Syrians.
The Jordanians who were the sovereign rulers of the area known as the West Bank were warned to stay out of the conflict but they ignored those warnings and Israel retaliated against their opening of a third front and took control of the West Bank. All this took six days, hence the name of that conflict, The Six Day War.
The UNSC haggled for months over resolution 242 which was led by the USSR in an attempt to win the political war because of their embarrassment at their protégés Egypt and Syria being so totally humiliated. The core of UN resolution 242 which so many of you like to ignore is the wording that Israel should return the occupied territories in return for negotiated peace. Which bit of 'land for peace' do you not understand?
For years Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the PLO refused to accept that Israel had a right to exist, never mind peacefully or otherwise. After the Yom Kippur war in 1973 when the Egyptians and the Syrians tried to regain their occupied land by force, ie. by not abiding by the UN resolution 242 (land for peace) it took the courage and foresight of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat to start the peace process and a negotiated peace was agreed. Israel returned all of the Sinai and dismantled all the settlements it had allowed to be built there since 1967. Unfortunately Egypt didn't want the Gaza Strip. Even when they did control it before the 1967 war they did nothing to aid the Palestinians that were living there under their control.
Later when King Hussein of Jordan also saw that the Israelis and the Palestinians were negotiating he also signed a peace treaty with Israel but gave up his rights to the West Bank and left it to the Israelis and the Palestinians to negotiate over. At this time the PLO had still not removed the aim of the destruction of the State of Israel from their charter.
During all this time the Palestinians had a vibrant economy linked directly with the Israeli economy. Hundreds of thousands of palestinians worked in Israel. Tourists were able to visit and spend huge amounts of money to help their economy. It wasn't ideal. It never can be when living under occupation but that occupation was being negotiated away. Israel agreed to pull out of all the main Palestinian areas and let the Palestinian Authority control almost every aspect of their lives.
Unfortunately during all this two of the most able leaders that Egypt and Israel had were assassinated. Both by religious fundamentalists who had been indoctrinated with their preachers twisted interpretations of their religious beliefs. Unfortunately Yasser Arafat didn't think things through too carefully and realising that he would be sidelined once there was a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians he, yes Yasser Arafat was the one who actually broke off the negotiations and declared the Intifada with calls for 'Shahid' (martyrs, ie. suicide murderers). In doing so he brought down the current state of affairs on his head and that of his people. Under constant attack, the Israelis had no option but to do whatever they could to protect their people from the suicide murderers that were once again being indoctrinated by evil men who twisted the meaning of their religion and brainwashed young and fertile minds into believing that their murderous actions would be rewarded in their afterlife.
Inevitably the intifada caused the breakdown of the Palestinian economy. Israel's economy too has been devastated by the intifada but it is the Palestinians who are suffering the most because of the breakdown of the economy. The Israelis voted in a right wing, hard line government, unfortunately with the balance of power held by minority, extreme right wing religious parties due to the proportional representation system of elections there.
Apart from the right wing extremist parties I know of no other group in Israel who want to control the West Bank and the millions of Palestinians who live there but until they are able to organise themselves a leader who is not as corrupt and stupid as Yasser Arafat there is not going to be any real improvement for them. No doubt eventually there will be a change but who knows when? I remember the incredulity when Sadat announced he was coming to Jerusalem to talk peace and again when Arafat entered into negotiations. no one believed it was possible at the time.
To blame the deaths of the victims of the WTC attacks on Americas support of Israel, the only democratic nation in the Middle East is an insult to me personally and also to everyone who is not so easily able to be swayed by twisted logic and false propaganda. Why not blame it on the British and the French who carved up the region after clearing out the Ottoman Empire or the Romans. What did they ever do for us? I find it hard to stomach the unspoken prejudices that conveniently take flawed arguments back to Israel and then stop there.
If you actually read the main resolutions of the UN and had the intelligence and the lack of prejudice to understand the differences between the different UN charters (explained here) they were drafted under, your argument would be valid but in this case it is deeply flawed and presents offensive logic based on obvious, deep rooted prejudices. But you'd deny that wouldn't you!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BrisBoy: Thanks for reflected postings!!
Danny: I do definitely not pretend to be an expert on the Israeli/Palestinian history. Yet, I wonder why you make no mentioning of neither the Oslo 1 and the Oslo 2 agreements? These agreements are the basis for the reality we see in the area today. According to one of the architects of these agreements, Terje Roed Larsen, now UN special envoy to the area, the responsibility for dragging out time and breaking these agreements rests rather clearly on - sorry, - Israel. And THEN the intifada started.
But anyway I have absolutely no intention of getting dragged into a 'whodunnit' on the Israel/Palestine issue.
Regarding SH and Iraq: However one argues about oil being the issue or not, according to diplomats it is an irrevocable fact that there is little or no legitimacy to be had from the UN for a unilateral attac on Iraq. I am sure Danny can confirm this, as I am not too hot on all the UN articles myself.
I would call it 'challenging' for a nation to pretend to represent the best in democracy and freedom and civilization, and at the same time ignore the UN, the Security Council, its closest allies for many many years AND a very large part of general public opinion. But still claim to be in its right to attack Iraq.
And just to avoid misunderstandings: Yes, of course I despise of SH just as much as most sensible people do. I also despise of my local tax collector. I just don't attack him!
Danny: I do definitely not pretend to be an expert on the Israeli/Palestinian history. Yet, I wonder why you make no mentioning of neither the Oslo 1 and the Oslo 2 agreements? These agreements are the basis for the reality we see in the area today. According to one of the architects of these agreements, Terje Roed Larsen, now UN special envoy to the area, the responsibility for dragging out time and breaking these agreements rests rather clearly on - sorry, - Israel. And THEN the intifada started.
But anyway I have absolutely no intention of getting dragged into a 'whodunnit' on the Israel/Palestine issue.
Regarding SH and Iraq: However one argues about oil being the issue or not, according to diplomats it is an irrevocable fact that there is little or no legitimacy to be had from the UN for a unilateral attac on Iraq. I am sure Danny can confirm this, as I am not too hot on all the UN articles myself.
I would call it 'challenging' for a nation to pretend to represent the best in democracy and freedom and civilization, and at the same time ignore the UN, the Security Council, its closest allies for many many years AND a very large part of general public opinion. But still claim to be in its right to attack Iraq.
And just to avoid misunderstandings: Yes, of course I despise of SH just as much as most sensible people do. I also despise of my local tax collector. I just don't attack him!
I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Name, in the past hundred years, a single important triumph for peace and for liberal democracy that was purchased by the jaw-jawing the Nobellians so admire. No rush, take your time. Now, look at what American war-war (and the threat of American war-war) won: the defeat of the fascist attempt to rule the world; the defeat of the Communist attempt to rule the world; the consequent rebuilding of a Europe protected by American arms into a democratic and peaceful continent for the first time in history; the rebuilding of an American-protected Japan into a democratic and peaceful nation for the first time in history; the emergence of a world in which, for the first time in history, the peaceful values of liberal democracy are the ascendant norm. No, no, it remains unthinkable. To imagine American force was a force for good, one would have to imagine America was a force for good. And this, the Bourbons of Oslo will never, never do."
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Captain
Danny,
your response to Brisboy's measured post only increases suspicion among those of us wary of Israel. I don't know it all but I do know you omitted convenient chunks of recent history, as mentioned above what about the Oslo accords.
I have no connections to either side but find it hard to accept the American media's portrayal of Arafat as wanting at all costs to be the villian of the piece and therefore happy to sacrifice his entire population. I watched a US professor in response to a question about why young Palestinians living in refugee camps would want to blow themselves and everyone else up, he said " Why don't they go to college like all other 20 year olds." This man was introduced ( on Californian tv ) as an expert on Middle East affairs and was unchallenged on his nonsensical reply.
Supporters of Arafat are unquestionably fanatical and certainly rarely give intelligent arguments for their crazy behavior. But they live in refugee camps and have no access to education. Defenders of Israel's position are equally fanatical and rarely give intelligent arguments either despite vastly superior educational facilities. You are a good example!
I consider myself neutral and would rather the suffering of the innocent ended. The bombs associated with Northern Ireland ended with dialogue and while they still disagree, nobody dies.
Unfortunately, for those who don't know, these right wing extremists have as has become common, ministers in the new Israeli government. Some-one voted for them! Even the Bush administration has recently admonished Sharon's government's behavior, and that is really saying something.
I don't subsribe to the view that 911 was the fault of Israel though. The US foreign policy can generate lunacy all on its own. Terrorism is like fire, it needs a certain combination of elements present for it to exist.
Might I propose the following equation:
Injustice + suffering + lack of hope + lack of education + numbers of angry youths + an obvious enemy = terrorism
Peace and justice for all colours and creeds.
your response to Brisboy's measured post only increases suspicion among those of us wary of Israel. I don't know it all but I do know you omitted convenient chunks of recent history, as mentioned above what about the Oslo accords.
I have no connections to either side but find it hard to accept the American media's portrayal of Arafat as wanting at all costs to be the villian of the piece and therefore happy to sacrifice his entire population. I watched a US professor in response to a question about why young Palestinians living in refugee camps would want to blow themselves and everyone else up, he said " Why don't they go to college like all other 20 year olds." This man was introduced ( on Californian tv ) as an expert on Middle East affairs and was unchallenged on his nonsensical reply.
Supporters of Arafat are unquestionably fanatical and certainly rarely give intelligent arguments for their crazy behavior. But they live in refugee camps and have no access to education. Defenders of Israel's position are equally fanatical and rarely give intelligent arguments either despite vastly superior educational facilities. You are a good example!
I consider myself neutral and would rather the suffering of the innocent ended. The bombs associated with Northern Ireland ended with dialogue and while they still disagree, nobody dies.
Apart from the right wing extremist parties I know of no other group in Israel who want to control the West Bank and the millions of Palestinians who live there
I don't subsribe to the view that 911 was the fault of Israel though. The US foreign policy can generate lunacy all on its own. Terrorism is like fire, it needs a certain combination of elements present for it to exist.
Might I propose the following equation:
Injustice + suffering + lack of hope + lack of education + numbers of angry youths + an obvious enemy = terrorism
Peace and justice for all colours and creeds.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BrisBoy, the United States has always been a world leader in insisting upon the equal treatment of Jews and the Jewish state by the UN and the equal application of the UN Charter to Israel so that somehow provides some kind of distorted legitimacy to WTC attacks! At least that is how I interpret your insinuation that Israel is somehow at the root cause.
Lets just have a look at one reason why the UN is not considered particularly unbiased towards Israel and for the time being likely to be bypassed by the US too:
The United Nations is divided informally into five regional groups. The regional groups are geographic except for one, the Western European and Others Group (known as WEOG) - which includes western European states, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and others. The United States is a member of WEOG for election purposes and attends WEOG meetings including those connected with the Commission on Human Rights. Israel geographically belongs in the Asian regional group, but the large membership of Moslem and Arab states has barred Israel's admission to the Asian group. Israel belongs in WEOG, in terms of its democratic character and common interests and value. In May 2000 Israel was accepted to WEOG (until such time as the Asian regional group admits Israel), but with the caveat that it could not stand for election as a WEOG member until May 2002 and that it could only participate in WEOG in connection with UN bodies elected in New York. The Commission on Human Rights is such a body.
Within this context, there is one serious anomaly. According to the current deal on Israel and WEOG, Israel can in principle stand for election to the Commission on Human Rights because the election takes place in the UN's Economic and Social Council preparatory sessions which are conducted in New York. (At the moment, WEOG is attempting to avoid elections altogether and arrive at an agreed-upon rotation scheme for the Commission on Human Rights - and Israel is on the draft rotation.) Despite this fact, WEOG refuses to admit Israel to its regular meetings which take place throughout the Commission.
Membership in the Commission on Human Rights, election to the Commission's Bureau, and participation in regional group meetings surrounding the work of the Commission, has nothing to do with any substantive criteria whatsoever. It has nothing to do with a country's perceived or actual human rights record. Current membership in the Commission includes: Algeria, Bahrain, China, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Zimbabwe. And the Chair of the current Commission is Libya.
Participation in regional group meetings at the Commission are not related to membership on the Commission at any given session. Regional group meetings include both UN observer states and UN member states, as the latter vary from year to year.
Membership in a regional group is a key feature of UN politics today.
1. The UN Charter requires "the equal rights of nations large and small". The credibility of the UN is dependent on adherence to the Charter and the equal participatory rights of every UN member state. The exclusion of Israel from the WEOG regional group meetings at the Commission is a violation of the UN Charter itself.
2. The Commission on Human Rights is seriously discredited by the Chairmanship of a country such as Libya, while Israel is forced to stand in the halls of all negotiating and strategic planning which occurs at the Commission with the participation of every other UN member state.
3. It is completely anomalous for Israel to be able to be elected to the Commission, and yet be unable to participate in the regular negotiating and information meetings associated with the Commission session itself.
4. The Commission on Human Rights has spent approximately 11% of its total substantive meeting time over 30 years on Israel alone, and approximately 25% of its critical country-specific resolutions over 30 years on Israel alone. In other words, the Commission spends more time discussing Israel and more time criticizing Israel than any other state. In comparison, for example, there has never been a Commission resolution on states such as Syria or China. It is a gross violation of any semblance of democratic governance or fair procedural practice, that equal participatory rights are denied the very state which is the subject of such targeted attention.
5. The EU (and the UN) are each part of the so-called Quartet (the other two members being Russia and the United States) which claims to have come together in the recent past for the purpose of forwarding Middle East peace. The credibility of the EU, (and of the UN itself), to be a neutral and constructive participant in the Middle East peace process is completely undercut by any EU refusal to allow Israel into the WEOG meetings connected with the Commission.
6. The Holy See is a so-called non-member state with observer status in the UN. The Holy See is permitted to attend WEOG meetings during the Commission - even though it is not a UN member - while Israel, a UN member state, is refused admittance. This is again anomalous, discriminatory and a violation of the UN Charter's fundamental principle of equality.
7. "Palestine" has observer status in the UN. It is permitted to participate in the Asian regional group meetings at the Commission on Human Rights, while Israel, a UN member state, is excluded from any regional group meeting. Again anomalous, discriminatory and a violation of the UN Charter's fundamental principle of equality.
The exclusion of Israel from equal participation in WEOG in connection with the Commission on Human Rights violates even the limited existing deal allowing Israel to be a full member of WEOG in connection with those UN bodies which are elected in New York (such as the Commission), and should be immediately changed.
Now do you begin to understand why some of us view the UN with disdain. Its inability to act with any fairness or common sense is shown by the deep international crisis now being highlighted in the media. Resolutions drafted under article seven are apparently not worth enforcing whilst those drafted under article six. it would appear, should somehow take priority.
Faire d'Income, you may ot subscribe to the theory that Israel was somehow behind 911 but many others do and the type of commentary by BrisBoy does nothing to help that inevitable mention of Israel and the fact that it is somehow linked to the atrocity.
According to the current antiwar apologists, it is the Jews and Israel that are behind the impending war on Iraq. This libel is perpetrated in blatant ways as well as through “wink, wink - nudge, nudge” (to borrow a term from Monty Python). An example of the latter is given in the Asia Times edition of February 1, 2003, which carried an article entitled, Of intimidation and Israel. A key phrase is the following:
The article doesn’t actually say that Jews and Israel are behind the drums of war, it just lists Likud, Israel’s “military dominance”, Perle and Wolfowitz. Wink, wink - nudge, nudge.
The “antiwar campaigners”, on the other hand, are much more blatant. Here are two examples. A photo of a “peace demonstrator” posted at http://www.carolmoore.net/photos/03-30-01a.jpg shows a person carrying a large sign saying, “Israeli lobby owns US Congress”.
A more detailed and specific statement comes from another “peace site”, Antiwar. A writer states:
So, it is the Jews and Israel who are the warmongers, bent on precipitating mass killings of thousands and thousands... That reminds me... Haven’t we heard this type of accusation before? Flash back to World War II.
Hitler’s speeches were replete with similar accusations, as the following three short excerpts from Hitler’s speeches illustrate.
Hitler’s calumny exists as reality in the minds of many, Zhirinovsky being a prominent example. Quoting AP, the Minnesota Daily reported on April 9, 1998:
In line with this historical interpretation is the 9-11 myth, according to which the crime was the work of Israel’s intelligence, Mossad. Again, this myth exist as reality in the minds of all too many. On March 2, 2002, George Jonas posted an article entitled A Cultural Inability To Face The Truth, in which he documents as follows:
So there we have it: the Jews are responsible for the bloodshed of the impending Iraq war, just as they are responsible for World War II, for 9-11 and, presumably, for everything in between. To my mind, these accusations are but a magnified, updated version of the “classic” blood libel against the Jews. Indeed, blood libels are nothing new to Jewish history, nor has North America been free of such libels.
The Norwich (England) blood libel of 1144 is considered to be the first, as described by the AISH website:
North America’s contribution is represented by the 1928 blood libel of Massina (New York state), as recorded at the site of the AJHS (American Jewish Historical Society):
The world of Islam has given Jewish history one of the most notorious of blood libels, the Damascus blood libel of 1840. This horrifying experience is described at the site of AICE (American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise) as follows:
In the Arab world, this “classic” blood libel is propagated to this very day. On March 10, 2002, a Saudi paper published a “Purim blood libel”, which is documented by ADL as follows:
There is, unfortunately, one major difference between the “classic” blood libel and the contemporary one concerning Iraq. No person in his right mind, and definitely no Jew, would ever accept that Jews use the blood of a non-Jewish person for a religious ritual; but many sane and erudite people, Jews and non-Jews alike, are willing to accept that the war on Iraq “has always been about Israel”. When will they ever learn?
If I can sense the insinuations that people like BrisBoy are making when they post their 'links' then I have every right as the owner of this site to make my points. On top of that I can at least lay claim to the fact that I have lived in Israel and served in its armed forces which at least gives me a slightly better insight to some of the claims made by others.
Biased? Yes, but qualified through experience.
Lets just have a look at one reason why the UN is not considered particularly unbiased towards Israel and for the time being likely to be bypassed by the US too:
The United Nations is divided informally into five regional groups. The regional groups are geographic except for one, the Western European and Others Group (known as WEOG) - which includes western European states, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and others. The United States is a member of WEOG for election purposes and attends WEOG meetings including those connected with the Commission on Human Rights. Israel geographically belongs in the Asian regional group, but the large membership of Moslem and Arab states has barred Israel's admission to the Asian group. Israel belongs in WEOG, in terms of its democratic character and common interests and value. In May 2000 Israel was accepted to WEOG (until such time as the Asian regional group admits Israel), but with the caveat that it could not stand for election as a WEOG member until May 2002 and that it could only participate in WEOG in connection with UN bodies elected in New York. The Commission on Human Rights is such a body.
Within this context, there is one serious anomaly. According to the current deal on Israel and WEOG, Israel can in principle stand for election to the Commission on Human Rights because the election takes place in the UN's Economic and Social Council preparatory sessions which are conducted in New York. (At the moment, WEOG is attempting to avoid elections altogether and arrive at an agreed-upon rotation scheme for the Commission on Human Rights - and Israel is on the draft rotation.) Despite this fact, WEOG refuses to admit Israel to its regular meetings which take place throughout the Commission.
Membership in the Commission on Human Rights, election to the Commission's Bureau, and participation in regional group meetings surrounding the work of the Commission, has nothing to do with any substantive criteria whatsoever. It has nothing to do with a country's perceived or actual human rights record. Current membership in the Commission includes: Algeria, Bahrain, China, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Zimbabwe. And the Chair of the current Commission is Libya.
Participation in regional group meetings at the Commission are not related to membership on the Commission at any given session. Regional group meetings include both UN observer states and UN member states, as the latter vary from year to year.
Membership in a regional group is a key feature of UN politics today.
1. The UN Charter requires "the equal rights of nations large and small". The credibility of the UN is dependent on adherence to the Charter and the equal participatory rights of every UN member state. The exclusion of Israel from the WEOG regional group meetings at the Commission is a violation of the UN Charter itself.
2. The Commission on Human Rights is seriously discredited by the Chairmanship of a country such as Libya, while Israel is forced to stand in the halls of all negotiating and strategic planning which occurs at the Commission with the participation of every other UN member state.
3. It is completely anomalous for Israel to be able to be elected to the Commission, and yet be unable to participate in the regular negotiating and information meetings associated with the Commission session itself.
4. The Commission on Human Rights has spent approximately 11% of its total substantive meeting time over 30 years on Israel alone, and approximately 25% of its critical country-specific resolutions over 30 years on Israel alone. In other words, the Commission spends more time discussing Israel and more time criticizing Israel than any other state. In comparison, for example, there has never been a Commission resolution on states such as Syria or China. It is a gross violation of any semblance of democratic governance or fair procedural practice, that equal participatory rights are denied the very state which is the subject of such targeted attention.
5. The EU (and the UN) are each part of the so-called Quartet (the other two members being Russia and the United States) which claims to have come together in the recent past for the purpose of forwarding Middle East peace. The credibility of the EU, (and of the UN itself), to be a neutral and constructive participant in the Middle East peace process is completely undercut by any EU refusal to allow Israel into the WEOG meetings connected with the Commission.
6. The Holy See is a so-called non-member state with observer status in the UN. The Holy See is permitted to attend WEOG meetings during the Commission - even though it is not a UN member - while Israel, a UN member state, is refused admittance. This is again anomalous, discriminatory and a violation of the UN Charter's fundamental principle of equality.
7. "Palestine" has observer status in the UN. It is permitted to participate in the Asian regional group meetings at the Commission on Human Rights, while Israel, a UN member state, is excluded from any regional group meeting. Again anomalous, discriminatory and a violation of the UN Charter's fundamental principle of equality.
The exclusion of Israel from equal participation in WEOG in connection with the Commission on Human Rights violates even the limited existing deal allowing Israel to be a full member of WEOG in connection with those UN bodies which are elected in New York (such as the Commission), and should be immediately changed.
Now do you begin to understand why some of us view the UN with disdain. Its inability to act with any fairness or common sense is shown by the deep international crisis now being highlighted in the media. Resolutions drafted under article seven are apparently not worth enforcing whilst those drafted under article six. it would appear, should somehow take priority.
Faire d'Income, you may ot subscribe to the theory that Israel was somehow behind 911 but many others do and the type of commentary by BrisBoy does nothing to help that inevitable mention of Israel and the fact that it is somehow linked to the atrocity.
According to the current antiwar apologists, it is the Jews and Israel that are behind the impending war on Iraq. This libel is perpetrated in blatant ways as well as through “wink, wink - nudge, nudge” (to borrow a term from Monty Python). An example of the latter is given in the Asia Times edition of February 1, 2003, which carried an article entitled, Of intimidation and Israel. A key phrase is the following:
Some critics argue that Iraq policy is driven primarily by these individuals [Perle, Wolfowitz], who, like Likud, believe that Saddam's obsession with obtaining WMD marks the greatest threat to Israel's regional military dominance and security.
Indeed, the strongest advocates for attacking Iraq both inside and outside the administration - Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Perle and other defense policy board members, respectively - have been the neo-conservatives.
Indeed, the strongest advocates for attacking Iraq both inside and outside the administration - Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Perle and other defense policy board members, respectively - have been the neo-conservatives.
The “antiwar campaigners”, on the other hand, are much more blatant. Here are two examples. A photo of a “peace demonstrator” posted at http://www.carolmoore.net/photos/03-30-01a.jpg shows a person carrying a large sign saying, “Israeli lobby owns US Congress”.
A more detailed and specific statement comes from another “peace site”, Antiwar. A writer states:
As if to confirm what some opponents of this war have been saying – but not too loudly – about this being a war for Israel, the Bush administration is now "weighing an Israeli proposal for a joint operation in Iraq's western desert to disarm Iraqi missiles before they could be launched against Israel."
That this war has always been about Israel is a matter of simple geography. For all the President's palavering about the "threat to Americans" posed by Iraq, those "weapons of mass destruction" Saddam supposedly has couldn't even reach Europe, let alone the U.S. But Tel Aviv is well within range. Indeed, the prospect of Iraqi missiles raining down on Israel has been one of the chief deterrents against a move by Israel's far-right Likud government to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Arabs – a plan that is increasingly popular among Israelis – and/or move the IDF back into Lebanon. The U.S. occupation of Iraq will eliminate that deterrent – and set up Israel to deal with Hizbollah and Syria in the regional conflagration to follow.
That this war has always been about Israel is a matter of simple geography. For all the President's palavering about the "threat to Americans" posed by Iraq, those "weapons of mass destruction" Saddam supposedly has couldn't even reach Europe, let alone the U.S. But Tel Aviv is well within range. Indeed, the prospect of Iraqi missiles raining down on Israel has been one of the chief deterrents against a move by Israel's far-right Likud government to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Arabs – a plan that is increasingly popular among Israelis – and/or move the IDF back into Lebanon. The U.S. occupation of Iraq will eliminate that deterrent – and set up Israel to deal with Hizbollah and Syria in the regional conflagration to follow.
Hitler’s speeches were replete with similar accusations, as the following three short excerpts from Hitler’s speeches illustrate.
Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!
From a January 30, 1939 speech, as posted by US-Israel.org.
England and France alone wanted war - not so much the people as a thin stratum of political and financial leadership behind which, wielding its last power, stood international Jewry and its world conspiracies of democracy and Freemasonry.
From a speech delivered on March 16, 1941 at the Zeughaus, Berlin, as posted by http://www.hitler.org/speeches/03-16-41.html.
The man behind this fanatical and diabolical plan to bring about war at whatever cost was Mr. Churchill. His associates were the men who now form the British Government...
Behind these men there stood the great international Jewish financial interests that control the banks and the Stock Exchange as well as the armament industry.
From a speech delivered on May 4, 1941 in the Reichstag, Berlin, as posted by http://www.hitler.org/speeches/05-04-41.html.
From a January 30, 1939 speech, as posted by US-Israel.org.
England and France alone wanted war - not so much the people as a thin stratum of political and financial leadership behind which, wielding its last power, stood international Jewry and its world conspiracies of democracy and Freemasonry.
From a speech delivered on March 16, 1941 at the Zeughaus, Berlin, as posted by http://www.hitler.org/speeches/03-16-41.html.
The man behind this fanatical and diabolical plan to bring about war at whatever cost was Mr. Churchill. His associates were the men who now form the British Government...
Behind these men there stood the great international Jewish financial interests that control the banks and the Stock Exchange as well as the armament industry.
From a speech delivered on May 4, 1941 in the Reichstag, Berlin, as posted by http://www.hitler.org/speeches/05-04-41.html.
Russian politician spews anti-Semitic rhetoric again
MOSCOW (AP) -- In his most direct anti-Semitic statements yet, ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky blamed Jews on Wednesday for starting World War II and provoking the Holocaust.
"The essence of the conflict around the Jewish people is that when their number grows too much in some country, war breaks out there," said Zhirinovsky, who leads the third-largest faction in the Russian parliament's lower house.
"That happened in Germany ... where there were too many Jews," he declared.
MOSCOW (AP) -- In his most direct anti-Semitic statements yet, ultranationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky blamed Jews on Wednesday for starting World War II and provoking the Holocaust.
"The essence of the conflict around the Jewish people is that when their number grows too much in some country, war breaks out there," said Zhirinovsky, who leads the third-largest faction in the Russian parliament's lower house.
"That happened in Germany ... where there were too many Jews," he declared.
A recent Gallup Poll conducted for USA Today brings us good news and bad news. To start with the bad news, it seems that 61% of the inhabitants of such Islamic countries as Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey believe that Arabs weren't responsible for the attacks of Sept. 11.
One popular theory in the Muslim world has Israel's intelligence service, the Mossad, hijacking the airliners and crashing them into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. The story that 4,000 Jews stayed away from Manhattan's twin towers on the morning of 9/11 has been circulating in the region for months.
One popular theory in the Muslim world has Israel's intelligence service, the Mossad, hijacking the airliners and crashing them into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. The story that 4,000 Jews stayed away from Manhattan's twin towers on the morning of 9/11 has been circulating in the region for months.
The Norwich (England) blood libel of 1144 is considered to be the first, as described by the AISH website:
The first such accusation [using the blood of a Christian child for a Jewish religious ritual] -- better known as a "blood libel" -- was leveled in 1144 in Norwich, England. There, Jews were charged with kidnapping a Christian baby and draining the baby of blood. The charge became so popular it would sweep, in various forms, through Europe and then spread to other parts of the world.
On erev Yom Kippur, 1928, the New York State police brought in Rabbi Berel Brennglass of Massena's Orthodox congregation Adath Israel for questioning. Four-year-old Barbara Griffiths of Massena had disappeared and Albert Comnas, an immigrant from Salonika, Greece, charged that, as the highest of Jewish holy days was at hand, the Jews of Massena might have kidnapped little Barbara and ritually murdered her for her blood. The police interrogated Rabbi Brennglass for more than an hour about Jewish practices in respect to human sacrifice and the use of blood in food. Fortunately, during the interrogation, Barbara emerged from the woods where, having become lost, she had spent the night in the tall grass.
Her reappearance did not fully calm some townspeople. They suggested that the Jews had released her only on discovery of their plot. Choosing to believe this was true, mayor W. Gilbert Hawes organized a boycott of Massena's Jewish-owned businesses.
Her reappearance did not fully calm some townspeople. They suggested that the Jews had released her only on discovery of their plot. Choosing to believe this was true, mayor W. Gilbert Hawes organized a boycott of Massena's Jewish-owned businesses.
That spring [1840], in the ancient capital of Syria, an Italian friar and his Muslim servant mysteriously disappeared. The Capuchin order of monks charged that Jews had kidnaped and murdered the two men to use their blood in Passover matzoh. Under torture, two “witnesses” named several prominent Damascus Jews as the killers. The accused were arrested, tortured and sentenced to death. Local officials then seized 63 Jewish children to compel others to reveal where the blood was hidden.
In an article published by the Saudi government daily Al-Riyadh, columnist Dr. Umayma Ahmad Al-Jalahma of King Faysal University in Al-Dammam, wrote on "The Jewish Holiday of Purim." Following are excerpts of the article.
Special Ingredient For Jewish Holidays is Human Blood From Non-Jewish Youth
"I chose to [speak] about the Jewish holiday of Purim, because it is connected to the month of March. This holiday has some dangerous customs that will, no doubt, horrify you, and I apologize if any reader is harmed because of this."
"During this holiday, the Jew must prepare very special pastries, the filling of which is not only costly and rare - it cannot be found at all on the local and international markets."
"Unfortunately, this filling cannot be left out, or substituted with any alternative serving the same purpose. For this holiday, the Jewish people must obtain human blood so that their clerics can prepare the holiday pastries. In other words, the practice cannot be carried out as required if human blood is not spilled!!"
Special Ingredient For Jewish Holidays is Human Blood From Non-Jewish Youth
"I chose to [speak] about the Jewish holiday of Purim, because it is connected to the month of March. This holiday has some dangerous customs that will, no doubt, horrify you, and I apologize if any reader is harmed because of this."
"During this holiday, the Jew must prepare very special pastries, the filling of which is not only costly and rare - it cannot be found at all on the local and international markets."
"Unfortunately, this filling cannot be left out, or substituted with any alternative serving the same purpose. For this holiday, the Jewish people must obtain human blood so that their clerics can prepare the holiday pastries. In other words, the practice cannot be carried out as required if human blood is not spilled!!"
If I can sense the insinuations that people like BrisBoy are making when they post their 'links' then I have every right as the owner of this site to make my points. On top of that I can at least lay claim to the fact that I have lived in Israel and served in its armed forces which at least gives me a slightly better insight to some of the claims made by others.
Biased? Yes, but qualified through experience.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: lapbandland
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone spits on a digger and world war 3 starts. Hitlers back
and all hell breaks loose. Please don't spit on our diggers again,
it's too hard to read these extremely long epistles. Thanks
and all hell breaks loose. Please don't spit on our diggers again,
it's too hard to read these extremely long epistles. Thanks
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I thought I was reasonably well informed.
Thanks Danny and the others, we are pretty much removed from all of the above and pretty much only get fed what the Murdoch Press want.
Thank God for the ABC and Essa Be Essa.
It takes a fair bit of digging and reading to get to the bottom of most things.
The internet will be the ultimate defrocker of myth one day.
Thanks Danny and the others, we are pretty much removed from all of the above and pretty much only get fed what the Murdoch Press want.
Thank God for the ABC and Essa Be Essa.
It takes a fair bit of digging and reading to get to the bottom of most things.
The internet will be the ultimate defrocker of myth one day.
Wow,I think the "UN/Arab-Israeli PPRuNe Fairies" visited this topic last night
. Seems they had a bit of a fight though and forgot to leave $2 next to my bed
.
This topic started pretty slowly but has certainly ramped up, thanks for the various points of view/theories.
Interestingly,some of the peace activists(human shields) have left Iraq .They must have a huge 'courage for their conviction'
.
hoss
. Seems they had a bit of a fight though and forgot to leave $2 next to my bed .This topic started pretty slowly but has certainly ramped up, thanks for the various points of view/theories.
Interestingly,some of the peace activists(human shields) have left Iraq
.They must have a huge 'courage for their conviction'.hoss
Last edited by hoss; 5th Mar 2003 at 03:52.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Brisbane,Qld,Australia
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny,
Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to reply.
If I could make one comment before responding it would be that whilst my posts explored several areas, discussed several issues and their inter relation to events, you in the main have filled roughly the same space on a single subject.
The spectator oft’ sees more than the player, however I feel that my posts have been more critical of the US than Israel. I will not shy away from this criticism for which I believe I have put forward several valid arguments, nor for that matter the criticism of the US.
I also reject your inference that my arguments are based on “deep rooted prejudices”. If an Australian drove a bulldozer into a house killing a pregnant women and her children or shot a fourteen year old boy I would be abhorred. If that Husband or Father then became a human bomb and killed more innocent women and children I am equally abhorred.
The feelings of that Husband or Father or Family of innocent victims cannot be taught in any school so please not the tired old propaganda of he studied English, Maths and Suicide. Hatred breeds hatred. This unholy cycle must be broken. You are quick to mention the attitudes of one side but not the other. Please do not forget Moshe Ya’alon, Israeli Army Chief of Staff, likening Palestinians to cancer to which he administered the chemotherapy, and your history lessons more honest if started on 9/4/48.
I appreciate your mention of part of the history leading to the peace process, of which I am aware. We could debate each line but a lot of time and space saved by cutting to exactly what was offered. Imagine driving home from work, turning into your driveway and the part between the road and your garage is in an international journey. Imagine doing the washing and crossing another country to get to the clothes-line. This is what was being offered and the reason a map was never available. I would not accept my land carved up this way, like the Palestinians, which is the real reason the peace process failed.
Fundamentalism is an interesting topic, which is why I recommended Tariq Ali’s book. Don’t forget the mirror image of Islamic fundamentalism – Christian fundamentalism, the equally lethal driving force behind the current Bush administration.
I seem to have disturbed a hornet’s nest in you erupting in a massive display of conflicting UN arguments, newspaper and magazine pastings and opinions, views and statements on same. Much of this I have read before along with the opposing arguments.
My point regarding the crimes of 11 September was one of selectivity. This argument was advanced to the situation today and discussed several different countries. Your simplification of this and single issue operations manual response has not advanced the topic or encouraged discussion which I believe vital at this juncture in our modern history.
On checking 1435 again I find the language important. There is a difference in a ‘Demand’ and being ‘Called on’. My original argument is valid and still stands. And I don’t do ‘links’.
In my previous posts I have mentioned at least 18 countries. To put the Michael Kelly quote in context and return to theme I would like to quote from Arundhati Roy (2002), and Chiles recent history starting from what would be another tragic anniversary:
.
“Twenty nine years ago in Chile, on the 11th September 1973, General Pinochet overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in a CIA backed coup. ‘Chile should not be allowed to go Marxist just because it’s people are irresponsible.’ Said Henry Kissenger, Nobel Peace Laureate, then US Secretary of State.
After the coup President Allende was found dead inside the presidential palace. Whether he was killed or killed himself, we will never know. In the regime of terror that ensued, thousands of people were killed. Many more simply ‘disappeared’. Firing squads conducted public executions. Concentration camps and torture chambers were opened across the country. The dead were buried in mine shafts and unmarked graves. For seventeen years the people of Chile lived in dread of the midnight knock, of routine ‘disappearances’, of sudden arrest and torture. Chileans tell the story of how the musician Victor Jara had his hands cut off in front of a crowd in the Santiago Stadium. Before they shot him Pinochet’s soldiers threw his guitar at him and mockingly asked him to play.
In 1999, following the arrest of General Pinochet in Britian, thousands of secret documents were declassified by the US government. They contain unequivocal evidence of the CIA’s involvement in the coup as well as the fact that the US government had detailed information about the situation in Chile during General Pinochet’s reign. Yet, Kissinger assured the General of his support. ‘In the United States, as you know, we are sympathetic to what you’re trying to do,’ he said. ‘We wish your government well”.
In these posts I have tried to pass on a little of the information I have found after asking myself a simple question not two years ago. I seek neither to shove this information, views and opinions where applicable, down anyone’s throat. Nor do I seek to personally denigrate anyone.
This is simply offered to foster discussion that I believe we owe to ourselves at a time when several thousand innocent men, women and children’s lives hang in the balance.
Wiley, the school Marshall at the school my two boys attend is a Vietnam vet. He is held in extremely high regard and one of the reasons is his service to his country. You may recall from my contributions to the ’89 threads that there are few I hold more highly that those prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. As I not only walk the streets of Brisbane, but around the world, my gut feeling is that the Vietnam lessons have been learnt. Come what may, our service men and women shall be rightly honoured, whilst the gutless politicians who would place them in harms way will be the ones held in rightful contempt.
Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to reply.
If I could make one comment before responding it would be that whilst my posts explored several areas, discussed several issues and their inter relation to events, you in the main have filled roughly the same space on a single subject.
The spectator oft’ sees more than the player, however I feel that my posts have been more critical of the US than Israel. I will not shy away from this criticism for which I believe I have put forward several valid arguments, nor for that matter the criticism of the US.
I also reject your inference that my arguments are based on “deep rooted prejudices”. If an Australian drove a bulldozer into a house killing a pregnant women and her children or shot a fourteen year old boy I would be abhorred. If that Husband or Father then became a human bomb and killed more innocent women and children I am equally abhorred.
The feelings of that Husband or Father or Family of innocent victims cannot be taught in any school so please not the tired old propaganda of he studied English, Maths and Suicide. Hatred breeds hatred. This unholy cycle must be broken. You are quick to mention the attitudes of one side but not the other. Please do not forget Moshe Ya’alon, Israeli Army Chief of Staff, likening Palestinians to cancer to which he administered the chemotherapy, and your history lessons more honest if started on 9/4/48.
I appreciate your mention of part of the history leading to the peace process, of which I am aware. We could debate each line but a lot of time and space saved by cutting to exactly what was offered. Imagine driving home from work, turning into your driveway and the part between the road and your garage is in an international journey. Imagine doing the washing and crossing another country to get to the clothes-line. This is what was being offered and the reason a map was never available. I would not accept my land carved up this way, like the Palestinians, which is the real reason the peace process failed.
Fundamentalism is an interesting topic, which is why I recommended Tariq Ali’s book. Don’t forget the mirror image of Islamic fundamentalism – Christian fundamentalism, the equally lethal driving force behind the current Bush administration.
I seem to have disturbed a hornet’s nest in you erupting in a massive display of conflicting UN arguments, newspaper and magazine pastings and opinions, views and statements on same. Much of this I have read before along with the opposing arguments.
My point regarding the crimes of 11 September was one of selectivity. This argument was advanced to the situation today and discussed several different countries. Your simplification of this and single issue operations manual response has not advanced the topic or encouraged discussion which I believe vital at this juncture in our modern history.
On checking 1435 again I find the language important. There is a difference in a ‘Demand’ and being ‘Called on’. My original argument is valid and still stands. And I don’t do ‘links’.
In my previous posts I have mentioned at least 18 countries. To put the Michael Kelly quote in context and return to theme I would like to quote from Arundhati Roy (2002), and Chiles recent history starting from what would be another tragic anniversary:
.
“Twenty nine years ago in Chile, on the 11th September 1973, General Pinochet overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in a CIA backed coup. ‘Chile should not be allowed to go Marxist just because it’s people are irresponsible.’ Said Henry Kissenger, Nobel Peace Laureate, then US Secretary of State.
After the coup President Allende was found dead inside the presidential palace. Whether he was killed or killed himself, we will never know. In the regime of terror that ensued, thousands of people were killed. Many more simply ‘disappeared’. Firing squads conducted public executions. Concentration camps and torture chambers were opened across the country. The dead were buried in mine shafts and unmarked graves. For seventeen years the people of Chile lived in dread of the midnight knock, of routine ‘disappearances’, of sudden arrest and torture. Chileans tell the story of how the musician Victor Jara had his hands cut off in front of a crowd in the Santiago Stadium. Before they shot him Pinochet’s soldiers threw his guitar at him and mockingly asked him to play.
In 1999, following the arrest of General Pinochet in Britian, thousands of secret documents were declassified by the US government. They contain unequivocal evidence of the CIA’s involvement in the coup as well as the fact that the US government had detailed information about the situation in Chile during General Pinochet’s reign. Yet, Kissinger assured the General of his support. ‘In the United States, as you know, we are sympathetic to what you’re trying to do,’ he said. ‘We wish your government well”.
In these posts I have tried to pass on a little of the information I have found after asking myself a simple question not two years ago. I seek neither to shove this information, views and opinions where applicable, down anyone’s throat. Nor do I seek to personally denigrate anyone.
This is simply offered to foster discussion that I believe we owe to ourselves at a time when several thousand innocent men, women and children’s lives hang in the balance.
Wiley, the school Marshall at the school my two boys attend is a Vietnam vet. He is held in extremely high regard and one of the reasons is his service to his country. You may recall from my contributions to the ’89 threads that there are few I hold more highly that those prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. As I not only walk the streets of Brisbane, but around the world, my gut feeling is that the Vietnam lessons have been learnt. Come what may, our service men and women shall be rightly honoured, whilst the gutless politicians who would place them in harms way will be the ones held in rightful contempt.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
boofta, ya took the words right out o’ me mouf, Dig. In troo Norf Queenslan’ style, I wuz gunna say somefing along the loines uf “Geez, that one peacenik golly aimed at a pore defenceless Digger in Castletown Mall seems to have travelled a bluddy long way from good ole Townsvile, eh?”
Brisboy, I respect your opinions – and thank God that we live in a society that allows you (and the more radical anti-Americans) to have your say without fear of persecution.
The sad fact is, we lucky ones only live in that society today because, for all their warts and many failings (and I accept that they have many of both), the Yanks have been there, (if not always with the noblest intentions), to prevent people who I’m sure would do things far less pleasant to us (and to the many small countries America has economically subjugated) from having free reign over us.
Getting back to the subject of the tread, as one who was called a ‘baby killer’ on more than one occasion during the Vietnam years, (on every occasion that comes to mind by rabid females), I really had hoped that even the extreme fringes of Australian society had matured to the point where they could differentiate between the politicians who sent the troops to war and the troops who HAD to follow those orders. I’m heartened to see that at least the majority here share my sadness and outrage at finding this isn’t so.
Brisboy, I respect your opinions – and thank God that we live in a society that allows you (and the more radical anti-Americans) to have your say without fear of persecution.
The sad fact is, we lucky ones only live in that society today because, for all their warts and many failings (and I accept that they have many of both), the Yanks have been there, (if not always with the noblest intentions), to prevent people who I’m sure would do things far less pleasant to us (and to the many small countries America has economically subjugated) from having free reign over us.
Getting back to the subject of the tread, as one who was called a ‘baby killer’ on more than one occasion during the Vietnam years, (on every occasion that comes to mind by rabid females), I really had hoped that even the extreme fringes of Australian society had matured to the point where they could differentiate between the politicians who sent the troops to war and the troops who HAD to follow those orders. I’m heartened to see that at least the majority here share my sadness and outrage at finding this isn’t so.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BrisBoy, a nice thesis but far too simplistic in the example you provide. I agree that if it were so simple we would have had solutions to all the worlds conflicts before they even started. My points, however, were aimed at the oft reproduced propaganda and selective amnesia shown by many pundits and governments when it comes to issues relating to Israel. Why you even refer to the history of the Palestinian issue only starting in 1948. If we were so simplistic we could of course keep on receding into the history books but that never gets us anywhere.
The article that I reproduce here is to counter the accusation that I left a great chunk of history out of my reply to his original comments. The article was actually written in 1993 after the implementation of the Oslo accords and was very forward looking. So much so that it shows why almost all Israelis will have nothing more to do with Arafat. It doesn't try to provide solutions to an extremely difficult problem. That will take greater intelligence and diplomacy than I am able to even imagine but it does at least give those of you who see the problem in more simplistic terms an insight into the facts:
No wonder the Israeli electorate voted in a right wing party. All they had to use as their election slogan was "I told you so".
The article that I reproduce here is to counter the accusation that I left a great chunk of history out of my reply to his original comments. The article was actually written in 1993 after the implementation of the Oslo accords and was very forward looking. So much so that it shows why almost all Israelis will have nothing more to do with Arafat. It doesn't try to provide solutions to an extremely difficult problem. That will take greater intelligence and diplomacy than I am able to even imagine but it does at least give those of you who see the problem in more simplistic terms an insight into the facts:
December 1993 Article Predicting the Outcome of the 1993 Oslo Agreement
The author wrote the article in 1993 after the Oslo Accords of 13 September 1993. It has proven to be a very accurate assessment.
By Anthony David Marks
The essence and nature of the Israel-PLO Accord signed on 13 September 1993 in New York is that on the one side, the PLO, a liberation organization controlled by Yasser Arafat, while not actually representing all Arabs living in Gaza, Shomron and Judea has nevertheless assumed full responsibility for them and has agreed to recognize the State of Israel and its right to live within secure and permanent borders and has agreed to cease and desist forthwith from all acts of terror and all violent activities whether directed against fellow Arabs or Jews. On the other side, the State of Israel has agreed to grant the Arab population who inhabit the foregoing-mentioned areas, a limited form of autonomy in the areas they inhabit and has agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian Civil Administration.
Furthermore, the PLO, representing the Arab population of the areas of Gaza, Judea and Shomron, has undertaken to conduct its administration in a fair and democratic manner and to respect the rights of the Jewish population living within its semi-autonomous areas.
From news reports, the PLO organization has, to date, taken no action to revoke the provisions of its charter which calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. It seems to have left the matter in abeyance. This is contrary to the very essence of the Accord.
The Palestinian chief delegate, Nabil Sha'ath, has stated that the Jews of the Gaza Strip can continue to live there for the next two years but after that, they must leave. Presumably, this is the PLO's position in the areas of Shomron and Judea. In other words, the Gaza Strip and the areas of Shomron and Judea under Palestinian limited autonomy will be "Judenrein". This is contrary to the Accord. It is instructive to bear in mind that about 20% of Israel's population are Arabs and that they have their own separate areas.
Although attacks of terror by members of Fatah, controlled by the PLO, have been rare since the signing of the Accord, attacks by Hamas have continued unabated even though the PLO has assumed responsibility for all Arabs living in Gaza, Shomron and Judea. Mr. Yasser Arafat has been, by all accounts, conspicuously reluctant to denounce firmly and deal with acts of terror perpetrated by Arabs against Jews. Moreover, no clear statement has been made, to date, by the PLO on how acts of terrorism will be dealt with and what policies will be implemented to control violence and civil unrest the framework of a democracy. This is contrary to the Accord.
The Accord provides that the Palestinians shall have a strong 'police force'. This would entail about 4,000 police per one million people, according to Israeli sources. The Palestinians are demanding a minimum of 15,000 members and it seems from news reports that a background of perpetrating terror and violence against Jews is a prerequisite for hiring. Conceivably, there could be another 15,000 to 30,000 fully armed Palestinians 'in training'. This is not a police force to maintain law and order but an army and this is contrary to the Accord.
In order to assure a peaceful relationship between the Palestinians and Israelis, various forms of economic cooperation were envisioned by Israel, but according to all reports the Palestinians will give preference to Jordanian and other Arab companies before Israeli companies. This is contrary to the Accord.
The Accord signed September 13, 1993 clearly speaks of the concept of 'limited autonomy' but Mr. Arafat has since rejected this and called for Palestinian statehood with Jerusalem as its capital. The fact is there has never existed an independent Arab state in the Holy Land; and secondly, Jerusalem has never been a provincial capital under the Moslems. This is a repudiation of the Accord.
Of paramount concern to Israel is the matter of security whether against external military threats or internal disorders. To this end, in effect, the Palestinian semi autonomous areas will be permanently demilitarized and that these areas will never be used to plan or launch any kind of attack on Israel.
This must necessarily mean Israeli control over all land running adjacent to external borders as well as control over all border crossings. After all, is it realistic for Israel to expect that any Palestinian police force will monitor closely all movements of people and material across external borders to check if they pose a threat to Israel's security? Are the Palestinians going to become Israel's bodyguard?
Mr. Arafat representing the Palestinians has great difficulty accepting this last point citing that it is a matter of Palestinian dignity. From the Israeli side, it is also a matter of dignity that its men, women and children not get murdered, maimed and terrorized by planned and premeditated criminal acts which various Arab terror organizations regularly carry out, boast of, and vie one with the other for their 'credit'. These barbarian acts necessitate Israel's permanent control of all border areas and the assertion of Israel's sovereignty. It is Israel's Monroe Doctrine that no hostile force shall ever be permitted to cross the Jordan River.
Once again, the readiness of Israel to sign the Accord was the clear and unequivocal understanding that its security will not be compromised in any way. Mr. Arafat cannot try to disregard this rasion d'etre of the Accord.
Finally, we do not read in the Arab press of Palestinian statements which speak of future peaceful co-operation in any way with Israel. All we read and hear is continual hostile, negative and counter-productive rhetoric such as we have become accustomed to in the past.
Objectively speaking, it can be fairly stated that the PLO has already rejected the essence of the Accord and furthermore by both its actions and inactions has, in fact repudiated it. No sovereign state on the face of earth would agree to endanger its own vital interests and security.
The State of Israel's continued acquiescence to major infractions will only serve to raise Palestinian expectations and build up momentum on their side. It will be interpreted as a sign of weakness and lack of resolve on Israel's part and it will lead to much bloodshed. It is both foolhardy and irresponsible for Israel to proceed further and continue to implement the agreement under these rather foreboding circumstances.
Source: Original text contributed by the author, IHC Chairman, 1 December 1993.
Copyright © Anthony David Marks, Jerusalem, Israel.
The author wrote the article in 1993 after the Oslo Accords of 13 September 1993. It has proven to be a very accurate assessment.
By Anthony David Marks
The essence and nature of the Israel-PLO Accord signed on 13 September 1993 in New York is that on the one side, the PLO, a liberation organization controlled by Yasser Arafat, while not actually representing all Arabs living in Gaza, Shomron and Judea has nevertheless assumed full responsibility for them and has agreed to recognize the State of Israel and its right to live within secure and permanent borders and has agreed to cease and desist forthwith from all acts of terror and all violent activities whether directed against fellow Arabs or Jews. On the other side, the State of Israel has agreed to grant the Arab population who inhabit the foregoing-mentioned areas, a limited form of autonomy in the areas they inhabit and has agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian Civil Administration.
Furthermore, the PLO, representing the Arab population of the areas of Gaza, Judea and Shomron, has undertaken to conduct its administration in a fair and democratic manner and to respect the rights of the Jewish population living within its semi-autonomous areas.
From news reports, the PLO organization has, to date, taken no action to revoke the provisions of its charter which calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. It seems to have left the matter in abeyance. This is contrary to the very essence of the Accord.
The Palestinian chief delegate, Nabil Sha'ath, has stated that the Jews of the Gaza Strip can continue to live there for the next two years but after that, they must leave. Presumably, this is the PLO's position in the areas of Shomron and Judea. In other words, the Gaza Strip and the areas of Shomron and Judea under Palestinian limited autonomy will be "Judenrein". This is contrary to the Accord. It is instructive to bear in mind that about 20% of Israel's population are Arabs and that they have their own separate areas.
Although attacks of terror by members of Fatah, controlled by the PLO, have been rare since the signing of the Accord, attacks by Hamas have continued unabated even though the PLO has assumed responsibility for all Arabs living in Gaza, Shomron and Judea. Mr. Yasser Arafat has been, by all accounts, conspicuously reluctant to denounce firmly and deal with acts of terror perpetrated by Arabs against Jews. Moreover, no clear statement has been made, to date, by the PLO on how acts of terrorism will be dealt with and what policies will be implemented to control violence and civil unrest the framework of a democracy. This is contrary to the Accord.
The Accord provides that the Palestinians shall have a strong 'police force'. This would entail about 4,000 police per one million people, according to Israeli sources. The Palestinians are demanding a minimum of 15,000 members and it seems from news reports that a background of perpetrating terror and violence against Jews is a prerequisite for hiring. Conceivably, there could be another 15,000 to 30,000 fully armed Palestinians 'in training'. This is not a police force to maintain law and order but an army and this is contrary to the Accord.
In order to assure a peaceful relationship between the Palestinians and Israelis, various forms of economic cooperation were envisioned by Israel, but according to all reports the Palestinians will give preference to Jordanian and other Arab companies before Israeli companies. This is contrary to the Accord.
The Accord signed September 13, 1993 clearly speaks of the concept of 'limited autonomy' but Mr. Arafat has since rejected this and called for Palestinian statehood with Jerusalem as its capital. The fact is there has never existed an independent Arab state in the Holy Land; and secondly, Jerusalem has never been a provincial capital under the Moslems. This is a repudiation of the Accord.
Of paramount concern to Israel is the matter of security whether against external military threats or internal disorders. To this end, in effect, the Palestinian semi autonomous areas will be permanently demilitarized and that these areas will never be used to plan or launch any kind of attack on Israel.
This must necessarily mean Israeli control over all land running adjacent to external borders as well as control over all border crossings. After all, is it realistic for Israel to expect that any Palestinian police force will monitor closely all movements of people and material across external borders to check if they pose a threat to Israel's security? Are the Palestinians going to become Israel's bodyguard?
Mr. Arafat representing the Palestinians has great difficulty accepting this last point citing that it is a matter of Palestinian dignity. From the Israeli side, it is also a matter of dignity that its men, women and children not get murdered, maimed and terrorized by planned and premeditated criminal acts which various Arab terror organizations regularly carry out, boast of, and vie one with the other for their 'credit'. These barbarian acts necessitate Israel's permanent control of all border areas and the assertion of Israel's sovereignty. It is Israel's Monroe Doctrine that no hostile force shall ever be permitted to cross the Jordan River.
Once again, the readiness of Israel to sign the Accord was the clear and unequivocal understanding that its security will not be compromised in any way. Mr. Arafat cannot try to disregard this rasion d'etre of the Accord.
Finally, we do not read in the Arab press of Palestinian statements which speak of future peaceful co-operation in any way with Israel. All we read and hear is continual hostile, negative and counter-productive rhetoric such as we have become accustomed to in the past.
Objectively speaking, it can be fairly stated that the PLO has already rejected the essence of the Accord and furthermore by both its actions and inactions has, in fact repudiated it. No sovereign state on the face of earth would agree to endanger its own vital interests and security.
The State of Israel's continued acquiescence to major infractions will only serve to raise Palestinian expectations and build up momentum on their side. It will be interpreted as a sign of weakness and lack of resolve on Israel's part and it will lead to much bloodshed. It is both foolhardy and irresponsible for Israel to proceed further and continue to implement the agreement under these rather foreboding circumstances.
Source: Original text contributed by the author, IHC Chairman, 1 December 1993.
Copyright © Anthony David Marks, Jerusalem, Israel.
Last edited by Danny; 6th Mar 2003 at 02:38.