"Road Map to Peace" has hit the fan. [Archive]

He219

04-29-2003, 09:02 PM

Homocidal Anti-Semetism; What could possibly foster such hate? Yes, the IDF will move in to protect Israel's security - until a credible deterent (to violence) is established by the new Palestinean leadership or others. The IDF does have to stop blowing away every PA Policeman they cross paths with though.

You see the Palestinians have seen their lands shrink since '47 and their relatives were either forced or fled into refugee camps to make way for the new state of Israel. New Israeli Settlements are created while repatriation of Palestineans is not even considered. With forceful detention of boys and men 7 and older, without due process, a state of separation exists in lands once called Palestine.

I'm far from an Arab lover, but all people have the right to live as equals. Israelis believe the land was granted to them by God and that the Arab is not their equal. They are afraid of the 'demographic change' if Palestinian refurees are allowed to return. Well the Palestineans are going to have to make room and the Irsaelis must respect the Palestineans right to live with equal protection under law. Building another Berlin Wall is not the answer, building bridges is.

As for terrorism; open up your textbooks, ehr, something like this:

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/history/transcripts/part-three.partition-20021002.html

"There seemed therefore no alternative to the Jews but to launch a full-fledged campaign against the British, and it took several forms. One was diplomatic. And secondly there would be an appeal to the compassion of the world by launching a kind of illegal immigration effort, bringing over tens and tens of thousands of refugees from Europe in these leaking little refugee boats.

SHUSTER: The campaign against the British also used violence, with the first shots fired on British military and government facilities by underground Jewish armed groups: the Stern Gang and the Irgun. Zionist leaders like David Ben-Gurion called them misguided terrorists and at times even helped the British fight them.

But their operations intensified. In 1946, the Irgun blew up a wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem housing the British administration. Ninety were killed: roughly 30 Jews, 30 Arabs and 30 British.

NEWSREEL: As the toll of dead mounts daily in the bitter war of reprisals, tight security measures are imposed by the British. Scores of Jewish leaders are jailed and rigid searches are conducted for terrorists' weapons. These measures follow the hanging of two British sergeants by extremists. Palestine becomes an armed camp... .

SHUSTER: The armed Jewish gangs were commanded by men who would lead the Israeli state many years later.

SACHAR: Menachem Begin of course, ultimately to become a long-governing prime minister, was a member of the Irgun Z'vai Leumi, which was the largest element among the right-wing underground forces. But there were others who were even more extreme than he. One of them was a later prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir.

SHUSTER: Eventually the larger Zionist military organization, the Haganah, led by Ben-Gurion, joined the fight against the British.

By the end of 1946, an exhausted Britain decided to withdraw from Palestine, and turned the whole problem over to the United Nations, which had just been born that same year.

The U.N. immediately resurrected the idea of partitioning the territory, first proposed by the British in 1937.

In the U.S., President Truman favored it for political reasons, but also according to William Quandt, author of Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, because of the terrible toll of the Holocaust.

WILLIAM QUANDT: We did understand there was a tremendous human need after World War II for some kind of a political solution for the survivors of the Holocaust, who could not rebuild their lives in Germany and who were in need of some sort of restitution.

SHUSTER: The Arab majority in Palestine was poorly organized to respond to the U.N. Palestinian leaders refused to discuss partition, says Philip Mattar, editor of The Encyclopedia of the Palestinians.

PHILIP MATTAR: The Jews were being offered 55 percent of Palestine when in fact they had owned only seven percent of the country. Four-hundred-fifty thousand Palestinians were going to end up within the Jewish state, and they did not see any reason why they should go along with that kind of inequality, that kind of injustice."

Therefore I get quite upset at hearing the hypocracy that violence and terrorism is not a legitimate process. I do not agree - but they were used in the formation of the Israeli State. People see Arafat as having 'missed' the chance for peace by not accepting the Camp David accords. I say that it would have been a legitimization of concessions bargained through illegally occupied territories. Arafats time is over, but will we call corrupt and brand a terrorist the next leader that fails to reign in Homicidal Anti-Semites?

Shalom! p-)

-He219

FallenAngel

04-29-2003, 11:49 PM

He219...

I know the Israelis are by no means guiltless in the long standing war in the region, but as you said- coexistance is a must. Niether side will leave completely from the land. Isreal has offered more than once the lands in the West Bank and Gaza for the Palestinians to rule themselves. The only restriction was that the Palestinians had to exercise control and stop these terrorist groups (ahem "freedom fighters") from killing Israeli women and children. They have yet to show any control. Until they do...the IDF has a right to protect it's civilians. The Palestinians also don't want to co-exist, they want to eliminate the Jewish state from the face of the earth.

Royal

04-30-2003, 03:37 AM

Well said He219

Isreal has offered more than once the lands in the West Bank and Gaza for the Palestinians to rule themselves. The only restriction was that the Palestinians had to exercise control and stop these terrorist groups (ahem "freedom fighters") from killing Israeli women and children. They have yet to show any control. Until they do...the IDF has a right to protect it's civilians. The Palestinians also don't want to co-exist, they want to eliminate the Jewish state from the face of the earth.

In exactly the same way that the US didn't pevent NORAID from financing the IRA and it's offshoots - should we be sending Challenger II's into south Boston?

Face facts, it is almost impossible for a sovreign government to controll extremist factions without draconian controls. The only way forward is building bridges - hearts and minds, compromise and open minds on both sides

96B

04-30-2003, 06:54 AM

Royal, we allowed funding for the IRA? Enlighten me on such topics please sir.

He219

04-30-2003, 07:06 AM

SemperFi2003,

Look up this article p-)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1563119.stm

-He219

Royal

04-30-2003, 09:08 AM

Semperfi2003, try He219's link or

http://www.janes.com/regional_news/europe/news/jir/jir980824_1_n.shtml
http://overlawyered.com/archives/01/oct2.html by that renowned pinko PJ O'Rourke (sarcasm)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1563119.stm or even Pravda
http://english.pravda.ru/politics/2002/02/01/26139.html
or try reading The Financing of Terror by James Adams or better still check any newpaper archives on Martin Galvin.

StarvingStudent47

04-30-2003, 10:58 AM

If the Israelis use this as an excuse to derail the "road map to peace," they were totally disingenious to begin with.

If the Israeli government ends communication with the Palestinian Authority over this, you could question their motives. However, if they launch an incursion, or use a targeted strike against a Hamas higher-up, you CAN'T accuse them of being disingenuous. As you pointed out, Abu Mazen has not been around enough to make any effort himself against the terror groups, so Israel has to fight terrorism the old-fashioned way--with force.

There is no reason that Israel should just sit around and take these terror bombings as a "gesture of good faith" or something.

I strongly suspect Sharon will strike back at the terror networks while still negotiating with Abu Mazen. And I think that's the right thing to do.

StarvingStudent47

04-30-2003, 11:01 AM

By the way, there's been yet another terror attack: three people (not including the bomber) killed and 35 wounded at a pub in Tel Aviv.

hood

04-30-2003, 01:56 PM

Bootneck

04-30-2003, 02:07 PM

Dead on Hood.

yellowking

05-01-2003, 10:04 AM

If the Israelis use this as an excuse to derail the "road map to peace," they were totally disingenious to begin with.
If the Israeli government ends communication with the Palestinian Authority over this, you could question their motives. However, if they launch an incursion, or use a targeted strike against a Hamas higher-up, you CAN'T accuse them of being disingenuous.
You'll note that I didn't, either. Sheesh, this is the mistaken assumption forum. :D

As you pointed out, Abu Mazen has not been around enough to make any effort himself against the terror groups, so Israel has to fight terrorism the old-fashioned way--with force.
Which pretty much follows from what I said. Stopping suicide bombers isn't derailing the peace process. Nothing in the Roadmap prevents this activity at this point, anyway.

hood

05-01-2003, 10:26 AM

For some reason I keep thinking back to that one suicide bomber incident and smiling. It was where he was outside a cafe in daylight and he had the bomb vest on. Apparently when he hit the trigger, it only set off the small charge on the vest and not the whole set of bombs, so it only knocked him unconcious without doing any real damage. The funny part (where the set of photos begins) shows him lying on the sidewalk with all the Israeli police surrounding him at 100 feet. They send in the Jihadinator-2000 bomb disposal robot which picks up one of his legs and proceeds to drag him out to a safe distance (he's still alive and moving btw) and detonates him. I put it right up there with that American flag burning photo where the guy accidently catches on fire.

Sabre

05-01-2003, 10:32 AM

Stopping suicide bombers once they have got it into their heads to 'martyr' themselves is damn near impossible. Both the Israelis and Palistinians need to prevent the creation of future bombers.
We have seen that the response (suprise, suprise) to these attacks was to go after 'known terrorists'. The result was 6-8 (unsure) palistinian dead (including a 2 year old), 6 Israeli injured and a hell of a lot of resentment.
The simple fact is that the Israelis are hypocritical to come out and say they are 'shocked' by these attacks because they have driven so many people to commit them and have directly given credence to radical extremists through examples of oppression.
In the past, incursions have run the gammut from foot patrols through bulldozing and shelling homes to dropping bombs from F15s. These extreme methods are not viable forms of counter-insurgency. The most effective way to find and deal with extremists is by locals giving them up because they do not support them. If you kill their children and destroy their homes, they won't do this and they may even resort to extreme methods themselves.
The Israelis are too proud and righteous to deal with ordinary Palistinians on that level and will not accept that most people on both sides wish to have peaceful lives. They are more similar to the terrorists than they would care to believe.[/i]

StarvingStudent47

05-01-2003, 11:37 AM

Sabre--Palestinian radicals hated Israelis before the incursions ever started.

You say that "both sides should help prevent suicide bombers," but there's nothing that Israel can do on that front so long as Palestinian school textbook, Palestinian music videos, ect ALL glamourize suicide bombing.

You say that "Stopping suicide bombers once they have got it into their heads to 'martyr' themselves is damn near impossible." Well, stopping them ALL is. But the IDF intercepts 14 out of 15 terror attacks before they kill Israeli civilians. If NO terror attacks were intercepted, and the current rate of attempted terror attacks continued for ONE year, roughly 8000 Israeli civilians would be killed. That's TWO 9/11s.

I don't think you can blame the existence of terrorism on counter-terror actions. It doesn't make sense if you think about the basic meanings of the words.

Sulph8

05-01-2003, 11:46 AM

That is the biggest load of crap ive ever heard. In case you didnt know, Israel has tried many times to negotiate with the Palestinians. In 2000 former prime minister Ehud Barak offered them nearly everything they asked for including disputed things such as eats Jerusalem. And what did Arafat do? Instead of accepting the best offer they would ever get, or coming back with a counter proposal, he starts a campaign of terror. Furthermore, I can see you have been taken in by the media bull**** campaign against Israel. Children die because the terrorist groups intentionally operate from populated areas aswell as using children to shoot at Israeli soldiers, and when the children get shot what does it do for the Palestinians? A nice little bull**** media story is what it does. Most of the houses that get destroyed are empty houses used by snipers and gunmen. The policy of destroying the houses of suicide bombers is PROVEN to work as many potential terrorists have changed their minds and given themselves up because of this. As for the 'suicide mentality'. it has nothing to do with anything Israel does. Up until the age of about 14, palestinian children are indoctrinated with one thing: Shachta - to die for allah, which they are taught is the greatest thing you can do. When they are older all the terror groups have to do is direct them at Israelis and voila! Infact, a group of Israelis went to do a study to see why we can't communicate with them at all, and they met some of the students that were indoctrinated with 'Shachta'. They asked them a simple question: Wouldent two states side by side living in peace be better than Shachta? They all said no, nothing is better than Shachta!

They are taught that they will go to heaven where there will be 70 virgins waiting for them. This was purposely mistranslated from the Koran. It actually says 70 white raisins, not virgins, as white raisins were a delicacy in those times. "To die by your own hand" is also condemned in the Koran, so their justification for suicide is made of bull****. Also, Jihad does not mean holy war, infact Jihad has nothing to do with the outside world at all, it is meant to be a spiritual battle within oneself to reach a higher level of spirituality.

Point is, do some homework before you decide to talk about a part of the world you know jack **** about ok pal.

He219

05-01-2003, 12:10 PM

I really don't understand why they don't just permanently close off the west bank and gaza. Stop anyone from coming across into Israel, period. No more searches, no more bombings. Let the Palestinians create their own economy and markets inside of the territories that they have already. If they hate Israel, why should they depend on it so much?

Hood:

Remember all those thousands and thousands of Israeli's living in Illiegal Settlements in the Occupied Territories. They too will be forced to live behind the 'Iron Curtain/Berlin Wall'. Maybe they should put automatic machine guns on the fence like the Sazi did...

Building Bridges, not Walls is the answer. Israel was created within Palestine, that's what the Arabs are full of hatred over - the injustice of forced deportation while more and more Israelis grab as much of the Occupied Territories before a Settlement permanently legitimizes Illegal property gains - whatever size it may end up becomming.

Suicidal-Homicidal AntiSemetism. What would make people hate so much as to kill oneself as to inflict as much damage to the 'enemy'? :cantbeli:

-He219

hood

05-01-2003, 12:30 PM

What you say illegal, I call war victory spoils. They took land after being attacked and defeating the invading armies. Anyone saying it's not theirs is a sore loser. It's like the native American Indians suddenly demanding all of the United States back. It sucks to lose a war but maybe they should have thought about that before trying to invade and squash Israel.

He219

05-01-2003, 12:55 PM

Did the American Indians Attack the Settlers first or were they defending their territory?

Hood Said:

What you say illegal, I call war victory spoils. They took land after being attacked and defeating the invading armies. Anyone saying it's not theirs is a sore loser. It's like the native American Indians suddenly demanding all of the United States back. It sucks to lose a war but maybe they should have thought about that before trying to invade and squash Israel.

Hood: The Golan Heights and East Jerusalem were taken after battle from Syria. But the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as well as 93% of current Irsael was taken by the Zionists to create modern Israel. Since 1882, and for several decades thereafter, the first Baron Edmond de Rothschild, universally known in Israel as the “Father of the Settlement” or the “Well-known Benefactor”, pionered and single-handedly promoted the settlement and development of what became modern Israel. Thus only 7% of Israel was rightfully 'purchased, the rest ceeded by the UN and taken by Israel.

Hood, If you make the argument legitimizing illegal gains through conquest, then should Iraq have been allowed to keep Kuwait, Germany control of France. Israel fought British rule with terrorism and through armed struggle. So you say the Palestinians have no right to fight in the same way to regain their lands taken illegally? Hypocracy. :cantbeli:

-He219

StarvingStudent47

05-01-2003, 12:59 PM

There has never, in the history of humanity, been an independent state known as "Palestine." For a bit under 30 years, there was a British mandate (kinda like a colony) known as Palestine, which Britain had promised to both Jews and Arabs (before that it was all part of the Ottoman Empire). As a matter of fact, according to Britain's Balfour Declaration of 1917, ALL of the Israel/Palestine area was to go to Jews, and TransJordan (aka Jordan) would be for the Arabs of the area. In 1947, when Britain pulled out, they suggested that the UN create two states within British Mandatory Palestine--one for Jews and one for Arabs. The UN did just that. The new Arab state and the surrounding Arab states then attacked the newly-formed Israel the day it was created. They lost that war, and Israel survived.

Doesn't sound to me like Israel "took" anyone's land.

And I'll be happy to see displaced Palestinians compensated for their troubles when the millions of Jews persecuted and deported by Iraq, Egypt, Libya, etc are compensated for THEIR troubles. But it's gotta go both ways or else it isn't justice.

hood

05-01-2003, 01:24 PM

Did the American Indians Attack the Settlers first or were they defending their territory?

Does it matter? We won, they lost.

If we hadn't won the first Gulf War, then Iraq would have still had Kuwait to this day. We won, they lost. Same goes for Germany and France although not because France apparently cared one way or another.

He219

05-01-2003, 03:02 PM

StarvingStudent47:

Did I ever say that Palestine was an Independent state? You are right about your history, Palestine was a British Protectorate.

Doesn't sound to me like Israel "took" anyone's land.

So the Occupied Territories are up for grabs, Palestineans forced off their lands is alright?

But it's gotta go both ways or else it isn't justice.

Is it justice for Jews to take more lands for persecution on them by others? Do two wrongs make a right?

It does go both ways. Palestineans must be compensated for lands taken by Illegal Settlements. If they are forced off thier lands they have just as much right as those Jews who were persecuted themselves. A similar situation needs to be addressed in northern Iraq where Saddam changed ethnic demographics by evicting Kurds and re-setteling Arabs in their place. Is it ok for the Kurds now to evict the Arabs at gunpoint? Our troops are already intervening.

Hood:

You obviously did not get the point. No I not for giving back the American Indians the land they first settled. They were placed in Reservatins and their way of live has been replaced by Casino Operations. I wasn't supporting Iraqi claims over Kuwait or Germany's conquest of France! :cantbeli:

You wrote:

What you say illegal, I call war victory spoils

Does it matter? We won, they lost.

And yes it matters if someone want's to take away my house, my gun. It matters that Israel is building Illegal Settlements, it matters mostly those displaced! It's that your kind of indifference that makes the Arabs hate and enrages them to use whatever means necessary to defend their homes and way of life.

Your argument about the Jews being kicked out by Arab neighbors; is it also 'a spoil of war' for the neighbors, they won - ahh well?

-He219

hood

05-01-2003, 03:18 PM

:) Your points didn't go over my head, I was probably just being simplistic. From the very first moment Israel declared a state, the Arabs wanted all Jews out of the area, even after they legally bought the land from the Arabs. That's not defending their homes. That's a land grab. By their own standards, Israel is just doing the same thing. No land is owed to a certain group of people by divine right, no matter what anyone wants to believe. If you look at the militant groups that are bombing Israel, what is their goal? To get back the land that the settlements are on? No. They want all Jews out of that part of the world, permanently. That's not defending homes.

StarvingStudent47

05-01-2003, 04:20 PM

Hood's right. Every Palestinian terrorist group from Hamas to the PLO publicly states that NO Israel whatsoever is acceptable, REGARDLESS of the borders. This "Palestinians just want Israel back to the 1967 borders" really seems to be a creation of the American media. That's not what the terrorists themselves are saying. That's not what they've ever said. Look up the Hamas charter and PLO charter online to see for yourself.

As soon as Israel moves back to the 1967 borders, Arab activist groups will start demanding "1948 pre-war borders" or something. They won't stop and say "thank you." They won't grant any concessions in return. We saw the exact same thing happen when Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula. We saw the exact same thing happen when Israel pulled troops out of southern Lebanon.

The West Bank and Gaza Strip were only occupied after Israel was attacked without provocation TWO TIMES IN TWENTY YEARS. Israel decided it needed militarily defensible borders (read convex, not concave boundaries) because it could not assume that its Arab neighbors would leave it alone, regardless of what it did. Under those conditions, don't you think it's fair for a state to need militarily defensible borders?

As for the argument that this is "Palestinian" land, this is where my point of "there has never been an independent Palestine, and the British protectorate by that name was short-lived" comes in. In 1910, there was no such thing as a "Palestinian." Palestinians as an "independent ethnicity in need of an independent homeland" is a 20th century creation. If Israel retreats back to the 1967 borders, what is to stop a new ethnicity, "Haifians," from declaring that Haifa is their independent homeland? It's a great way for pan-Arabists to nickel-and-dime Israel out of existence, isn't it?

My point is this: Israel is 0.2% of the Arab world (including the territories--the 1967 borders are about 0.1% of the Arab world). 99.8% of the Arab world is under Arab governments. This whole argument by Palestinians "there is nowhere else we could live besides in that remaining 0.2%" just doesn't ring true to me. Somebody's making a land-grab here, and it isn't Israel.

He219

05-01-2003, 04:46 PM

Hood and StarvingStudent47

PHILIP MATTAR: The Jews were being offered 55 percent of Palestine when in fact they had owned only seven percent of the country. Four-hundred-fifty thousand Palestinians were going to end up within the Jewish state, and they did not see any reason why they should go along with that kind of inequality, that kind of injustice.

This is from http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/history/transcripts/part-three.partition-20021002.html

Hood wrote:

even after they legally bought the land from the Arabs

That's not defending their homes. That's a land grab. By their own standards, Israel is just doing the same thing

Hood, what are you saying? The Palestineans performed a land grab? :cantbeli:
You need a little history lesson:

BENJAMIN BEIT-HALLAHMI: Israel ended up with 78 percent of Palestine. The Palestinian community in Palestine just disintegrated. The majority of Palestinians became refugees, and Palestine -- the geographical term Palestine -- disappeared from the map.

SHUSTER: Three-quarters of a million Palestinians fled their homes during the war, initiating one of the most contentious debates between Jews and Palestinians. The Zionists and their supporters claimed -- and some still claim -- that the Arab governments ordered the Palestinians to leave.

Historian Howard Sachar says that is not true.

SACHAR: No Arab government was ordering these people to flee. On the contrary, they were ordering them to stay put, under no circumstances to give over their territory to the Jews. It is a myth to assume that these people left voluntarily.

SHUSTER: Over the past two decades younger historians in Israel have argued, using declassified government papers, that in fact Zionist military operations caused the Palestinians to flee. There is now some agreement on this greatest of controversies, between traditional Zionist historians and the so-called revisionists.

SACHAR: There was a good deal of intimidation and even terrorization here and there, particularly along the coastal plain area that was coveted by the Jews. They were terrified by the shooting, by the bombardment.

BENNY MORRIS: In addition to that, Israeli troops in various areas carried out expulsions.

SHUSTER: Benny Morris did the groundbreaking original research on the roots of the Palestinian refugee exodus. He teaches at Ben-Gurion University in Israel.

MORRIS: For good military reasons they wanted clear lines of communication behind the lines. They didn't want snipers. They didn't want guerrillas operating behind the lines. So they wanted to get rid of Arab communities. So there were expulsions in various areas.

SHUSTER: The Palestinians call the war An Naqba, the catastrophe, and point to massacres at villages such as Deir Yassin as evidence that the Jews forced them to leave.

University of Chicago historian Rashid Khalidi argues that the Jews did not want nearly half the population of their new state to be Arab, which would have been the result had both sides accepted the U.N. partition plan.

RASHID KHALIDI: To establish a Jewish state in such circumstances required one of these three options. You either had to boot them out, or they had to become Jews, or you had to accept the possibility that you would one day have an Arab majority in the so-called Jewish state. I'm not suggesting that that in and of itself explains what happened. In each village, locality, city, town, a different outcome obtained for different reasons. In some cases there were massacres. In some cases people were put on trucks and sent away. In some cases they fled on their own. That most Palestinians fled, either because they were driven out or were afraid, I don't think is really disputable.

SHUSTER: The Palestinians fled to refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Gaza, and what is now called the West Bank. Thousands with their children and grandchildren live in those camps until now. And from those camps would spring the Palestinian movement -- the guerrilla fighters and bombmakers and political leaders -- who would continue to fight Israel and challenge its right to exist, down to this day.

Mike Shuster, NPR News, Los Angeles.

Also from
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/history/transcripts/part-three.partition-20021002.html

SOOOOO, Palestians, ehr. INDIGENOUS ARABS living in the British Madate of Palestine (for StarvingStudent47) are performing a LAND GRAB! :cantbeli:

The West Bank and Gaza Strip were only occupied after Israel was attacked without provocation

Another bit of history on that issue Starving Student47:

The Arab majority in Palestine was poorly organized to respond to the U.N. Palestinian leaders refused to discuss partition, says Philip Mattar, editor of The Encyclopedia of the Palestinians.

PHILIP MATTAR: The Jews were being offered 55 percent of Palestine when in fact they had owned only seven percent of the country. Four-hundred-fifty thousand Palestinians were going to end up within the Jewish state, and they did not see any reason why they should go along with that kind of inequality, that kind of injustice.

The vote on partition in the General Assembly occurred on November 29, 1947 -- one of the critical dates of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Thirty-three states said yes, including the United States and the Soviet Union; 13 no, mostly Arab and Muslim states; 10 abstained, among them Britain.

The Zionists rejoiced. The Arabs rejected the vote, and skirmishing broke out in Palestine the next day.

Then on May 14th, 1948, Ben-Gurion, on the basis of the U.N.'s support for partition, announced the establishment of the independent state of Israel, the day after Britain formally ended its rule.

In response, the Arab states surrounding Israel -- Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq -- attacked. UNPROVOKED, StarvingStudent47! rofl

Also from:
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/history/history3.html

So Hood, you believe NPR is a part of this
creation of the American media :bash:

-He219

He219

05-01-2003, 04:54 PM

Also, Starving Student47, the 67 war was also not an unprovoked attack on Israel:

The Israelis attacked Egypt first, on June 5, 1967, in what most historians say was a defensive move. In the spring of that year, the Soviet Union had led the radical government in Damascus to believe that Israel was planning to invade Syria. Syria shared this misinformation with Nasser. The Egyptian leader closed the Gulf of Aqaba to shipping, cutting off Israel's primary oil supplies. He also ordered United Nations peacekeepers to leave the Sinai Peninsula. And he sent scores of tanks and hundreds of troops into the Sinai toward Israel.

Nasser's stature was immediately boosted in the Arab world, says Michael Oren, author of Six Days of War. "He was elevated to almost a god-like status overnight and politically it seemed like a good bargain," Oren says. "The bad news was he wasn't counting on Israel striking back militarily."

After three weeks of internal debate, Israel's leaders decided to attack. In the first day, Israel nearly destroyed Egypt's air force, and struck deep into the Sinai Peninsula, Egyptian territory. After six days of war, Israel had seized all of the Sinai and Gaza from Egypt, the West Bank and all of Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.

The seizure of the Temple Mount and the Western Wall in Old Jerusalem allowed Israelis to visit and worship at the holy sites for the first time in decades. Historian Benny Morris, author of The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, the Jews and Palestine, says "there was not just a sigh of relief that the threat of Arab attack had been dispelled, but there was also this outbreak of joy that at last the Israeli army had conquered the sites holiest to Judaism."
From
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/posting.php?mode=reply&t=1858

That is if you too don't believe in that anti-israeli institution called NPR

:bash: You think I am your enemy?

-He219

yellowking

05-01-2003, 05:12 PM

Also, Starving Student47, the 67 war was also not an unprovoked attack on Israel:
No, but it sure as sh*t would have been if Israel didn't preempt.

He219

05-01-2003, 05:16 PM

Hood said:

If you look at the militant groups that are bombing Israel, what is their goal? To get back the land that the settlements are on? No. They want all Jews out of that part of the world, permanently. That's not defending homes.

Yes, quite the view of the EXTREMISTS. On the flipside, have you heard of a 'mythical concept called greater Israel' and that Israel's borders are to expand into Biblical regions now in present Arab countries?

The seizure of the Temple Mount and the Western Wall in Old Jerusalem allowed Israelis to visit and worship at the holy sites for the first time in decades. Historian Benny Morris, author of The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, the Jews and Palestine, says "there was not just a sigh of relief that the threat of Arab attack had been dispelled, but there was also this outbreak of joy that at last the Israeli army had conquered the sites holiest to Judaism."

The war profoundly changed Israel itself, says historian Anita Shapira, of the Chaim Weizmann Institute for the Study of Zionism in Tel Aviv. It led to the emergence of a strong mythic movement that claimed the West Bank as part of greater Israel.

From http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/history/history4.html

'Greater Israel', is that an Israeli extremist point of view or an example of of applied policy?

Hood, why would the Arabs believe that is is an act of religious devotion to kill Israel or Israelis? What is the reason? Because of some whim, some misguided idea that there is an injustice and that they should just accept life as 'Untermenschen' within Israeli dominance while their livelyhoods and the olive trees they have harvested for centuries as a means of livelyhood are bulldozed for Israeli security and the creation of more ILLEGAL settlements. Those pesky radicals who act on HOMICIDAL ANTISEMETISM - they are just stupid little ARABS, aren't they? What makes them HATE so much?

-He219

He219

05-01-2003, 05:52 PM

Yellowking Wrote:

No, but it sure as sh*t would have been if Israel didn't preempt. :bash: I was telling StarvingStudent47 that it was not UNPROVOKED.:bash:

Yellowking, you can tell of the aforementioned 'Pre-emtive Millitary' action to AXL in our, the US's, rational for attacking Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. There indeed is a right to self-defence.

It goes BOTH WAYS. People, why are you fighting me. I AM NOT AN ARAB LOVER. I believe that Israel has a right to exist and the Palestineans have a right to exist too - under EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER LAW. I am merely stating the HYPOCRACY wrt applied MIDDLE EAST POLICY. I'm attempting to explain why the ARABS are becoming HOMICIDAL ANTISEMITES. I believe in EQUALITY wich is the only thing that can bring PEACE to the MIDDLE EAST!!

Building Bridges, not Fences! p-)

-He-219

StarvingStudent47

05-01-2003, 07:52 PM

Well if Mr. Rashid Khalidi says that Israel DESERVED to be invaded, I'm sure we should take his word on it.

But I'm gonna maintain that if the British talked about founding a Jewish state, and the UN followed through, and nine Arab nations invaded it the next day, that attack is unprovoked. And I'm going to maintain that when in 1967 Nasser lined his entire army up on Israel's border and publicly stated "We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948", then Israel didn't "provoke" that war either, even when they pre-empted. Nasser knew what he was doing when he blockaded Israel. He knew what he was doing when he lined up his tanks on Israel's borders.

He219, you sound like a well-meaning guy, but someone who doesn't really grasp how brutal and singleminded Palestinian terrorists have been, and how much widespread support they have ALWAYS had from the Palestinian population and from all Arab governments. Yeah, there are a few radicals on the Israeli side too, guys who ramble on about "greater Israel." But the difference between Israel and the Palestinians, between Israel and its Arab neighbors, is that in the Arab territories, THE EXTREMISTS ARE CALLING THE SHOTS. In Israel, it's ILLEGAL to be part of the Kach Movement (the radical group that assassinated Rabin). Just like there are extremists in modern-day America and there were extremists in 1930s Germany, but in 1930s Germany the extremists were IN CHARGE. That's a huge difference, and a difference I don't think you're fully acknowledging.

I AM NOT AN ARAB LOVER.
Well, this is a shot in the dark, but I'm wagering that someone who names themself after a Nazi aircraft isn't hugely nostalgic about Semites of either the Arab or the Jewish variety. I'm NOT calling you a Nazi, just a light-hearted observation I had ;)

He219

05-01-2003, 09:52 PM

A Damn fine German Night-Fighter. And I'm not a Nazi. I'm way to idealistic for that lot. I am intrigued at the amazing stuff those German Scientist Came up with though, well ahead of time.

The He219, a presurized high altitude night fighter, fitted with an intercept radar and the first operational plane with ejection seats! Yeah, it's purpose to shoot down British Bombers with it's 'Jazz Music', hehe.

Another interesting one is the first Steath Fighter, as I call it. A tested Flying Wing Jet Interceptor with extremely low radar signature because it was made of plywood, wich the Jerry's flew at 497mph! It's collecting dust in some Smithsonian back-lot in pieces after brought back for analysis. The HoIX - give it the credit it is due!

http://www.geocities.com/nedu537/go229/
http://www.hotel.wineasy.se/ipms/stuff_eng_detail_hoix.htm

As for the Middle East, I did say Israel has a right to exist. So do the Palestineans. But we tend to hear only one side of the story. The question I keep asking is: why does Homicidal Anti-Semetism exist?

- p-)

-He219
(aka Do335) ;)

StarvingStudent47

05-02-2003, 01:22 AM

Like I said, He219, I WAS NOT calling you a Nazi. I just thought it was kind of ironic ;)

The question I keep asking is: why does Homicidal Anti-Semetism exist?

Gosh, that's not an easy one. But it's asked often. I respond the same way to questions like "why did Jim Crow segregation exist in the American South," or "why do men rape women," or "why did Jeffrey Dahmer do what he did?" The answer? Humanity is evil. And people do brutal things to each other, especially when they have the upper hand. There are only 20 million Jews in the entire world. That makes them an easy target. And doctrinally both Christians and Muslims can find reasons to point a finger at them as "troublemakers."

But if you're asking if Jews have DONE anything to deserve 2000 years of brutalization, my simple answer is NO. Unequivically NO. Do you think otherwise, and if so, what do you think Jews have done wrong to deserve the diaspora, the inquisition, the holocaust, and the brunt of radical Muslim aggression?

Sulph8

05-02-2003, 02:00 AM

Right on Starvingstudent. But I think theres actually less than 20 million, i think its more like 13 million.

He219

05-04-2003, 01:58 PM

StarvingStudent47:

Point made. Anti-Semetism exists as do other forms of racism. Nobody deserves 2000 years brutalization. Homicidal is rather an extreme mutation though. What makes people hate so much? Self-interest? Misperceptions?

A question for StarvingStudent47 & Sulph8:

How can we achieve a lasting Peace in the Middle East? What philosophical understanding must develop to eliminate the self-interest that rules Extremists on Both sides of the 'fence'?

I will not buy a Berlin Wall response or military subjugation as a means for lasting peace.

p-)
-He219

StarvingStudent47

05-04-2003, 02:50 PM

Point made. Anti-Semetism exists as do other forms of racism. Nobody deserves 2000 years brutalization. Homicidal is rather an extreme mutation though. What makes people hate so much? Self-interest? Misperceptions?
That's a question for a religious leader or a philosopher, not someone interested in politics. We just have to accept that people DO hate that much. Because they do, and Jews are not the only time the world has seen such hatred. However, severe minority status does make it more prominent, because people are an easy target. It's easier to try to kill all Jews than to kill all Muslims, because there are 20 million Jews and 1 billion Muslims to deal with (rough numbers).

But Kurds and Gypsies and Native Americans have been victims of genocide too. There's nothing truly unique about the case of hatred toward Jews. It's all about being a minority not in a position of power.

How can we achieve a lasting Peace in the Middle East? What philosophical understanding must develop to eliminate the self-interest that rules Extremists on Both sides of the 'fence'?

I will not buy a Berlin Wall response or military subjugation as a means for lasting peace.
Well that's too bad. Because we needed military subjugation to end Nazism, and we needed a Berlin Wall to deal with Communism. How is radical fundamentalist Islam any different?

Until the radicals quit teaching their children that "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up" (taken from the Hamas Charter), THERE WILL BE NO PERMANENT AND LASTING PEACE.

So long as radicals teach the next generation of Arabs that Israel does not have a right to exist with any borders, under any circumstances, THERE WILL BE NO PERMANENT AND LASTING PEACE.

So long as radicals teach the next generation of Arabs that Zionism (the belief that Jews have a right to an independent homeland in some form, in line with the popular belief in national self-determination) is parallel to Nazism (this is expressed in most textbooks in the Arab world), THERE WILL BE NO PERMANENT AND LASTING PEACE.

Israel can do a lot. The United States can do a lot. And they have. But it doesn't matter how many times a Yitzhak Rabin makes overtures to Arab leaders; it doesn't matter how many times an Ehud Barak offers Arab leaders an independent Palestinian homeland. It doesn't matter how many times Bill Clinton brings Arafat to peace talks at the White House or Camp David. So long as hatred toward Israelis and Americans is taught in Arab elementary schools; so long as suicide bombing is glorified in Arab elementary schools as the greatest achievement possible; WE CAN'T DO A DARNED THING.

There is nothing fundamentally bad about Muslims or Arabs, just like there is nothing fundamentally bad about Germans or Russians. But just as we couldn't forge a permanent lasting peace with Adolph Hitler, and just as we couldn't forge a permanent lasting peace with Nikita Khrushchev, we cannot form a permanent lasting peace with Yassir Arafat, Hamas, Hezbollah, et cetera. Until the leaders of Arab society reform, and quit preaching hate, we cannot do anything. Some changes have to come from within.

Until that happens, I think a giant wall around the West Bank is the best possible solution (it would still be open to Jordan, just not Israel). End the incursions and seal the border. When Palestinian elementary schools quit indoctrinating young children to idolize suicide bombers, than we can talk about re-opening that border.

bishop1

05-04-2003, 09:49 PM

It sounds like some people on here understand and some dont. Now get me, i dont know what to do or how to stop it, but nothing will stop the suicide bombings, nothing. The Palestinians bleed hatred for Israel. Its probably something we as Americans and free people dont understand, but the second Palestinian kids are old enough to understand what their parents are saying, they hate Israel with hatred most people cant understand either. Its like they live to hate Jews, ecspecially the ones they can see and have the chance to matyr themselves with, and they hear nothing at all but how bad the Jews are, how they should sacrifce themselves for Palestine etc... and it doesnt matter what Israel does, they will think that way for generations to come. And i beleive Israel is doing the right thing, i mean, im sorry people get pissed and upset at what they do, but f*ck those people, Sharon is tasked with the responsibilty with keeping his people and his country alive, and of course he'll step on toes, but to try and continue for his country to be safe and secure, thatll happen, so they can cry about Israel's tendancy to use violence, theyre neighboors arent getting blown up in a McDonalds. And yes Israel has killed "civilians", but they dont drop a bomb in Macys do they? No, unlike the terrorist Palestinians they dont. There is a huge difference there, and some people see it, some dont.

He219

05-05-2003, 02:09 PM

Starving Studen47 wrote:

..and we needed a Berlin Wall to deal with Communism.
The way I learned history is that the Communists bult the Berlin Wall to keep the East Germans IN. However, I interpret that it was ment in context for a support of Fortifications to proect Israeli soverengty and contain Arab extremism.

bishop1:
I do understand that people on BOTH SIDES are DYING. What is the DEATH COUNT right now? I believe in recognition of Israel as a sovreign state by the Arabs to be a start for credible peace. I believe that enflamatory rhetoric spurring hate must stop for there to be peace.

To both:
Are we to be resigned to the belief that there will Not be any Lasting Peace in the Middle East until Arabs Extremism is totally subjugated?

p-)
-He219

StarvingStudent47

05-05-2003, 02:21 PM

Are we to be resigned to the belief that there will Not be any Lasting Peace in the Middle East until Arabs Extremism is totally subjugated?

You can't create a peace when one of the two parties doesn't want peaceful coexistence. It CANNOT be done. You call me a pessimist, I call myself a realist.

The overwhelming majority of Israelis want peaceful coexistence with Arab neighbors. That was always part of the bargain for Israel, regardless of whether it had 1966 borders, 1968 borders, or 2003 borders. Because no matter what, Israel was always going to be surrounded by Arab states. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of Palestinians want "peace," but they don't want peaceful COEXISTENCE. They want "peace" as in "no more Jewish state in this predominantly Arab region." Until Palestinians and the other Arab powers in the region are willing to accept peaceful COEXISTENCE with a Jewish state, we cannot build a lasting peace.

You cannot force such a deal on people who don't want it. It's just that simple.

He219

05-05-2003, 05:18 PM

StarvingStudent47 wrote:

but they don't want peaceful COEXISTENCE. They want "peace" as in "no more Jewish state in this predominantly Arab region." Until Palestinians and the other Arab powers in the region are willing to accept peaceful COEXISTENCE with a Jewish state, we cannot build a lasting peace.

I never called you a pessimist.

You tell me Palestinian consensus reflect Non-coexistence. I disagree. Un-addressed Palestinian issues only promote non-coexistence. Think Really Hard about that one before you get all hot and bothered.

What you write is true for the Extremist Palestinians. What of the Israeli Arabs and what of the Egyptian neighbor's Peace accords? Do they reflect Non-Coexistence. Would Syria not believe in Co-Existence if the Golan Heights are returned? Is Lebanon not going to talk about Co-Existence with Occupying troops removed?

I believe that Extremist Israelis Also do not want to live in co-existence with the Palestinians - by not allowing displaced Palestinians to return to the lands they once settled. Building separations does not promote co-existence.

Either your consensus of Arab populations is Extremist or Arabs are to be categorically considered Extremist.

p-)
-He219

hood

05-05-2003, 05:51 PM

The right to return for Palestinians outside the country was always a silly notion. There's so many of them, that they wouldn't fit in the lands that are in question.

StarvingStudent47

05-05-2003, 07:04 PM

Is Lebanon not going to talk about Co-Existence with Occupying troops removed?

Israel already pulled out of Lebanon. The last Israeli soldier left Lebanon in May of 2000. Do you see people in Beirut waving "coexistence with Israel" signs? Neither do I. Quite to the contrary--Hizbollah, a Lebanese terror group created "to drive Israel out of Lebanon" is still active today.

What of the Israeli Arabs and what of the Egyptian neighbor's Peace accords?
The Egyptian "peace plan" did not even ADDRESS terrorism. It said "Israel should give back all land taken in 1967 and get no concessions in return." It didn't even call for Arafat's removal from power. The Saudi "peace plan" also fails to even ADDRESS terrorism.

What of them? They're completely irrelevant if they don't even ADDRESS terrorism. That's not a "peace plan" in my book.

FallenAngel

05-05-2003, 08:24 PM

ok, I got a question for all ya.

Why doesn't president Bush, PM Blair, or even Chirac send troops in to deal with these Palestinian terrorist? I mean, we've already turn two countries over and shook them to see what kind of scum falls out. We went hunting for war criminals in the former Yugoslavia and send peacekeepers to Kosovo....and yet we won't intervene in the most blatant acts of terrorism over the past three years or so? A bomb goes off and kills a bus load of kids on the way to school, and HAMAS and the PLO argue over who's going to get the credit? C'mon....we've kicked ass in Iraq because someone there once knew a guy about ten years ago who *might* be a terrorist.

If Bush wants serious peace in the region...I hope he realizes what most of you gents are pointing out...that there CAN NOT be peace as long as Islamic extremist exist in the region. They won't leave...so there's only one solution but NO ONE outside Israel seems to grasp this concept.

The day NATO forces roll into the West Bank and start taking some f*cking names is the first REAL step towards peace in the region.

'course, that could lead to a world of hurt because that would mean going into Syria and Lebenon and Egypt.....and for some reason I don't think Islamic Arabs would like being ordered around by (predominantly) Christian NATO troops.

just my 2 cents of course.

hood

05-05-2003, 11:17 PM

Send in the women Peshmerga!

Bing

05-06-2003, 12:12 AM

the reason why we can't just send troops in is because we need to be mindful of arab needs as well. During the Nixon presidency, oil supplies were cut off from arab sources because we supported Israel during one of the wars (forgive me on not remembering). What resulted was a severe increase in oil prices and to combat it, we needed to use our own reserves (which we realized wouldn't be enough). What also happened was that the arabs realized they had a commodity that was both useful and cheap...so they changed it to both useful and more expensive. They had a say in politics because they could control the oil (sounds like DUNE lol, i digress) anyway, inflation ensued. inflation = bad...

FallenAngel

05-06-2003, 12:51 AM

he he...but now we have the oil fields of Iraq to plunder...and Kuwait owes its continued existance to us, so I doubt they would shaft us on that end.

So...with that reason gone out the window...what else is there? Isn't it in Arab interest too to eliminate these terrorist?

StarvingStudent47

05-06-2003, 01:20 AM

FallenAngel,

I have yet to see a single explanation of how Abu Sayyaf and other separatist actions in the southern Philippines is different than Hamas and the PLO's terrorism. And the United States has troops in the Philippines fighting the radicals directly.

Bing is right--the ONLY reason we haven't gotten involved militarily is Arab oil interests.

Bing,

Another DUNE fan? Awesome! Do you know if Frank Herbert meant Dune to be a parable about Israel? It seems to fit.
House Atreides=European Jewry fleeing to Israel after WWII
House Harkonnen=the Arab states
Empire=British Empire (Britain promised Palestine to both Arabs and Jews; the Emperor promised Arrakis to both Atreides and Harkonnen)
Fremen=Jewish residents of the Middle East
Fremen terraforming Dune=Israelis terraforming Israel
Imperial Sardaukar=British-trained and British-equipped Jordanian army

hood

05-06-2003, 10:18 AM

And the United States has troops in the Philippines fighting the radicals directly.

Well you're inaccurate here. There's as many as 600 SF soldiers there to train the Philippine military in counter-terrorist operations, but they're not allowed to conduct any direct combat operations. You can't do the same thing in Israel, because they're already experts in this field. Surgically killing 1-2 high ranking terrorists a week shows rather impressive proficiency.

StarvingStudent47

05-06-2003, 10:36 AM

Well you're inaccurate here. There's as many as 600 SF soldiers there to train the Philippine military in counter-terrorist operations, but they're not allowed to conduct any direct combat operations. You can't do the same thing in Israel, because they're already experts in this field. Surgically killing 1-2 high ranking terrorists a week shows rather impressive proficiency.

My bad. Thanks for the clarification.

Sulph8

05-06-2003, 11:29 AM

I think i heard somewhere that when the Arabs cut off oil supplies the US started looking into alternative energy sources, which i think scared the Arabs and they came to the conclusion that using the oil as a weapon isnt a good idea. I cant confirm this though so don't hold me to it.

hood

05-06-2003, 11:50 AM

Well, seeing that the oil supply is going to be only a fraction of what it is today, doing the alternative energy route at this point is necessary no matter what. One must ponder what the Arab countries will do then, when their primary export is gone.

He219

05-06-2003, 12:26 PM

Is Lebanon not going to talk about Co-Existence with Occupying troops removed?
StarvingStudent47:

Did I write that Occupying troops were still in Lebanon? I wrote 'with troops removed'. Read carefully. It was deliberately phrased. Some may say that the Shebaa Farms region is a part of Lebanon, an issue sure to delay future Israeli/Lebanese accords.

You stated:
Until Palestinians and the other Arab powers in the region are willing to accept peaceful COEXISTENCE with a Jewish state, we cannot build a lasting peace.

I responded with evidence recognizing co-existence:

What of the Israeli Arabs and what of the Egyptian neighbor's Peace accords? Do they reflect Non-Coexistence

Then you marginalize the qualifying statement:

What of them? They're completely irrelevant if they don't even ADDRESS terrorism. That's not a "peace plan" in my book.

You call evidence of Israeli-Arabs living in relative peace and Egyptian recognition of the Israeli State as 'irrelevant' in discussion of co-existence - because it doesn't serve your point (with respect to addressing terrorism....).

Don't marginalize Peace and Recognition of the Israeli State by Egypt. Egypt receives $2.1 billion in U.S. assistance per year for making Peace with Israel, the second largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid after Israel.

As for:
Bing is right--the ONLY reason we haven't gotten involved militarily is Arab oil interests

I believe It is the Israelis that do not want foreign troops policing over them: http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp459.htm

Start referencing historical facts to back-up your opinions or stick to quoting 'Dune'. You may be passionately pro-anything Israel, but that doesn't make me anti-Israel or ignorant as MAY choose to believe..

Hood wrote:

Surgically killing 1-2 high ranking terrorists a week shows rather impressive proficiency

Yes, indeed. The intelligence gathering mechanism employed by Israel to find these 'Fat Cats' (who motiviate kids and others to blow themselves up) is quite impressive. Launching a bomb or misslie strike that kills multiple underage bystanders (on average) does dilute their effectiveness though. As more children are killed (on both sides) - the cycle of revenge and violence continues. But I guess it is a consequence of embracing and combating terrorism; a two-edged sword.

Before you lay into me Hood, recognize that I am comparing 'effective' counter-terrorism and 'targeted killing with regular civilian colateral deaths' as having unique results. I qualify as 'effective' counter-terrorist operations and the surgical killings of terrorist bosses - without the 'additional' encitement for reprisals.

p-)
-He219

Bing

05-06-2003, 05:57 PM

lol starving student; i don't know, but you're making some good corollaries there.

If you ask me, a preemptive strike was good, but occupying the area and allowing citizens to "take root" was a big mistake. If it wasn't occupied as it is now, deals could be made much more easily because they wouldn't have to evacuate/relocate everyone.

Did Arafat have control over the terrorist organizations? And even if he tried ordering them to stop the suicide attacks, do you think they wouldn've listened? When you're a crazy religious fanatic, the only one you report to is your God and priest. And if the priest is hell bent on the attack, then i doubt there is much you can do to stop it, even if the order comes from a secular power such as Arafat.

He219, i can back up that oil claim as i've just read about it in my history textbook
" The imposed settlement of the Yom Kippur War demonstrated the growing dependence of the United States and its allies on Arab oil. Permitting Israel to continue its drive into Egypt might have jeoparized the ability of the United States to purchase needed petroleum from the Arab states. A brief but painful embargo by the Arab governments on the sale of oil to supporters of Israel (including America) in 1973 provided an ominous warning of the costs of losing access to the region's resources. The lesson of the Yom Kippur War, therefore, was that the United States could not ignore the interests of the Arab nations in its efforts on behalf of Israel." (pg 1092)
American History A survey tenth edition, Brinkley, Alan
McGraw-Hill copyright 1999

(eh...i know i didn't cite that correctly....so plz forgive me :))

FallenAngel

05-06-2003, 06:23 PM

Did Arafat have control over the terrorist organizations?

....isn't Arafat the one who started the PLO? He's affiliated with starting one of those terrorist groups, and he claims they don't listen to him, although we have never really seen him try real hard at stopping them.

papabear

05-06-2003, 06:35 PM

FallenAngel,
Bing,

Another DUNE fan? Awesome! Do you know if Frank Herbert meant Dune to be a parable about Israel? It seems to fit.
House Atreides=European Jewry fleeing to Israel after WWII
House Harkonnen=the Arab states
Empire=British Empire (Britain promised Palestine to both Arabs and Jews; the Emperor promised Arrakis to both Atreides and Harkonnen)
Fremen=Jewish residents of the Middle East
Fremen terraforming Dune=Israelis terraforming Israel
Imperial Sardaukar=British-trained and British-equipped Jordanian army

The parallel might work; but what do you do then with the fact that Herbert explicitly based the Fremen on Muslim Arabs?

See also Herbert's explanation of how the novel arose: http://www.dunenovels.com/news/genesis.html

cut

05-06-2003, 07:46 PM

Israel should go back to the 1967 borders that's all that is asked of them in syria and without backing from such countries hamas and other such organisations would stop being regarded as freedom fighters and more as terrorists by the rest of the civilised arab world. A palestinian state would still have tensions with israel but it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as it is now... also if the palestians had a state then war between the nations would be "fairer".

StarvingStudent47

05-06-2003, 09:25 PM

The parallel might work; but what do you do then with the fact that Herbert explicitly based the Fremen on Muslim Arabs?

See also Herbert's explanation of how the novel arose: http://www.dunenovels.com/news/genesis.html

Very interesting! I was not aware of that.

(FWIW, though the Fremen might be Muslim Arabs, it seems to be Herbert writing about Arab conflict with "the West" as well as internal corruption, not Arab conflict with Israel.)

StarvingStudent47

05-06-2003, 09:25 PM

Bing

05-06-2003, 10:55 PM

FallenAngel

05-07-2003, 12:34 AM

UN resolutions? After the boch-job they did with Iraq? 18 plus resolutions and no action. I doubt anyone (especially Arab terrorist) are going to listen to the UN. I mean....they don't listen to the IDF who's driving around in a Merkava :)

Sulph8

05-07-2003, 01:23 AM

Haha the UN! What a joke! Their supposed 'peace keepers' on the Lebanese border literally watch and do ntohing when terrorists cut through the fence and kill civilians. Then when Israel retaliates, suddenly theres all these bull**** resolutions that manifest themselves!
Some of you might have heard about the three soldiers that got kidnapped by Hizballah a while ago while patrolling the border. Well the UN not only watched the whole thing happen, but they taped it as well! But when asked by Israel if they had a tape, they said "no". Later they were forced to admit that they had the tape, but then they wouldent hand it over! Finally, under immense pressure they agreed to hand it over on condition the terrorists faces and identities be blocked out!! And guess what, theres more! How did the terrorists kidnap the soldiers you ask?
They used UN vehicles und uniforms to lure the soldiers over!!!

The UN is a sham!. When have they actually solved any conflicts? And im not talking about coming in after a conflict is already over and asserting themselves. When have they solved anything?!

cut

05-07-2003, 07:48 AM

The UN is a sham!. When have they actually solved any conflicts? And im not talking about coming in after a conflict is already over and asserting themselves. When have they solved anything?!

What are you talking about? The UN has prevented hundreds of conflicts.
The UN is heavily biased towards the US, which pretty much funds it.
Ask any third world country.

The only reason you people want to ban it is because you know that war is unlikely to come to the US but there are many countries around the world that depend on the UN.

The US needs the UN to ligitimise it's conquests, albeit unfairly.

StarvingStudent47

05-07-2003, 10:36 AM

thanks for clearing that up FallenAngel, Middle Eastern history isn't my forte. But i still contest that even if Arafat had made a significant effort to try and stop them, the attacks would've continued despite his order because the radicals would still want to get rid of the Israelis, except now their leader would've backstabbed them.
This isn't just a question of him not being able to STOP terrorists. The January twin bombings in Tel Aviv that killed 22 civilians were carried out by members of Afarat's OWN ORGANIZATION, Fatah.

anyone think any new UN resolutions would have any effect?
Do you really think that a UN resolution is going to stop Hamas from blowing up a bus full of children?

StarvingStudent47

05-07-2003, 10:39 AM

The UN is heavily biased towards the US...The US needs the UN to ligitimise it's conquests, albeit unfairly.
If the UN is such a tool of the US, and we need it so badly, then why did the UN refuse to endorse either the Kosovo campaign or the Iraq campaign? And why were we able to go in each time and conduct said campaigns without UN approval?

The vote of the security council is not determined by funding. It's a fixed number of seats. Actually, the Security Council gives disproportionate power to small countries (like France, who have a fixed seat) and countries that have never really helped the UN out (like Russia and China, which have fixed seats).

hood

05-07-2003, 10:49 AM

Sulph8

05-07-2003, 11:20 AM

Israel has said it would allow a force of that kind on the condition that it is an American force and not UN, EU or any of the other anti-Israel biased organizations.

cut

05-07-2003, 12:56 PM

The only way to truly stop terrorists, is to remove their ability to carry out terrorist acts. This includes 2 main factors. First, completely remove their sources for funding. No money, no weapons. Second, make the consequences of carrying out terrorist acts so horrible that they don't want to do it anymore. What I think needs to happen, is some kind of UN backed peace organization needs to go into the Palestinian territories, and rebuild the place. Build schools and take away all the things that Hamas is doing for the people now. If they start seeing Hamas as the terrorist organization that it is, and not a helper of the people, then it'll crumble from the inside. These kids who are doing the suicide bombings feel they have nothing to lose by doing it. They need to be given an alternative.

Those are all good ideas but the fact is they would never work because palestinians feel cheated and so the countries around israel you would have to take over those arab countries too to stop them funding terrorists.

If you can't stop rich benfactors to the IRA in New York, how the hell is it going to happen in the middle east.

the simplest answer moving back to the 1967 borders

cut

05-07-2003, 12:57 PM

Israel has said it would allow a force of that kind on the condition that it is an American force and not UN, EU or any of the other anti-Israel biased organizations.

if the EU or the UN is anti-israel biased there is something very wrong with israel.

StarvingStudent47

05-07-2003, 03:13 PM

the simplest answer moving back to the 1967 borders

I asked before and I'll ask again--what's so special about 1967 borders? It didn't satisfy Arab extremists or Arab populations in 1966. Why would it suddenly solve things today?

cut

05-07-2003, 04:06 PM

it would satisfy them now if they can get peace.

He219

05-07-2003, 07:47 PM

Cut, please elaborate:
if the EU or the UN is anti-israel biased there is something very wrong with israel.

Yes, withdrawing from occupied territories is a HUGE confidence building measure. But I don't think that it will happen soon. Making peace with Lebanon and Syria is a start. US pressure on those states to stop funding and supporting the destruction of Israel is currently in progress.

p-)
-He219

cut

05-07-2003, 08:06 PM

well sulphate reffered to the EU and the UN as anti-israel biased organisations. I do not belive that be the case, but if it was, there would be good reason for this. also UN and or UN troops would be more welcome by the arab world. not because they are biased towards arabs but because the US is seen by most of the world as having a special relationship with israel. Which it does, no-one can deny the afinity between the US and israel. unfortunately this means the US is more likely to be biased than, say, the EU.
US troops can make a difference for the better in most of the world. But putting US troops in israel/palestine as israel suggest (according to Sulph8) is on place that it would cause more problems then not.

If there is a good side to the likes of france and germany defying the US is that they will (along with the EU perhaps) be able to put pressure on israel to counterbalance the pressure the US is putting on Syria and Lebannon at the moment. perhaps relieving the US of it's overstreched policing duties.

FallenAngel

05-08-2003, 12:24 AM

Sulph8

05-08-2003, 01:10 AM

"Israel is the only UN member not permitted to stand for election to the full range of UN bodies. So while membership of the UN Human Rights Commission now includes Cuba, Libya, Sudan and Syria -- four of the seven states designated as state sponsors of international terrorism by the U.S. State Department -- Israel cannot even be a candidate."

- Anne Bayefsky, The Globe and Mail

cut

05-08-2003, 07:27 AM

Cut....I dont think you understand the problem here. Its not Israel's occupation of the West Bank that angers HAMAS, the PLO, etc...it's the EXSITANCE of Israel. They've stated and demonstrated time and again that they just dont want the west bank...they want ALL of Israel. Arafat was offered the West Bank as his own at LEAST twice...but that wasn't enough for them.

it may not be enough for the palestinians but it would be a significant gesture towards syria (which is after all bankrolling and supplying the terrorists), it would also give credibiliy to israel. Because outside the US israel is seen as the country with a Government which is acting like a terrorist organisation.

Simply moving back to the 1967 borders won't do anything, because as I and others have pointed out, they've already TRIED that and it won't make one bit a difference. when you say they have already tried it what are you refferring to?
You are probably right if they had tried it already, but Syria (which is really important to this in my opinion) has said that it would satisfy them. If it doesn't then the international community can say that they are in the wrong. At the moment both sides are doing wrong

Also, what the other's have said about the UN in this conflict is true....it's biased (intended or not) against Israel. There is much sympathy for your every-day Palestinian which in my opinion may be appropriate...it's just they look the other way when a Palestinian kills a bus full of kids. So, for all intents and purposes, the UN (and the EU) are completely and utterly irrelevant as far as the conflict goes. (Humanitarian aide, such as what Hood suggested, is a different story.)

How does it look the other way? The UN would never ignore an attack on israel. To me that is just a response to the press in the rest of the world that the US only sees the attacks on israel and counts the palestinians killed as ALL terrorists or justifiably killed in an act of war.

Also, this may sound stupid, but many people think this- I think Germany putting ANY pressure on Israel is a BAD move because many simply cannot forget the past. Now, if Germany were among those willing to send peace-keepers to the region....could you imagine the good will that would show- especially to those people who DON'T forget the past?
Germany is not a nazi nation! However there is truth in what you are saying. BUT the german government feels uncomfortable talking about israel, other countries have no right saying they shouldn't go there.

I said the EU and that doesn't mean german troops have to take part.
but american troops are to arabs what german troops are to jews.
Iknow this might sound harsh, but it's true, because that is the way arabs feel.. and germany is completely different now and americans should just let them get on with it instead of reffering back to WWII all the time.

In short....it's pretty much agreed that this conflict is not going to end peacefully....both sides can NOT coexist until these extremist are gone, and there's only one way to get rid of them. THe only question is who is going to help out. The US and Britain (Canada, Australia and NZ probably too) would support Israel. France has no oil interests, so I doubt they would care. I mentioned Germany already. Spain and Italy are a toss-up.
in my opinion these countries INCLUDING germany should take part within a european union contingent

But, you see my point. Either Israel is going to exterminate these terrorist with or without our help. It's a shame it's got to be that way though.
they've failed in doing that for about 140 years.
The way israel or the US get rid of terrorists is by killing them all and maybe there families or friends (colateral). The thing is more and more terrorists are going to appear that way. The way to do it is to retaliate with diplomacy not revenge attacks.
israel is more at fault here because they are a responsible government lawless killers. They should take the moral high ground.
israel doing diplomacy with syria, ie handing back there lands (ghost towns at the moment), is the best way to pull out support for the terrorists in the arab world..

sulph8:

"Israel is the only UN member not permitted to stand for election to the full range of UN bodies. So while membership of the UN Human Rights Commission now includes Cuba, Libya, Sudan and Syria -- four of the seven states designated as state sponsors of international terrorism by the U.S. State Department -- Israel cannot even be a candidate."

- Anne Bayefsky, The Globe and Mail

if palestine had its own state then it also wouldnt have that right.

the US is also a member of the UN human rights Commision and yet they sponsered terrorist in many countries INCLUDING THEIR ALLIE'S, Britain wasted millions if not billions dealing with the IRA terrorist threat sponsered by wealthy benefactors in the US. It also claims that it's prisoners of war from afghanistan are devoid of the Geneva convention because they are terrorists. They are but it doesn't mean you should take advantage of that fact, they are still human.
The US has also sponsered terrorist all over the world including bin laden's mujahadeen.

Now I know this is all nothing compared to Cuba, Syria, Sudan and Lybia, but is it really that different? I think the reason israel is not permitted to go up for election of the full range of UN bodies is because other countries in there situation are suspended from the UN.

I would aslo like to know exactly which one(s) they are banned from, it might not be as bad as it sounds after all.

StarvingStudent47

05-08-2003, 01:02 PM

Cut, you seem to be operating on several misconceptions.

How does it look the other way? The UN would never ignore an attack on israel.
In 1973, when Arab armies crossed into Israel suddenly and without provocation (starting the Yom Kippur War), the United Nations issued NO statements. NO condemnations. (However, when Israel successfully counter-attacked and advanced into Arab territory, the UN forced a cease-fire, condemning so-called Israeli aggression--and you wonder why some people here say that the UN is biased against Israel?).

when you say they have already tried it what are you refferring to?
Probably to Barak's offer of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank in 2000, or perhaps to Rabin's granting of self-rule to the Palestinian Authority in 1992? 1993?

Or maybe, like me, he is reminding you that "pre-1967 borders" didn't satisfy Syria before 1967. Syria and Egypt were the two largest Arab armies to mass on Israel's borders, sparking the 1967 war.

The way israel or the US get rid of terrorists is by killing them all and maybe there families or friends (colateral). The thing is more and more terrorists are going to appear that way. The way to do it is to retaliate with diplomacy not revenge attacks.
israel is more at fault here because they are a responsible government lawless killers. They should take the moral high ground.
israel doing diplomacy with syria, ie handing back there lands (ghost towns at the moment), is the best way to pull out support for the terrorists in the arab world..
For once I'll agree with you. Israel is morally equivalent to the United States. Take that as you will :D

I think the reason israel is not permitted to go up for election of the full range of UN bodies is because other countries in there situation are suspended from the UN.
Ahhh...no. China annexed Tibet without provocation. Tibetans didn't commit terrorism or anything like that; China just rolled in one day. Yet not only is China in the United Nations, it has a fixed seat in the Security Council, making it one of the most wealthy nations. Russia, whose war in Chechnya makes the worst Israeli incursion look like child's play, is another full UN member with a guaranteed seat on the Security Council. Countries are NOT barred from the UN because of their foreign policies.

cut

05-08-2003, 01:40 PM

In 1973, when Arab armies crossed into Israel suddenly and without provocation (starting the Yom Kippur War), the United Nations issued NO statements. NO condemnations. (However, when Israel successfully counter-attacked and advanced into Arab territory, the UN forced a cease-fire, condemning so-called Israeli aggression--and you wonder why some people here say that the UN is biased against Israel?).
I don't know why that was I wasn't arround in 73. but that was 30 years ago now, and times change I'm telling you the UN is definately not biased towards palestine now, and to the best of my knowledge is not biased against israel.

Or maybe, like me, he is reminding you that "pre-1967 borders" didn't satisfy Syria before 1967. Syria and Egypt were the two largest Arab armies to mass on Israel's borders, sparking the 1967 war

as I said already Syria HAS said RECENTLY that they would take kindly that moving back to the pre-1967 borders. That is enough to make it the best diplomatic solution to getting rid of terrorism. it is by no means the be all and end all, but it's the start that is required and the only likely one although that is deminishing with the amount of threats the DoD is throwing at them. War is not the answer in israel (unless of course the west invaded israel and kicked out both the jews and the muslims and renamed it Christendom. **** their holy land, IT's OURS :D )

For once I'll agree with you. Israel is morally equivalent to the United States. Take that as you will
agreed. Do you admire israel's morals?

Ahhh...no. China annexed Tibet without provocation. Tibetans didn't commit terrorism or anything like that; China just rolled in one day. Yet not only is China in the United Nations, it has a fixed seat in the Security Council, making it one of the most wealthy nations. Russia, whose war in Chechnya makes the worst Israeli incursion look like child's play, is another full UN member with a guaranteed seat on the Security Council. Countries are NOT barred from the UN because of their foreign policies.
and the US went into vietnam unprovoked. but the US, China and Russia (less so now) need to be in the security council, otherwise young americans and chinese would no doubt be killing each other now. Sometimes you have to make allowences like that. and considering the UN is mostly paid for by the US that is VERY admirable. You can't upho;d the law the whole time theres just to much to do. and frankly in the name of peace between powers I'm happy to do that.

FallenAngel

05-08-2003, 03:55 PM

War is not the answer in israel (unless of course the west invaded israel and kicked out both the jews and the muslims and renamed it Christendom. f*** their holy land, IT's OURS :D )

OK....I will admit I laughed at that. THANK GOD (Allah, Yaweh, etc.) that ISN'T the case otherwise Israel would be a smoking creater by now :D

and the US went into vietnam unprovoked.

Actually, the US was asked by the S. Vietnamese people to help them defend from a cummunist invasion from the north, similar to what happened in Korea. It just so happens this was right up our Forgien Policy Alley concerning the spread of communism.

Also, mad props to Student for backing me up....I should really include dates and places for these people shouldn't I? :lol:

He219

05-08-2003, 04:21 PM

StarvingStudent47: Again I read how you like to term Arab attack against Israel as Unprovoked. Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israel in October 1973 to regain territories they lost in the Six Day War of 1967.

A surprise attack and an unprovoked attack are two relative issues. The Japanese attacked on Pearl Harbor is consitered a Surprise Attack. A pre-emptive strike against the US - due to percieved provocation by the US with fuel and economic embargoes imposed upon it in retaliation for the Manturian campaign. Was it entirely a surprise?

Arab neighbors attack the formation of Israel at it's inception in a defensive posture. Palestinian refugees were pushed into neighboring Arab countries. The formation of the Israeli State was percieved as a provocation to neighboring Arab states in this Arab region. Was that entirely a surprise? Was it in defense of a perceived injustice forced upon them? Was there no provocation when Arabs were forced to leave?

No Arab state had made peace with Israel, and in 1967, events conspired to bring war between Israel and its neighbors -- Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. The Israelis attacked Egypt first, on June 5, 1967, in what most historians say was a defensive move. In the spring of that year, the Soviet Union had led the radical government in Damascus to believe that Israel was planning to invade Syria. Syria shared this misinformation with Nasser. http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/history/

To use the term Unprovoked is an attempted indemnification of Israeli policy toward it's neighbors and the Palestinians. The Arab neighbors' continuted mistrust of Israel stems from continued occupation. Israel had seized Gaza from Egypt, the West Bank and all of Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. It also occupies the Shebaa Farms in South Lebanon. And you wonder why the Arabs are supporting civil unrest in the Occupied Territories?

If you want to use the unprovoked argument, then give merit to the Euo's argument that Iraq was attacked without provocation. But that would be a bit too simplistic. To make peace it will take two parties negotiating peace. Making peace with Arab neighbors is a start.

p-)
-He219

cut

05-08-2003, 05:09 PM

Actually, the US was asked by the S. Vietnamese people to help them defend from a cummunist invasion from the north, similar to what happened in Korea. It just so happens this was right up our Forgien Policy Alley concerning the spread of communism.

still wasn't really the american governments war. and korea was diferenet because it was under american jurisdiction being a japanese colony at the time (to the best of my knowledge)

FallenAngel

05-08-2003, 05:25 PM

Korea was conquered by Japan when they invaded Manchuria....they didn't exactly go peacefully.

Interesting note...Koreans were some of the first POWs taken by allied forces on D-day...why you ask? Here's why.

Japan invades and eventually conquers Manchuria...this included Korea at the time and the Japanese used Korean soldiers to fight against the Russians. The Russians took them prisoner and then forced them to fight against the Germans. The Germans then took them prisoner and sent them to France to man the Atlantic Wall defenses. When the allied soldiers came ashore, they were taken prisoner for a 4th time.

Anywho...back to the issue....no, Korea was NOT a Japanese colony...so there goes that point. Although I do agree to s certain extent with what you said. I think what we today call "peacekeepers" would have been better than "invading" vietnam...only we didn't have too many "peacekeepers" around in the '60s.

and to He129...I am not saying I disagree or agree with what you're saying, I am just going to say there is a flaw against what you're thinking of. You speak of political and military provocation...but what about spiritual? To some Jews, the Arabs kicked them out of land promised to them by God oh-so-long ago (Bible/Torah....book of Exodus when Moses leads the slaves out of Egypt.) and now they are simply "re-claiming" what was theirs for centuries before Jesus -OR- Mohammed. It's theirs because God said so and they will have it come hell or highwater. Someone could take your arguement and go back to the beginning of time with it and it could go either way. :D

He219

05-08-2003, 05:35 PM

I didn't even want to bring up 'the chosen one' argument. It is this fundamental view of inequality that lies at the root.

p-)
-He219

papabear

05-09-2003, 01:10 AM

http://www.amconmag.com/05_05_03/feature.html

cut

05-15-2003, 08:50 AM

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/ALLPOLITICS/analysis/toons/2003/05/13/mitchell/12a.gif

sums it up nicely

Sulph8

05-15-2003, 09:06 AM

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/030508/arial.gif

More accurate

StarvingStudent47

05-15-2003, 03:42 PM

Nice comic Sulph8... I saved that one.

FallenAngel

05-15-2003, 05:55 PM

some more...

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/politicalcartoons/pccartoons/archives/wright.asp?Action=GetImage

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/politicalcartoons/pccartoons/archives/koterba.asp?Action=GetImage

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/politicalcartoons/pccartoons/archives/greenberg.asp?Action=GetImage

enjoy :)

martinexsquaddie

05-16-2003, 12:33 PM

arrafats interfadia plans seems to have been the most idiotic miltary plan since Haigs plan for WW1 to keep fighting until everyone is dead until only mr and mrs haig and there pet tortoise cedric is left alive.

Unfortunatly the IDF is using Tactics that we could only dream of using in Ulster. Niether side can win this one the Pally miltants don't care about living there suicide bombers what are you going to do kill me:)
The IDf continue to threaten to use more force whats next rabid tigers asteroids?
The Palenstian police force is to afraid to go out in uniform or carry weapons for fear of being targeted by the idf yet are supposed to stop Hamas.
every time you kill a terrorist you incite someone to take up the battle thats why the sas arrested the IRA sniper team rather than putting 30 or so richly deserved bullets in the scum.
Question there isn't a democratic state bordering Israel is there.
The palenstian authority is a one party state with a poor human rights record and accused of being corrupt as well

budanski

05-20-2003, 10:03 AM

Euro-Muslims and Franco-Islamicization-The consequences of modern Europe leaving the back door open

Frontpage.com (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7918)

What's behind Europe's and especially France's weird behavior, opposing the United States and Britain, and siding with Iraq and the Arab world before the war? What's behind Europe's full tilt toward the Palestinians? France, as opposed to the over 40 other countries - what President Bush called 'the coalition' - did everything it could to stop the US disarming Iraq of its Weapons of Mass Destruction and it's liberation from Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. They've also been Europe's stalwart supporter of 'Palestine' even before Britain's Tony Blair climbed aboard.

The simple explanation is that France used the Iraq war issue in an attempt to regain its glory days of being an international power broker. France, Germany, and others in Europe see the European Union as a potential counter-balance to America, the sole superpower. It also conveniently deflected attention in France from the prolonged economic downturn there. Jacques Chirac had been blaming the fear of war for weak investment and consumption, hiding his lack of a policy to stimulate growth. I wonder what he's going to blame now? Then there's all the economic interests France and other Europeans had in Iraq, and have in the Arab world, not least, weapons sales in violation of UN sanctions. Maybe they simply didn't want America to find that out. Makes sense, sort of?

But this is the simple way of looking at the situation. Such a serious issue cannot be resolved with such a superficial analysis as this. One must dig deeper to uncover the underlying reason. Penetrating analysis must be employed to view the larger implications of the problem. Only a more holistic view of the pathology will help in curing the disease. Nursing France and others in Europe back to health - by encouraging them in the rejection of support for 'Rogue States' like Iraq, Iran, and Syria - can help return them to the family of sane and peace loving nations.

During the late Cold War period, many spoke of the Finlandization of Europe. Finland, neighbor of the former Soviet Union, fearful of occupation as the Baltic States of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania were after World War II, was effectively neutralized. In return for their 'freedom' they took a neutral political line during the post-war superpower rivalry. By the 1970's, many felt that this process was expanding to other parts of Europe. Although technically part of the Western Alliance - NATO - there was great pressure on European governments from some of its citizens to take a more neutral position between the US and USSR. This fear of being on the front lines, leading to near identification with the enemy, a sort of 'Stockholm Syndrome' - the identification of a victim with their terrorist capture - on a national scale, concerned American policy makers and their more stalwart allies. Was Western Europe going to be neutralized like Finland?

This is exactly what is happening today with France in particular and other parts of Europe more generally. With more than 15 million Arabs and Muslims in Europe today, and at least 5-6 million of them in France alone - about 10% of the population, some say as much as 20% - actively building mosques and missionizing Europeans; with one eye focused on trade with the Arab-Islamic world, and another greedily eyeing the oil supply, France and others in Europe are succumbing to creeping Islamicization.

Europe, for the most part, post-Christian, has a spiritual vacuum to fill. Unlike America, a country founded on the principle of 'Freedom of Religion' not 'Freedom from Religion'; European political modernization - the rise of secular democratic states - was a direct consequence of the rejection of the Church, and the divine right of kings. Following the Protestant Reformation, the end of monarchy and the rise of the modern nation-state, secularization of society has led to this weakness in the spiritual immune system of Europe.

America was founded by religious and political renegades who constructed a system that both separated religion from state, and allowed it to flourish independent of state support. Modern Europe in contrast, largely revolting from state supported churches, has left the back door open to this Islamic tidal wave, carried initially by its new immigrants from North Africa, Turkey, the Middle East, and Asia.

But today, it's largely being sponsored by Saudi Arabia and Iran - the dual axis - of spreading the 'gospel' of Islam throughout Europe. Not so dissimilar from the role of the Left, Euro-Communists, and Greens, in Europe's not so distant past, Euro-Muslims are spreading the 'Truth' of Islam. But, it's not just 'Islam'. It's a revolutionary, highly political and missionary Islam, whether Wahabbiist or of the Khomeini variety. Jihadist Islam is exerting its influence in Europe, and on European foreign policy - note their strong shift towards the Palestinian cause - even minimizing the moral outrage of suicide bombings in Israel lately. There also has been a rapid rise in the number of anti-Semitic attacks in the last few years. Islamic agitation against Israel and its supporters, including Jews, has helped cause this. Stockholm Syndrome - on a national scale - is beginning to grip parts of Europe. Combined fear of terrorism at home, the consequences of war, cultural confusion, and the fifth column of Islamists within, is leading France, Germany, and others in Europe inextricably toward neutrality and FRANCO-ISLAMICIZATION.

Whether France or other European states 'convert' to Islam officially is of little practical consequence, although it's true that people in Europe are converting in droves. Euro-Muslims and their fellow travelers are already winning. Franco-Islamicization; the neutralization of Europe in the War on Terror and its latest focus Iraq; the turning of European foreign policy fully toward the Palestinians; rising anti-Americanism in general and the infection of the European body politic in a morally debilitating way, is taking place slowly, almost imperceptively, yet taking place nonetheless.

Let's get things straight. The 'War on Terror' as stated by the Bush administration, is against a political behavior - terrorism - rejected by western democratic civilization, and some Asian countries with Islamic majorities might come aboard, fancying themselves evolving democracies. But, wherever Muslims live, they are susceptible to the plague of Jihadist Islam. Take note of the recent suicide bombing in Tel-Aviv, in April 2003; two British-born Muslims came to Israel to 'help' the Palestinian cause by blowing-up. Security officials in Israel have expressed concern that this is only the beginning of a new phenomenon - European terrorist volunteers.

Islam started as an Arab imperialist movement, and at its core aspires to WORLD DOMINATION. Unlike the Judeo-Christian created western democratic paradigm - live and let live - Jihadist Islam like the 'old time religion' Communism, is TOTALITARIAN & MISSIONARY in nature.

The term 'War on Terror' is an attempt to define the problem in the narrowest possible way, to ignore the cultural or religious implications of the issue. But until the equivalent of an Islamic Reformation takes place -and a dominant peaceful version of Islam emerges - ready to live with the rest of the world, discussion of democracy and tolerance in the Arab-Islamic world will prove fruitless. Don't forget that these Islamic radicals are generally supported financially and otherwise, in their communities, whether in Europe, America, or elsewhere.

Analyzing the problem of terror on the individual or small group level, such as by al-Qaida, or even state supported, such as by Iran, Iraq, Syria, or in the Palestinian Authority, but deliberately ignoring the civilizational aspects of the present conflict with the Islamic world, reduces the discussion, to an analogous rejection of a commune here or there during the Cold War. But a conflict of two world-views existed between the US & USSR, each with competing systems of economic, social, and political organization; it wasn't a fight over a commune or two.

The 'War on Terror' unless used as a code word for civilizational conflict, confuses and disarms the western democratic public. Psychologically unprepared for this war, western societies, as evidenced by the 'Anti-War Movement', strongest in Europe - aside from Saddam's natural allies, Islamic societies - but also pushed by Leftist forces in America, are slipping into FRANCO-ISLAMICIZATION.

American leadership under President Bush and Secretary of State Powell, with the best of intensions, has missed the point. Functioning on the individualist paradigm of democracy and not wanting a direct conflict with its allies in Europe and the Arab states, have by default contributed to the confusion. Israel's leaders, dealing with Palestinian Islamic terror - suicide bombings and the like - aren't far behind. Blaming 'terrorists' as individuals, rather than seeing it in civilizational terms - that they are supported by their societies - leads nowhere. Without recognition of the symptoms, without understanding the method of transmission, and without proper diagnosis of the disease, its cure is next to impossible.

The symptom is FRANCO-ISLAMICIZATION. The method of transmission is EURO-MUSLIMS AND THEIR FELLOW TRAVELERS. The disease is JIHADIST ISLAM. Israel and the West need to recognize this. If a cure isn't found soon, we'll all be awakening to the call of the Muezzin - Islamic prayer call blasting out of Mosques.