Chickpea, Bob
- Thread starter 6thGen
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Beyond tragic is all I can think of to say right now - the situation in my eyes is absolutely heartbreaking. I have no idea if the threats being lobbied around to abandon Gaza and turn it over to the terrorists hands of Hamas is seriously being debated- but to even consider such a fate would be dooming hundreds and thousands of Palestinians to an uncertain and scary future. Hamas is still the most radical of organizations, capable of inciting and propagating violent acts of terror and still absolute in their resolve that Israel should not exist - and they show no signs of weakening their resolute stand. The events over the past week have probably shattered whatever hope many many people had for a peaceful and united Palestine.
Fatah has always been more moderate and accepting of Israel and would probably like to see a number of UN resolutions that have passed actually implemented (such as the disassembly (is this a word???) of settlements but with the meagre support Abbas has received, especially from the US- it is unlikely that they are able to assert much power and influence. And after the US all but abandoned Abbas, it is so (struggling to find the right wor here...) disingenious to see Condoleeza Rice NOW try to curry favor by stating her support of Abbas and his democratic government. But maybe something good can come of this if the West can help.... this is so despairing and the whole area is sorely lacking in any sort of enlightened, moderate leader.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010219
Arafat's Children
Gaza's mayhem is the bitter fruit of terror as statecraft.
Saturday, June 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Scores of Palestinians were killed this week in Gaza in factional fighting between loyalists of President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah and those of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas. As if on cue, it took about 24 hours before pundits the world over blamed the violence on Israel and President Bush.
This is the Israel that dismantled its settlements in Gaza in August 2005, a unilateral concession for which it asked, and got, nothing in return. And it is the U.S. President who, in a landmark speech five years ago this month, called on Palestinians to "elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror." Had Palestinians done so, they could be living today in a peaceful, independent state. Instead, in January 2006 they freely handed the reins of government to Hamas in parliamentary elections. What is happening today is the result of that choice--their choice.
That election didn't simply emerge from a vacuum, however. It is a consequence of the cult of violence that has typified the Palestinian movement for much of its history and which has been tolerated and often celebrated by the international community. If Palestinians now think they can advance their domestic interests by violence, nobody should be surprised: The way of the gun has been paying dividends for 40 years.
In 1972 Palestinian terrorists murdered Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. Yet only two years later Yasser Arafat addressed the U.N.'s General Assembly--the first non-government official so honored. In 1970 Arafat attempted to overthrow Jordan's King Hussein and tried to do the same a few years later in Lebanon. Yet in 1980, the European Community, in its Venice Declaration, recognized Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization as a legitimate negotiating partner.
In 1973, the National Security Agency recorded Arafat's telephoned instructions to PLO terrorists to murder Cleo Noel, the U.S. ambassador in Sudan, and his deputy George Curtis Moore. Yet in 1993, Arafat was welcomed in the White House for the signing of the Oslo Accords with Israel. That same year, the British National Criminal Intelligence Service reported that the PLO made its money from "extortion, payoffs, illegal arms-dealing, drug trafficking, money laundering and fraud." Yet over the next several years, the Palestinian Authority would become the largest single recipient of foreign aid on a per capita basis.
In 1996, after he had formally renounced terrorism in the Oslo Accords, Arafat told a rally in Gaza that "we are committed to all martyrs who died for the cause of Jerusalem starting with Ahmed Musa until the last martyr Yihye Ayyash"--Musa being the first PLO terrorist to be killed in 1965 and Ayyash being the Hamas mastermind of a series of suicide bombings in which scores of Israeli civilians were killed. Yet the Clinton Administration continued to pretend that Arafat was an ally in the fight against Hamas. In 2000, Arafat rejected an Israeli offer of statehood midwifed by President Clinton and instead initiated the bloody intifada that left 1,000 Israelis and 3,000 Palestinians dead.
In 2005, only months after Arafat's death, Israel dismantled its settlements and withdrew its forces from the Gaza Strip. Palestinians have used the opportunity to intensify their rocket fire at civilian targets within Israel. Last month, Israeli security services arrested two Gazan women, one of them pregnant, who were planning to enter Israel on medical pretexts in order to carry out suicide attacks. Yet the same month, the World Bank issued a report faulting Israel for restricting Palestinian freedom of movement.
Now it appears Hamas has taken control of the Gaza Strip's main road and its border with Egypt, as well as the offices of the so-called Preventive Security Services, traditionally a Fatah stronghold. "They are executing them one by one," a witness told the Associated Press of Hamas's reprisals against the Preventive Security personnel.
We do not pretend to know where all this will lead. On Thursday, Mr. Abbas dissolved the government and declared a state of emergency, though he seems powerless to change the course of events in Gaza. Israel could conceivably intervene, as could Egypt, and both states have powerful reasons to prevent the emergence of a Hamastan with close links to Iran hard on their borders. But neither do they wish to become stuck in the Strip's bottomless factionalism and fanaticism.
At the same time, pressure will surely mount on Israel and the U.S. to accept Hamas's ascendancy and begin negotiations with its leaders. According to this reasoning, the Bush Administration cannot demand democracy of the Palestinians and then refuse to recognize the results of a democratic election.
But leave aside the fact that Mr. Bush did not simply call for an election: Is it wise to negotiate with a group that kills its fellow Palestinians almost as freely as it does Israelis? And what would there be to negotiate about? The best-case scenario--a suspension of hostilities in exchange for renewed international funding--would simply give Hamas time and money to consolidate its rule and rebuild an arsenal for future terror assaults. Then, too, the last thing the Palestinians need is yet further validation from the wider world that the violence they now inflict so indiscriminately works.
The deeper lesson here is that a society that has spent the last decade celebrating suicide bombing would inevitably become a victim of its own nihilistic impulses. This is not the result of Mr. Bush's call for democratic responsibility; it is the bitter fruit of the decades of dictatorship and terrorism as statecraft that Yasser Arafat instilled among Palestinians.
Arafat's Children
Gaza's mayhem is the bitter fruit of terror as statecraft.
Saturday, June 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Scores of Palestinians were killed this week in Gaza in factional fighting between loyalists of President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah and those of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas. As if on cue, it took about 24 hours before pundits the world over blamed the violence on Israel and President Bush.
This is the Israel that dismantled its settlements in Gaza in August 2005, a unilateral concession for which it asked, and got, nothing in return. And it is the U.S. President who, in a landmark speech five years ago this month, called on Palestinians to "elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror." Had Palestinians done so, they could be living today in a peaceful, independent state. Instead, in January 2006 they freely handed the reins of government to Hamas in parliamentary elections. What is happening today is the result of that choice--their choice.
That election didn't simply emerge from a vacuum, however. It is a consequence of the cult of violence that has typified the Palestinian movement for much of its history and which has been tolerated and often celebrated by the international community. If Palestinians now think they can advance their domestic interests by violence, nobody should be surprised: The way of the gun has been paying dividends for 40 years.
In 1972 Palestinian terrorists murdered Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. Yet only two years later Yasser Arafat addressed the U.N.'s General Assembly--the first non-government official so honored. In 1970 Arafat attempted to overthrow Jordan's King Hussein and tried to do the same a few years later in Lebanon. Yet in 1980, the European Community, in its Venice Declaration, recognized Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization as a legitimate negotiating partner.
In 1973, the National Security Agency recorded Arafat's telephoned instructions to PLO terrorists to murder Cleo Noel, the U.S. ambassador in Sudan, and his deputy George Curtis Moore. Yet in 1993, Arafat was welcomed in the White House for the signing of the Oslo Accords with Israel. That same year, the British National Criminal Intelligence Service reported that the PLO made its money from "extortion, payoffs, illegal arms-dealing, drug trafficking, money laundering and fraud." Yet over the next several years, the Palestinian Authority would become the largest single recipient of foreign aid on a per capita basis.
In 1996, after he had formally renounced terrorism in the Oslo Accords, Arafat told a rally in Gaza that "we are committed to all martyrs who died for the cause of Jerusalem starting with Ahmed Musa until the last martyr Yihye Ayyash"--Musa being the first PLO terrorist to be killed in 1965 and Ayyash being the Hamas mastermind of a series of suicide bombings in which scores of Israeli civilians were killed. Yet the Clinton Administration continued to pretend that Arafat was an ally in the fight against Hamas. In 2000, Arafat rejected an Israeli offer of statehood midwifed by President Clinton and instead initiated the bloody intifada that left 1,000 Israelis and 3,000 Palestinians dead.
In 2005, only months after Arafat's death, Israel dismantled its settlements and withdrew its forces from the Gaza Strip. Palestinians have used the opportunity to intensify their rocket fire at civilian targets within Israel. Last month, Israeli security services arrested two Gazan women, one of them pregnant, who were planning to enter Israel on medical pretexts in order to carry out suicide attacks. Yet the same month, the World Bank issued a report faulting Israel for restricting Palestinian freedom of movement.
Now it appears Hamas has taken control of the Gaza Strip's main road and its border with Egypt, as well as the offices of the so-called Preventive Security Services, traditionally a Fatah stronghold. "They are executing them one by one," a witness told the Associated Press of Hamas's reprisals against the Preventive Security personnel.
We do not pretend to know where all this will lead. On Thursday, Mr. Abbas dissolved the government and declared a state of emergency, though he seems powerless to change the course of events in Gaza. Israel could conceivably intervene, as could Egypt, and both states have powerful reasons to prevent the emergence of a Hamastan with close links to Iran hard on their borders. But neither do they wish to become stuck in the Strip's bottomless factionalism and fanaticism.
At the same time, pressure will surely mount on Israel and the U.S. to accept Hamas's ascendancy and begin negotiations with its leaders. According to this reasoning, the Bush Administration cannot demand democracy of the Palestinians and then refuse to recognize the results of a democratic election.
But leave aside the fact that Mr. Bush did not simply call for an election: Is it wise to negotiate with a group that kills its fellow Palestinians almost as freely as it does Israelis? And what would there be to negotiate about? The best-case scenario--a suspension of hostilities in exchange for renewed international funding--would simply give Hamas time and money to consolidate its rule and rebuild an arsenal for future terror assaults. Then, too, the last thing the Palestinians need is yet further validation from the wider world that the violence they now inflict so indiscriminately works.
The deeper lesson here is that a society that has spent the last decade celebrating suicide bombing would inevitably become a victim of its own nihilistic impulses. This is not the result of Mr. Bush's call for democratic responsibility; it is the bitter fruit of the decades of dictatorship and terrorism as statecraft that Yasser Arafat instilled among Palestinians.
Here's another article. And I know Bob likes to minimize Iran's importance in this, but the evidence shows the contrary. I'll dig up the articles if I have to.
Land for Peace ?
? or land in pieces?
By Seth Leibsohn
The news out of Gaza is actually not the latest history lesson that Munich-type land-for-peace propositions require us to restudy. What we need is an update to Baruch Spinoza. While nature may still very well abhor a vacuum, we now know beyond speculation that terrorism will thrive in one. Where once a democratic state ?occupied? Gaza, a terrorist Fatah took over under the watchful eyes of the U.N. In less than two years, the even-more-radical Hamas blasted Fatah out of power and took over from there ? in one of the bloodiest coups of the past decade. Now Hamas, with support from Iran, runs a mini-state on the border of Egypt and Israel.
And yet, too much of the world ? and too many at home ? maintain a dangerous, if not fatal, post-9/11 foreign-policy strategy. The fatal thinking is twofold: 1) The U.S. must withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible and 2) the U.S. must reengage the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The Iraq Study Group, made up of the ?wise? men and women of our political establishment, encouraged this policy by stating that ?The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict.? As if Israel had anything to do with Iraq. As if, perhaps, Israel withdrawing from Gaza might be a model for the U.S. in Iraq. As if, perhaps, Israel should be further encouraged to fully withdraw from the West Bank as it did in Gaza. But there is no Israeli-Palestinian peace process right now, not when the ruling Palestinian government of Hamas adheres to a covenant that believes Israel will exist only up until ?Islam will obliterate it,? and was founded to consummate that goal.
Now is the time to take a history lesson about democracies withdrawing from lands tyrants lick their lips over. Again. The lesson no longer need be from the 1930s, or even the 1970s ? when a forced U.S. withdrawal from Southeast Asia resulted in killing fields and slaughter. The lesson can easily enough be 2005, when Israel left Gaza. The world wanted Israel out of Gaza, just as so many now want us out of Iraq. Israel left Gaza, and the void was filled ? but not by the laying of tracks for the Peace Train. Within two years, Iranian Hamas took over from Arafatian Fatah. Where many of us once warned that Fatah?s rule of Gaza would create another Libya in the Middle East, our warnings went unheeded, and, at the same time, the warnings were not alarmist enough: A new Iranian state in the Middle East is now in charge. Nice work. At long last, might we now absorb the lesson?
A democracy showing weakness where terrorists thrive is a sure recipe for disaster if only one condition is met: Cede land to the terrorists and encourage the democracy to withdraw. The Middle East is now in the balance between forces of composition and forces of decomposition. Just as the world community, and many in America, did not want Israel in Gaza, and now it has Iran and Hamas there, the world community, and many in America, no longer want the U.S. in Iraq. But what would be left as Sunni Baathists, al Qaeda, and Iranian militias have staked their claims to that country? We can leave, that is the easy thing to do. But look at Gaza once more, and ask: What will come next? In the end, no history or philosophy degrees are required to answer that question ? just two eyes to read the newspaper, and a memory that can reach back two years.
? Seth Leibsohn is a fellow of the Claremont Institute.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NDNjZjY0YjZjNzJkZmUwZjUwNWE5YzdiOTU5ZGU3NTk=
Land for Peace ?
? or land in pieces?
By Seth Leibsohn
The news out of Gaza is actually not the latest history lesson that Munich-type land-for-peace propositions require us to restudy. What we need is an update to Baruch Spinoza. While nature may still very well abhor a vacuum, we now know beyond speculation that terrorism will thrive in one. Where once a democratic state ?occupied? Gaza, a terrorist Fatah took over under the watchful eyes of the U.N. In less than two years, the even-more-radical Hamas blasted Fatah out of power and took over from there ? in one of the bloodiest coups of the past decade. Now Hamas, with support from Iran, runs a mini-state on the border of Egypt and Israel.
And yet, too much of the world ? and too many at home ? maintain a dangerous, if not fatal, post-9/11 foreign-policy strategy. The fatal thinking is twofold: 1) The U.S. must withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible and 2) the U.S. must reengage the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The Iraq Study Group, made up of the ?wise? men and women of our political establishment, encouraged this policy by stating that ?The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict.? As if Israel had anything to do with Iraq. As if, perhaps, Israel withdrawing from Gaza might be a model for the U.S. in Iraq. As if, perhaps, Israel should be further encouraged to fully withdraw from the West Bank as it did in Gaza. But there is no Israeli-Palestinian peace process right now, not when the ruling Palestinian government of Hamas adheres to a covenant that believes Israel will exist only up until ?Islam will obliterate it,? and was founded to consummate that goal.
Now is the time to take a history lesson about democracies withdrawing from lands tyrants lick their lips over. Again. The lesson no longer need be from the 1930s, or even the 1970s ? when a forced U.S. withdrawal from Southeast Asia resulted in killing fields and slaughter. The lesson can easily enough be 2005, when Israel left Gaza. The world wanted Israel out of Gaza, just as so many now want us out of Iraq. Israel left Gaza, and the void was filled ? but not by the laying of tracks for the Peace Train. Within two years, Iranian Hamas took over from Arafatian Fatah. Where many of us once warned that Fatah?s rule of Gaza would create another Libya in the Middle East, our warnings went unheeded, and, at the same time, the warnings were not alarmist enough: A new Iranian state in the Middle East is now in charge. Nice work. At long last, might we now absorb the lesson?
A democracy showing weakness where terrorists thrive is a sure recipe for disaster if only one condition is met: Cede land to the terrorists and encourage the democracy to withdraw. The Middle East is now in the balance between forces of composition and forces of decomposition. Just as the world community, and many in America, did not want Israel in Gaza, and now it has Iran and Hamas there, the world community, and many in America, no longer want the U.S. in Iraq. But what would be left as Sunni Baathists, al Qaeda, and Iranian militias have staked their claims to that country? We can leave, that is the easy thing to do. But look at Gaza once more, and ask: What will come next? In the end, no history or philosophy degrees are required to answer that question ? just two eyes to read the newspaper, and a memory that can reach back two years.
? Seth Leibsohn is a fellow of the Claremont Institute.
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NDNjZjY0YjZjNzJkZmUwZjUwNWE5YzdiOTU5ZGU3NTk=
6th Gen,
You keep baiting me and like an idiot I keep falling for it.
I can post as many articles as you can strongly making an argument as to why Israel AND the palestinians are at fault for their egregious conduct. The fact that you do not recognize this makes it pointless to even try have a conversation, let alone a healthy debate. How very easy for you to point fingers at Arafat, and how convenient it is to ignore the despicable and arguably, terrorist acts of Sharon for example. All I have to say to you at this juncture is that hopefully whoever presents themselves at the table to try improve the situation for both sides will geniunely NOT have the narrow mindedness of your views - peace will continue to elude....
You keep baiting me and like an idiot I keep falling for it.
I can post as many articles as you can strongly making an argument as to why Israel AND the palestinians are at fault for their egregious conduct. The fact that you do not recognize this makes it pointless to even try have a conversation, let alone a healthy debate. How very easy for you to point fingers at Arafat, and how convenient it is to ignore the despicable and arguably, terrorist acts of Sharon for example. All I have to say to you at this juncture is that hopefully whoever presents themselves at the table to try improve the situation for both sides will geniunely NOT have the narrow mindedness of your views - peace will continue to elude....
6th Gen,
It is not so much the narrow mindedness that you exhibit that irks me - at this juncture I think that I beginning to know what your views on topics are - but it is the fact that you invited an opinion knowing perfectly well what my position was likely to be - and then you posted that article that you knew would inflame me - hope you enjoyed yourself!
It is not so much the narrow mindedness that you exhibit that irks me - at this juncture I think that I beginning to know what your views on topics are - but it is the fact that you invited an opinion knowing perfectly well what my position was likely to be - and then you posted that article that you knew would inflame me - hope you enjoyed yourself!
I wasn't baiting you or trying to inflame you. I seriously wanted to know what your thoughts were on the situation. Seeing how you've lived in Europe and the Middle East for a while, I'm not surprised that you've bought into their Evil Zionist threat nonsense, and you've shown you are all about moral equivalence. I posted the two articles, from two very well respected sources, National Review and The Wall Street Journal, after I posed the question, I don't believe either were published when I asked. So, tell me where Sharon commanded anyone to hijack (TWA, PanAm) blow up passenger airplanes (Swiss Air 330). Show me where Sharon financed blowing up Palestinian school buses. Show me where he murdered Olympic athletes. Do you want me to go on? I'm only to 1972. I really thought your moral equivalence only went so far. I cannot think of enough terrible adjectives to describe Arafat, so please give me some examples of Sharon doing anything in that ballpark.
Shatila and Sabra
It's still open to debate how much Israel was involved in the massacre, but it is well established that they did not carry out the attacks, and the populace by no means supported the incident. Israel let them fight it out, as they are doing now. History supports the view that the Israelites operate from the defensive position, while the Arabs are on the offensive. It is a basic tenent of each religion. Sharon's move into the camps was of a defensive posture.