The IDF at work "fighting terrorism"

Why waste your time with him? If everyone but the FBI forgets about him, then he will go away.

"There is actually an important point contained in Dr Wogga's post, although as usual, it is somewhat due to the tone of the rest of his material."


The important point of Wogga's post was his cry "French scum! Saudi Arabian scum! Palestinian scum!" That says all I need to know.


"Sometimes I wonder if the USA just completely stopped helping other nations out, and concentrated entirely on our own prosperity and well-being (sort of like the Swiss), other countries wouldn't hate us so much."


An excellent idea, long overdue!


Any chance of it being adopted by an American administration, though? Is there a Monroe Doctrine in our future? Bah. I don't think so...

"Don't you think Israel has a right to expect and demand that the Palestinians get rid of the highly visible, well-organized terrorist groups operating from within their territories?"


I doubt that they're as visible as you imply.


In most cases, I'd say yes, but Israel has no right to demand that PA officials perform duties effectively while Israel tries to bomb and bulldoze their offices, attacks the people they have a responsibility to defend and breaks the peace they have a responsiblity to keep.


After Arafat's many calls for cease-fires that have been met with provocative assassinations and demolitions by Israel, and especially after the fairly effective December cease-fire during which Israel killed 21 Palestinians, proves that the Sharon government is completely cynical about trying to curb terrorism. It benefits from Palestinain terrorism much more than the Palestinians do. If it didn't, you'd see corresponding moves by Israel when the terrorism dies down in order to encourage it's quiescence, instead of just the opposite.

Chris:


I assure you that I do share your concrn regarding the loss of innocent life, marshall enforecemt and destruction of the property in both Israel proper and on the West Bank. We further agree that a peaceful negotiation should resume towards the lasting settlement in the region, that is Israel and West Bank area.


Having said this, however, a common sense tells me that there should be an immediate cessation of violence precedng the peaceful negotiations. I trust you'll agree with me on this point. For an effective peaceful negotiations to take place, both parties in the coflict should be earnestly committed.


You'll remember that the last Prime Minister, Barak, was elected on this political platform several years ago. Despite the Israeli hawks, he (at the Maryland, USA, negotiations with Y. Arafat and with the assistance of the then Pres. Clinto) was offering to Arafa, Gaza Strip, 98% of the West Benk and nearly all of the East Jerusalem. Instead of taking this deal - perhaps the best he'll ever have, Arafat additionally insisted on "the right to return" of 3 million Palestinian Arabs to the proper Israel. P. M. Barak, of course, could not negotiate his own country away, and the peaceful negotiatiions broke down.


I'll also remind you that at the same time Israeli army was finalize its withdrawal from the West Bank, leaving the area to the Palestinian self rule. The extremists among the Palestinian radicals obviously did not like the idea of the permanent peaceful settlement. They intensified suicide bombing into the Israeli cities. In response to mass-bomb killings, the Israeli public gradually lost the sympathy for the Palestinian misery and looked toward a strong-arm protection from terrorism. And that is how we arrived at A. Sharon.


Several Palestinian radical groups, such as Hamas, Party of God, Islamic Jihad, etc., effectively hijacked the peace process by carrying out unrestrained suicide bombing. Arafat has proved either impotent or unwilling to control these groups in order to enforce the peace. Hence the Israeli questioning as to fact whether Arafat is relevant to the peace process or not. Who do you negotiate with if you dismiss him?


It is to hope that reasonable people on both sides will garner enough courage to restrain the extremists on the both sides and engage in a fair, fruitful and lasting peace settlement. As it stands today, I do not see any peace prospect unless Arafat and his government put under firm control the Palestinian radicals.


In the direct confrontation with Israel, the Palestinians are too week to gain any grounds. By engaging in the terrorist bombing against Israeli civilians, the Palestinians are losing the strongest element in their struggle: the world support and sympathy to their national cause. Plainly, it is hard to blame the Israeli authority for defending its citizens.

What a oonspiracy..........the press is in on it too.......

"a common sense tells me that there should be an immediate cessation of violence precedng the peaceful negotiations. I trust you'll agree with me on this point. For an effective peaceful negotiations to take place, both parties in the coflict should be earnestly committed."


Absolutely. A party can't negotiate in good faith while trying to improve it's negotiating leverage through violence. They're not compatible.


But just as I don't believe that Israel can be 100% responsible to the actions of fanatic Jewish settlers, I don't think it's fair to hold the PA responsible for the actions of extremist Palestinians that commit violence. Doing so would be a mere pretext for refusing to negotiate, and I accuse Israel of doing just that.


"[Barak] was offering to Arafa, Gaza Strip, 98% of the West Benk and nearly all of the East Jerusalem. Instead of taking this deal - perhaps the best he'll ever have, Arafat additionally insisted on "the right to return" of 3 million Palestinian Arabs to the proper Israel. P. M. Barak, of course, could not negotiate his own country away, and the peaceful negotiatiions broke down."


You and I are informed by very different accounts of what Barak offered. I agree that Barak offered a large percentage of the West Bank under nominal PA control. It was to have been divided, however, into non-contiguous enclaves with no right of access between them, and Israel retaining all control of Palestinian movement. So the typical criticsim of them was that they amounted to "Bantustans." Barak did not offer the PA control over the eastern metropolitan area of Jerusalem, as this would consits of Israeli settlements extending to the Jordan River, cutting the West Bank in half. He offered nominal PA control over the Arab quarter, the traditional cutltural center of Palestinians, with no right of access to the rest of Palestine. "Right of return" was rejected outright (except for a modest resettlement proposal for perhaps 100,000 Palestinians), even though the Palestinains have made clear that it doesn't need to mean the retrun of 3 million Arabs to present-day Israel. Arafat himself acknowledged Israel's "demographic" concerns in a NYT Op-ed piece last week.


"I'll also remind you that at the same time Israeli army was finalize its withdrawal from the West Bank, leaving the area to the Palestinian self rule."


No, this was supposed have happened in 1997 or 1998. Israel's delay in implementing the Oslo accords and the ultimate failure to offer a contiguous Palestinian state, and the apparent inability of Israel's current political system to consider this seriously, all preceded the human bombing wave that began in September 2000. So you can attribute the current intifada as much to the dashed hopes for Palestinian sovereignty as you can to the perenially corrupt, ineffectual Palestinain leadership.


"Hence the Israeli questioning as to fact whether Arafat is relevant to the peace process or not. Who do you negotiate with if you dismiss him?"


I think the declaration of Arafat being irrelevant has more to do with Israeli domestic political forces than tactical necessity. In any event, the New Republic online has a good article on the guy that might replace him, an unusually broad-minded piece for an organ that usually specializes in Israel apologia.


"By engaging in the terrorist bombing against Israeli civilians, the Palestinians are losing the strongest element in their struggle: the world support and sympathy to their national cause."


Agreed.


"Plainly, it is hard to blame the Israeli authority for defending its citizens."


If that's what I thought it was doing I wouldn't blame it. I think Israel is trying to crush Palestinian resistence to Israel's domination of the West Bank and Gaza and trying to incite the violence that could justify Israel's contined occupation for the near-term future until the political stalemate within Israel breaks apart.

Heil Alger, Brad. Do you wear a silly mustache?