I'm glad somebody said it.

ReefBreak

You won't hear this watching RTE News or listening to Morning Ireland. I glad some journalist had the nerve to say it.
David Horovitz, The Irish Times correspondent in Israel
The media coverage of the Middle East troubles reminds me of the media coverage granted to the "freedom fighters of the IRA defending oppressed babies dying in the streets of Northern Ireland" by news agencies in (mainland) Europe, the US and Australia during the 80s and 90s.

Bateman

>Since Israel has a population of roughly five million Jews and one million Arabs, that demand amounted to a bid to destroy Israel by sheer weight of numbers


This is opinion, and idle speculation. How would "equal numbers" (speaking broadly, 5m and 5m) equate to "destroying a state"? And how are refugees, who have fúckall possessions, going to "destroy a state"? And who can "destroy" a state who is funded by the US to teh tune of billions. Sensationalism.

Bateman

David Horovitz is editor of Jerusalem Report and The Irish Times correspondent in Israel

A nice objective correspondent, eh? The Israeli "defence forces" fired at BBC journalists a while back. I wonder was this reported by this man.

mike65

Thus is the sort of thing that will get you into trouble round here Reefbreak (dispite being just about right).

Cue the PLO fans...

Good to hear Robert Fisk talk about Arafats tin-pot fifdom
today on Pat Kennys prog.

Mike.

Sand

Yeah It was a refreshing read. He made a lot of good points, including Arafat, the peace negotiations and the myths that are allowed to go around. You cant take it as gospel of course but if hes impartal enough to hold a post with a European newspaper as a regional correspondent then hes probably not a propaganda piece for either side. Certainly his opinion is worth something given he has a lot more knowledge of the situation than most would - a large fraction of it first hand?

bugler

Poor Ariel Sharon, nice man that he is, never hurt anyone unless he HAD to, and here is being forced into acting against Palestinian terror!

Poor little Israel, nice little democratic country that is, never hurt anyone (hundreds of thousands of Palestinians expelled from their homes don't count), and here it is being forced into acting against Palestinian terror!

The poor IDF! Brave, honest soldiers that they are, fighting terror, and they can't even shoot a few stone throwing children, or bulldoze a few houses with people in them, without some scummy liberals whining about it. Some people just can't see the big picture.

The solution is clear, and yet noone can bring it about. Settlements to be dismantled, a proper internationally aided Palestinian infrastructure established(not to mention the actual state), rigorously protected borders. The effort needs to be such that it will become intolerable for any Palestinian militants to attack inside Israel, and the IDF won't be able to race into the Palestinian state. Interesting to see someone quoting Robert Fisk when slagging the PA. Isn't he normally one of the targets of Israeli "fanboys"?

His article today : http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=288328 is about the brutality meted out to Palestinian collaborators. You guys would probably love it, until he comes to the end. He says, "All three collaborators were married men. It was said in Hebron that they would be refused a Muslim grave. And one wondered how brutalised the Palestinians must become before they inherit a state."

Unfortunately, just because Arafat is a corrupt, immoral old fool with a questionable will to halt terror, does not make it ok to collectively punish the Palestinian people, and kill innocent people recklessly/intentionally in their righteous crusade.

bugler

Article: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=288683

"Israel's army says most those killed in Jenin were fighters and that it did everything possible to protect civilians. But The Independent has found that nearly half of the 50 dead identified so far were civilians, including women, the elderly, and children.

They include a nurse in uniform who was shot in the heart as she tried to help a wounded civilian, a 14-year-old boy killed when he tried to buy groceries when a curfew was lifted, and a man in a wheelchair who was shot as he tried to wheel himself up the street and then crushed under a tank."

On and on relflection Mike, you may have been having a subtle dig at Robert Fisk above. If you were, then I'm happy to tell you that Fisk has been highly critical of Arafat and how he rules for roughly the last thirty years.

JustHalf

Horowitz rocks.

By the way, ISRAEL IS A DEMOCRACY. That might help you understand where that "numbers" thing comes from.

Biffa Bacon

Pro-Israelis always talk about how Barak offered 90% of the West Bank to Arafat. The thing is, why should Arafat settle for less than 100%? Israel has no legitimate claim to the area.

ReefBreak

You could apply this thinking to anywhere in the world. Northern Ireland (the protestants), the US (the Europeans), England (the Saxons), Australia (the Europeans), NEw Zealand (the Europeans). History has it's winners and losers everywhere.

Bateman

>>By the way, ISRAEL IS A DEMOCRACY. That might help you understand where that "numbers" thing comes from.



Well then why talk of bull**** like "destroying Israel"?

Hairy Homer

...was that the attacks in 1995 were by Arafat's rivals in Hamas, deliberately designed to undermine the peace process attempts and portray him as an Israeli appeaser.

...that Israel's reaction to the suicide bombings has been to target the Palestinian police force and then to complain that it doesn't have the will or ability to round up the usual terrorist suspects.

.. that settlement activity has NOT been halted or reversed

One of the central flaws in the Israeli argument is that it expects all Arabs to be Zionists. Palestinians were evicted from their homes in 1948 —or fled the fighting, and were not treated by the Arab neighbours in the way that Israel accommodated its jewish immigrants. The difference being of course that Israel encouraged and depended on Jewish immigration whereas the Arabs natural inclination was to see a return to their homeland of their brethern.

And this argument that 'They fled their homes so they have no right to return is a bit lame.' Would you tell a downtown New Yorker, evacuated from his or her house on September 11th 'You ran away so you can't have it back. It's mine now'? Course you wouldn't.

Even Eoghan Harris, critical of those who are critical of Israel, described on the LAst Word last week some of Sharon's tactics as muppetry in particular the targeting by the Israelis of those Palestinian police stations who had done most to try to hunt down 'terrorists'.

It's not muppetry. It's cynical undermining of what semblance of law and order the PA had put in place to further the image of all Arabs as barbarous, bloodthirsty savages.

Oh well. As long as they keep this up, they may as well resign themselves to producing the next generation of kids to go through the same process again, and again, and again.

Now that's the real muppetry.

Sand

And this argument that 'They fled their homes so they have no right to return is a bit lame.' Would you tell a downtown New Yorker, evacuated from his or her house on September 11th 'You ran away so you can't have it back. It's mine now'? Course you wouldn't.

Homer there is going to be no right of return - The Israelis wont go for it, Barak wouldnt go for it, and Sharon sure as hell wont go for it. Its that simple -given the demographics it would spell the end of Israel as a jewish state and the reformation of Palestine.

Bateman

Dan Meridor today hinted that the Beirut "offer" could be a basis for negotiation in the future. It included limited return. At the very least a token gesture on the part of Israel is going to have to be part of any lasting settlement.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Sand


Homer there is going to be no right of return - The Israelis wont go for it, Barak wouldnt go for it, and Sharon sure as hell wont go for it. Its that simple -given the demographics it would spell the end of Israel as a jewish state and the reformation of Palestine.

I don't think they are looking for the land of Israel but the return of land taken in the 6 day war, which there have been a few UN resolutions (and US speeches) stating that they are illegally occupying that land.

I'd agree with Prince Sa'uds comment on the matter.

Prince Sa'ud said there was "no good terrorism" but Arabs could understand the acts of suicide bombers.

"There is a difference between a terrorist act such as 11 September and a suicide operation carried out by a young woman or man for whom all avenues to a dignified life have been blocked," he said

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
given the demographics it would spell the end of Israel as a jewish state.

Forgive me for saying this, but so fscking what.

Now, before I start into this, I would like to clarify that I am not having a go at Sand. The last time I took issue with a general opinion, it was the individual who echoed the opinion who took it personally.

Anyway....

We in the west give a lot of eastern nations an awful lot of flak for doing despicable things such as, oooh, not permitting freedom of religion.

And yet here we have a Jewish State, who's refusal to let people back to the land they were dispossessed from is supported by a single argument - that it would effectively remove Israel as a single-religion nation.

Now, I realise that there are non-Jews in Israel, and all the rest, but does Israeli law, and this example of Israeli thinking/policy in particular not show that it is, in all but name, state-sponsored religious persecution.

I find it vastly hypocritical of the western world to even accept this line of thinking, whilst at the same time berating other nations for their religious intolerance`.

I guess religious tolerance only means "allow people to believe in a Judeo-Christian god".

jc

The Gopher

Originally posted by Bateman
>>By the way, ISRAEL IS A DEMOCRACY. That might help you understand where that "numbers" thing comes from.

A democfracy in theory.In theory,South Africsa was a democracy as it allowed whites to vote for a hnumber of candidates.In theory,Iraq is a democracy as Saddam Hussein is an elected leader.Its just that apparently nobody wanted to run the risk of standing against him.Most dictatorships arounbd the world arew democracys in theory.Many brutal leaders run for office.But usually they either have no opponent or else their opponent is actually a supporter picked simply to show the country is a democracy.

Sand

At the very least a token gesture on the part of Israel is going to have to be part of any lasting settlement.

Yep it will probably go along the lines of Israel accepting the palestinian right of return in a symbolic fashion, on the condition the Palestinians dont exsercise it, in exchange for monetary compensation - fudge but thats politics. This is assuming peace ever breaks out.

Forgive me for saying this, but so fscking what.

The whole purpose of the creation of Israel was the percieved need for a Jewish homeland in the aftermath of WW2 and the holocaust. Seeing as Israel being a jewish homeland is the purpose of the state, the right would decry it as heresy, the moderates would shoot it down before it ever dreamt of taking flight and even the left would say no. Its not politically correct of course but the Israelis will not make a peace which will see them take in a massive influx of Palestinians who first aim will be to vote for a united Palestine. Peace vs Political Correctness...its a no brainer. Same logic guudes the US, which prides itself on democracy etc etc, dealing with the Middle East regimes you mention - Oil vs Political Correctness...another no brainer. As above peace is built on fudges.

I guess religious tolerance only means "allow people to believe in a Judeo-Christian god".

Not really fair to say - the same Western nations youre talking about are probably the one part of the world where you can practice most given religion ( cults? ) relatively freely - and not all worship a Judeo Christian god, if they worship any at all.

JustHalf

Originally posted by bonkey
And yet here we have a Jewish State, who's refusal to let people back to the land they were dispossessed from is supported by a single argument - that it would effectively remove Israel as a single-religion nation.

Now, I realise that there are non-Jews in Israel, and all the rest, but does Israeli law, and this example of Israeli thinking/policy in particular not show that it is, in all but name, state-sponsored religious persecution.

It's not religious based. There's Muslims who are citizens of Israel who are not hassled. There is a difference between going at someone because they are Palestinian (ethnicity) and going at someone because they are Muslim (religion).

You do know that the Yasser Arafat has as his goal the destruction of the state of Israel, and that there are summer schools in Palestine where kids are thought that Jews are the enemy and are to be killed? That Arafat has said of the Oslo accord (in Arabic) that his own agreement to the terms was a worthless one?

I don't support Sharon's actions though. It's just stupid. "Here, let's make even the US not like us". That seems to be the gist of the plan. It hasn't got a hope of fulfilling it's stated aims. It's playing right into the arms of Arafat. He claims he wants to be martyred. Ha! You've got to love public relations maneuvers of such bare-faced cheek.

The way I see it, Israel and the Palestinians are both led by crazy old men, only one of them's got better weapons than the other.

bonkey

Originally posted by JustHalf
It's not religious based.

Really? You mean, if those 4,000,000 dishomed Palestinians were Jewish, you still believe they wouldnt be allowed back in? That the Israeli's would refuse entry to 4,000,000 Jews because of their ethniciity?

Somehow I doubt it.

Ethnicity may be a factor, but so is religion. I accept Sands "no brainer" argument, but I am simply trying to point out the hypocracy of it all.

And yes, I have a similar problem with the attitude of "PC vs Oil". At the end of the day, the western ideals of democracy, personal freedom, free trade, blah blah blah are meaningless. What the west really means is "we like to encourage these ideals, except where it is more expedient to ignore them, but we will never admit to double standards", which I find a little distasteful, personally.

Anyway....I'm not going any further off topic. I've had my rant, so I'll leave it at that.

That Arafat has said of the Oslo accord (in Arabic) that his own agreement to the terms was a worthless one?

You know - people keep telling me all the things Arafat has said in Arabic. I didnt know that so many of you spoke Arabic.

If, as the leader of his country, there is any evidence that he is encouraging the intifida, encouraging suicide bombers, and so on, then why has Israel not insisted he be put in front of a war-crimes tribunal? Why havent they even tried him themselves - even in absentia. If he really has said all these things (in the recent past) then it doesnt matter what language he has said them in.

If there is proof that he has said these things, then why is anyone still listening to him, including the US?

I have heard plenty of reported claims from many sources that he has refused to denounce terrorism in Arabic, but I can only ever recall Israeli commentators telling us all about these "pro-terrorism, anti-Israeli" things he has allegedly been saying. Its also convenient that no-one has ever produced a tape of him saying these things. Thats what I find amazing - a country with one fo the best intelligence-gathering agencies going cannot simply tape the man making one of these speeches, and doom his career the easy way.

To be quite honest, I dont believe much of what either Palestinian or Israeli officials say - neither side has been particular honest.

I don't support Sharon's actions though. It's just stupid. "Here, let's make even the US not like us".

Agreed.

I think his stance was more "the US called it anti-terrorism and did what they wanted. Lets do the same".

Now, Israel are complaining vociferously that the US didnt get picked on for Afghanistan, the UN didnt get picked on for Eastern Europe, but poor ol' Israel is getting picked on for its actions which are the exact same.

This, interestingly, was one of the key reasons an Israeli spokesman gave for Israel refusing to cooperate with the UN investigative team which was due to head in to Jenin - that if the other nations didnt get held up for their actions, why should Israel. They also had objections to "missions scope" because the UN wanted to include such ridiculous things as ballistics experts.

Yes - I can see why people with nothing to hide wouldnt want ballistics experts in there. Oh - no - wait. I cant.

The way I see it, Israel and the Palestinians are both led by crazy old men, only one of them's got better weapons than the other.

I'm just not sure who has the better weapons. Israel has better hardware, but guns arent the only weapons in a fight like this.

jc

Excelsior

Just a question for Bonkey. One of your main themes is the religious aspects of Israel's motivation. Of course there might be a lot to be said for that, but you claim that religious tolerance extends only to those who have a Judeo-Christian god.



Palestinians tend to be Islamic right?
Isn't Allah the Juedo-Christian God?

bonkey

Originally posted by Excelsior
Just a question for Bonkey. One of your main themes is the religious aspects of Israel's motivation.

Not quite a main theme - it was just a comment of Sands that reminded me of this....which is something I had been thinking about recently.

Of course there might be a lot to be said for that, but you claim that religious tolerance extends only to those who have a Judeo-Christian god.

What I was trying to say is that the media and the various governments make big noises about religious intolerance, but mostly only in countries where Christianity and/or Judaeism is prohibited. I can recall seeing street protests (of 2 or 3 people) on Grafton St at some point about the brutal oppression of a religion in China which I cant even remember the name of. I think I have seen this oppression mentioned in one or two other places tops. I have seen quite a lot on how oppressive China can be to Catholics.

Maybe putting it differently - lack of freedom of religion only seems to be an issue when its denying Judaeism and Christianity. Again - I recognise that this is partly media pampering their audiences (we're more likely to care), but it also seems to be the stance of governments. I know the US has made comments about China's lack of religous freedom. I havent heard a single comment from them about Germany's lack of tolerance for what it classes as cults, nor of Israels strong "A Jewish Nation" stance.

Palestinians tend to be Islamic right?
Isn't Allah the Juedo-Christian God?

Judeo - pertaining to the Jewish faith
Christian - pertaining to the Christian faith.

Unless you want to claim that Islam is a form of Christianity or Judaeism, then no, it isnt.

jc

Clintons Cat

Sorry Bonky but you are technically wrong in your assertion.

Judeo-christian

adj : being historically related to both Judaism and Christianity; "the Judeo-Christian tradition" [syn: Judeo-Christian]

Islam is a deritive of both judeasm and christianity in that it recognises both moses and christ as prophets of god (allah) though in islam,being the final prophet mohamed supersedes their importance in word and deed.

JustHalf

There was a man named Abraham, though old and childless he was; was told by God that his descendants would be more numerous than the stars or grains of sand on a beach.

Judeism, Christianity and Islam all spring from Abrahamic roots. And best of all, those crazy people over in the middle-east (and there are crazy people over there, so don't get PC on me or tell me to respect this opinion) who hate the Jews and Christians actually USE THE Q'oran to justify this hate.

The book which says that we are brother faiths.

It has to be said though, I don't think Islam really belongs in the club (though to really believe it does I'd probably have to be a Muslim). Particularly not sects like Wahabism. It's like those Crusaders and Inquisition guys in terms of being absolutely nuts.

bonkey

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
Sorry Bonky but you are technically wrong in your assertion.

I sit corrected.

While I'm aware of its roots, I would have taken a different point of view regarding Islam - that while it comes from the same "root" as Judaeism and Christianity, that it is not an offshoot from them as such.

So, while it is still true to say "related" is technically true if you want to consider it a "sibling religion", I would have interpreted the term "related to" differently.

Its not a point I'm interested in arguing over. If you feel my use of the term was incorrect, then fair enough. Replace it (whilst reading) with a term which does suit, because you clearly understand what I'm driving at

Sand

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2002/0430/1563383982OP30COONEY.html

Another interesting article and viewpoint. Raises some questions about the objectivity of the UN fact finding misson and some issues of international law and the middle east conflict.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Another interesting article and viewpoint. Raises some questions about the objectivity of the UN fact finding misson and some issues of international law and the middle east conflict.

There are indeed some interesting questions to be asked, but I'm not sure just how relevant Mr. Cooney's article really is to the case in hand.

Lets assume that the UN want to smack Israel, as Cooney suggests, to cover up their own failings. I fail to see how this can happen, given that the UN failings are not to do with the Jenin event itself, but other areas.

Even if they find the Israeli's guilty, all they will have shown is that they stepped over the line in this one situation. Now I realise that this could (would) have reprecussions on media coverage, public opinion, etc. But seriously - if the UN are guilty in other areas, they wont dodge the bullet this way. If anything, they will simply invigorate Israel and pro-Israeli factions to come out and make these claims openly and to demand investigations into them. Of course - if they co-operate in the Jenin investigation (which looks unlikely) then they are in an ideal position to stitch the UN up in return. This, if anything, would probably strengthen their position.

Regardless of all of this, however, I think that one simple question needs to be answered.

Regardless of whether or not the UN is trying to stictch up Israel, how can the Israelis claim that they support a full and frank investigation, when they want control of who amongst their people the UN can interview, and which of their documents the UN can see. I mean - please. Can anyone offer a single, credible reason for this?

jcv=

Sand

Regardless of whether or not the UN is trying to stictch up Israel, how can the Israelis claim that they support a full and frank investigation, when they want control of who amongst their people the UN can interview, and which of their documents the UN can see. I mean - please. Can anyone offer a single, credible reason for this?

Security. Given one of the UN team's members views on the admittance of the Israeli version of the red cross to the International Red Cross being equivalent to the admittance of Nazis would you be happy as an Israeli with him having access to sensitive documentation and identities of troops for particular targeting?

Lets assume that the UN want to smack Israel, as Cooney suggests, to cover up their own failings. I fail to see how this can happen, given that the UN failings are not to do with the Jenin event itself, but other areas.

The article argues that the U.N. had prescence in Jenin, social services and relief - that it remained quiet as Jenin became a haven for terrorists and didnt seem to mind that children were being used in a conflict from the very camp it was in.

Given that, the U.N. has an interest in making sure the Israelis are found to have had no reason to go into Jenin - i.e. there was no terrorist base in Jenin, there was no battle in Jenin - that would imply there were forces there to fight one- its not entirely unbiased as the comments of the U.N. figures quoted (Who complain that the Israelis didnt let them in to observe but who still have all the information they need to say massacres took place) show. The idea that people like Sommaruga are on the team doesnt say much for its impartiality.

Even if they find the Israeli's guilty, all they will have shown is that they stepped over the line in this one situation.

Apparently Annan is trying to expand the juristiction from beyond Jenin to a wider ranging investigation. Nothing wrong with that in itself but it means any impartiality has a far wider remit to exspress itself.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Given one of the UN team's members views on the admittance of the Israeli version of the red cross to the International Red Cross being equivalent to the admittance of Nazis would you be happy as an Israeli with him having access to sensitive documentation and identities of troops for particular targeting?

I would have thought that highlighting the individual in question's obvious lack of impartiality would have been a better tactic than saying "we decide if you can interview someone or read something".

The article argues that the U.N. had prescence in Jenin, social services and relief - that it remained quiet as Jenin became a haven for terrorists and didnt seem to mind that children were being used in a conflict from the very camp it was in.

Is there any evidence to suggest that the UN were aware of this? If we go back to the article, another point it makes is how little of Jenin was actually destroyed - a tiny little nest of a mere 100m x 100m within the entire town/camp. The UN people there were social- and relief- workers as you point out. Is there any indication to show that the terrorist nest was so blatant in its activities within Jenin that the UN should have known about it. If so, then surely the same evidence would be pretty much proof positive that the police in Palestine are definitely supporting terrorism, because I would doubt that the UN relief workers could see something so easily and not the police.

Given that, the U.N. has an interest in making sure the Israelis are found to have had no reason to go into Jenin

Whether or not the Israeli's had a reason to go ito Jenin will not excuse them from any atrocity they comitted there, should such atrocities have occurred. The Israeli stance seems to be that proving there was a terrorist camp there will somehow mitigate any action they may be found culpable of. I fail to see how - I think that showing the credibility of the possible existence of a terrorist camp is enough to justify their incursion in the current global wave of anti-terrorism. However, the existence of this, or not, will do nothing to excuse (for example) the bulldozing of innocents in a house should this be proven to have occurred.

It is worth noting on that point, that the current stance of the Israeli's I've seen is that the houses were booby-trapped and that it was impossible to deal with such safely. Note - the houses, not the streets (as we heard previously) were the dangerous places. For me, this would have a major problem gelling with the concept of people living inside the houses.

The idea that people like Sommaruga are on the team doesnt say much for its impartiality.

Then why are the Israeli's not making noise about its impartiality, and instead trying to cripple it?

jc

Sand

Is there any evidence to suggest that the UN were aware of this?

From article----> "Larsen acknowledged the Palestinians' description of Jenin as their "suicide bomber capital" "
Terje Larsen, the UN's Middle East special envoy. The fact he didnt go "Huh, Suicide bomber capital? Where did yis get that from?" indicates that the U.N. were aware at a high level that Jenin was being used as a base to perpetrate terrorism.

the same evidence would be pretty much proof positive that the police in Palestine are definitely supporting terrorism, because I would doubt that the UN relief workers could see something so easily and not the police.

I would tend to agree.

Whether or not the Israeli's had a reason to go ito Jenin will not excuse them from any atrocity they comitted there, should such atrocities have occurred.

I accept that. I feel given the U.N. s comments on Jenin prior to any investigation and the difficulties that would arise for the U.N. should it be seen that they were at the very least indifferent to a refugee camp being used a terrorist base the investigation will tend to find Israel guilty of atrocities regardless of whether they have or not- and at a greater level assuming they have. I.E. they go to Jenin with the conclusion already reached by their superiours and are now simply looking for evidence to back it up. First stage will be implying there was no milatary objective in Jenin, no reason to go through the houses, etc etc.

I read this morning that Annan is considering disbanding the U.N. investigation team because of Israeli refusal to co-operate with it - the Israelis are annoyed that it contains no milatary experts apparently- all diplomats. Anann says hes tried hard to satisfy Israelis. Either way the Israelis lose- They let in a team to judge them when they dont have faith in their impartiality, or they refuse to co-operate themselves and leave themselves open to "What have they got to hide" charges. Either way we might be arguing a moot point

Then why are the Israeli's not making noise about its impartiality, and instead trying to cripple it?

Israel (All Round Bad Guys) vs U.N. (All Round Good Guys).

I agree they *should* make a big deal about impartiality- but I dont think people would listen given the above popular opinions.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Sand
the Israelis are annoyed that it contains no milatary experts apparently- all diplomats.

The UN added military experts and Israel still refused to let them.

To me, Jenin was a massacre. Regardless if it happended or not.

Until such time Israel lets in independant observers to prove they were in the right I don't feel I should believe what they say. After all if that is all they were worried about they could pick people to join the teams who they claimed were independant and then have everyone share their findings at the same time.

Until that happens I say Israel are just covering thier asses. I mean the latest story that has come out of Israel that is Palistine people are dragging bodies into Jenin to make it look like a massarce, which is funny considering they won't let people in unless it's ok by them. Do you not think that independant observers would not find this sort of thing out?