Regarding the Bombing of Rishon Letzion

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1974000/1974571.stm

It would seem that Ariel Sharon's statement that the operations in the West Bank did not cripple terrorist activity as he hoped it would. A statement publicly issued by the Israeli foreign ministry proclaimed that this was because the bomber came from Gaza- the statement coming even before the police had compiled their investigation. This smacks of a policy crafted with blame attached before any evidence is compiled. Not only that, but in a further blow to Israel's credibility, the UN has officially condemned their actions in Jenin:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1974000/1974389.stm

In other news, apparently there is a bill being put forward in the US HoR, to the effect that "Criticism of Israel is inciting Anti-Semitism in mainland Europe" and is "giving the far right of politics ammunition to oppress Jews in Europe". What a load of cr4p...I'm glad my party and the Republican party are opposing this ridiculous proposal. The Congressman forwarding the bill was interviewed on newsnight last night, and Jeremy Paxman, giving out another of his eloquent roastings, put the question: "But using your reasoning Congressman, Israel has only itself to blame! After all if they hadn't been so heavy-handed and uncompromising with their, some say brutal, assault on Jenin there would be nothing to criticize surely?" A question the good Congressman was unable to answer.

Simply put, this illustrates why the onus is upon Israel to make a statement of good faith- they have illegally occupied territory for decades, and it is past time they returned to the only sane solution- the 2-state solution passed by the UN in 1948. Israel has every right to exist as a state, but the argument that it is protecting its own citizens means nothing to me when they do it by further encroaching on land they have no right to. If they want the attacks to stop, they should redraw the borders to fit the 1948 settlement, and stop encouraging squatters (effectively what they are) with government money to set up microcosms of Zionism within another people's land. Ariel Sharon is not the man to do this, I do not believe Israel's political balance of power at the current time can possibly contend with making the first move for peace. The mortal sacrifice of Anwar Sadat and Yitzak Rabin would at least, one hoped, give the region martyrs of peace to inspire them to not let these men's efforts sink into oblivion. Thanks to men like Netanyahu and Sharon, they not only have done so, but possibly to an unrecoverable extent. That may not be a warcrime, but it is certainly something I personally hope troubles these mens' consciences in the years to come.

Occy

bugler

Apparently, even elements of Israeli military intelligence have stated that 'Operation Defensive Shield' (sic) was a failure.

the onus is upon Israel to make a statement of good faith- they have illegally occupied territory for decades, and it is past time they returned to the only sane solution- the 2-state solution passed by the UN in 1948

Don't hold your breath:

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=161939&contrassID=2&subContrassID=3&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

ihatemushrooms

In other news, apparently there is a bill being put forward in the US HoR, to the effect that "Criticism of Israel is inciting Anti-Semitism in mainland Europe" and is "giving the far right of politics ammunition to oppress Jews in Europe".


Its amazing though how the general masses in the US would have no idea how wrong this senator is. I feel sorry for them in a strange way as they`ve been believing their own propagranda for years. Unfortunately I don`t think its going to change now. They don`t know any better.

I wouldn`t under estimate Sharon though he has been able to hide very nicely behind this anti terrorism paranoia in the States, while he has continued to murder innocent civilians. He has played the Jewish Dollar and Us ignorance very well and he is very dangerous. He is a military general with some serious political clout and I believe he will do more damage before he`s finished. European politicians have to take a stand and come out and say that because they disagree with Sharon it doesn`t mean they are anti semitists, Sharons a murderer and he should be stopped, asking him to re-vist the treaty of 48 is only going to fall on deaf ears. Natenyahu was a different kettle of fish he was more of a politian than a military man, he paid some attention to Mr. William Jefferson Clinton but Sharon has only to deal with our friend Bush the Muppett, the outlook is bleak gentlemen.

As long as Bush is the Driver of that big American bus we may all hold our breath.

Bring Back Bill!

adnans

you have to ask yourself a question. what is more acceptable in today's society? current anti-arab islamophobia, that allows evidence collected by human rights organisations in the recent weeks in jenin to be brushed off by israel with impunity? or anti-semitism, a title given to the left who oppose israel's millitary occupation and the continuing disposition of palestinians?

last week, dick armey, another republican in HoR, called for israel to expel west bank arabs. in another words, to continue their 'transfer' of palestinians from their homes again. since the war in bosnia we have another word describing this expultion of people from their homes - ethnic cleansing - and its not very nice, i can tell you that.

Bugler
Apparently, even elements of Israeli military intelligence have stated that 'Operation Defensive Shield' (sic) was a failure.

it was a wrong strategy alright. if israel wants to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, it would be much better to dismantle the infrastructure of the occupation first. it may even open a way forward for peace in the middle east.

adnans

Sand

An interesting point is that the suicide bombings and attacks which were reduced during the Israeli operations in the West Bank have surged back up again since Israel started pulling back. The Israelis could be forgiven for thinking that aggressive milatary operations better protect their lives.

As for the anti semitism across Europe the senator may have been referring to the attacks on synagogues and jewish people for the past few months. The rise of the ultra nationalist parties across Europe probably doesnt dispel that image- though apparently some french jews did vote for Le Pen despite his own anti semitism because of his hard line on Arab immigration & law and order.

As regards the Europeans they seem very quick to say Sharon should do this and that to appease the Palestinians. Fair enough. But when theyre asked to take in 13 "freedom fighters" from the Bethleham seige in an attempt to end the conflict there they suddenly dont know where to look. Hypocrites?

There wont be any resolution of the conflict any time soon. Sharon and Arafat arent statesmen and they both believe they can get a better deal through violence.

Boston

An interesting point is that the suicide bombings and attacks which were reduced during the Israeli operations in the West Bank have surged back up again since Israel started pulling back. The Israelis could be forgiven for thinking that aggressive milatary operations better protect their lives.

But such military action cant be maintained, im certain the number of dead israeli solders was far higher then reported by the israeli goverment. You had a situation of a brief rest bit, for the simply reason the palestinians where taken by surprise, this is why they didnt attack gaza because those guys where prepared for it.
No body not even arafat thought israel would go that far.

You cant seriously be justifing the illegal occupation of an entire country, and then honusly believe that it will solve israels terrorism problems, not even the israelis believe that, but they need to do something a quick, or so they felt

As regards the Europeans they seem very quick to say Sharon should do this and that to appease the Palestinians. Fair enough. But when theyre asked to take in 13 "freedom fighters" from the Bethleham seige in an attempt to end the conflict there they suddenly dont know where to look. Hypocrites?

Actually all 13 where taken in by eu member states, it was italy that had a problem, basically because the yanks never bothered to ask if they could

bugler

Originally posted by Sand
An interesting point is that the suicide bombings and attacks which were reduced during the Israeli operations in the West Bank have surged back up again since Israel started pulling back. The Israelis could be forgiven for thinking that aggressive milatary operations better protect their lives.

Yes. In other news, the British Army should have moved in to occupy Dundalk, much of Louth, and while they were at it, take in North Kerry aswell! I mean if military occupation would reduce the risk of attacks on your country then fire away. International law and so on is only for countries who are enjoying peace. Logically, Israel should re-occupy Lebanon, maybe grab some more of Syria, and who knows what else. If occupying these countries will see areduction in attacks or a reduction in certain groups capacity to attack or arm themselves then why hold back?

As for the anti semitism across Europe the senator may have been referring to the attacks on synagogues and jewish people for the past few months.

'The Economist', not really a hotbed of radicalism if ever there was one, has a leading feature this issue, it effectively rubbishes the notion that Europe is in the midst of an anti-Semitic fervour of any kind. Isolated attacks on members of the jewish community carried out by mostly people of arab origin do not widespread anti-Semitism make. It is the american jewish lobby who are keen to spread this theory. As usual, the joke that is the american media plays along, the concept of even-handedness doesn't really strike a chord in the U.S, it's much easier to throw mud.

As regards the Europeans they seem very quick to say Sharon should do this and that to appease the Palestinians. Fair enough. But when theyre asked to take in 13 "freedom fighters" from the Bethleham seige in an attempt to end the conflict there they suddenly dont know where to look. Hypocrites?

Have you heard many EU leaders describe members of the Palestinian security forces as freedom fighters? Never mind members of Hamas or other extremist groups? Has the EU ever condoned suicide bombings or attacks by militant Palestinian groups? I think you'll find the answer is no, so why you are attempting to accuse the EU of being hypocritical I don't know. Italy was wary of taking in members of Hamas and Fatah for what reason? Oh yes, thats right, they see them as undesirable due to their past actions. Are you suggesting that the EU sees these Palestinian militants as purely honourable freedom fighters?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
As regards the Europeans they seem very quick to say Sharon should do this and that to appease the Palestinians. Fair enough. But when theyre asked to take in 13 "freedom fighters" from the Bethleham seige in an attempt to end the conflict there they suddenly dont know where to look. Hypocrites? [/B]

Quite possibly, but look at the position they're being asked to put themselves in.

Israel has been consistently refusing international intervention. It has been levelling cries of anti-semitism at Europe, obliquely playing on any remaining guilt over the Holocaust, mostly because Europe has dared to sanction Israel and criticise it.

Now - they want one or more European nations to get involved, but in a lose-lose situation.

The EU has no legislative ability to prosecute, or hold prisoner, people who have comitted no trial against the EU nations, or within the EU borders. So, if they take them, they legally cannot hold them prisoner - they must grant them some form of limited freedom, even if international travel is denied to them.

Israel has already stated that it will not accept any degree of freedom being given to these men, and that it will take action against any nation which harbours these men and gives them such freedom. It would also like to have the "Bethlehem 13" extradited back to Israel from wherever they end up. At the same time, Palestine is saying that Israel has no right to seek extradition.

So - by taking these men in, a European nation must either give them limited freedom, and aggravate Israel, or imprison them, and aggravate Palestine, as well as ignoring some human rights and legal issues.

So - after their offers of assistance and intervention at a meaningful level have been refused for so many years, I find it hard to call their current reticence to get into a lose-lose semi-involved situation hyprocracy. I would call it sensible caution.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Boston
Actually all 13 where taken in by eu member states,

Thats funny, because every news source I can see, as well as a report on CNN 5 minutes ago said that the 13 were currently on Cyprus, awaiting a decision of which EU Member states would take them in.

It was also stated that the possibility also remains that they will remain on Cyprus, or that another nation acceptable to both sides may take them in.

The decision isnt expected until Monday at the earliest.

So I'm just wondering where you got your info from...

jc

Sand

Yes. In other news, the British Army should have moved in to occupy Dundalk, much of blah blah blah

Dealt with that "British invade SOUTHERN Ireland becuase there are terrorists in NORTHERN ireland (I.E in BRITAIN) so many times its just not funny anymore.

Youll also note I never said it was right or wrong- merely that when the Israelis went in they reduced terrorist attacks significantly- hence the Israelis could be forgiven for thinking there was a link there.

it effectively rubbishes the notion that Europe is in the midst of an anti-Semitic fervour of any kind.

Oh its not 1933 re visited but there has been an upswing in violence against Jews and jewish synagogues as well as noticable support for extremist parties. I havent read the Economist but Ill make my own interpretation.

Have you heard many EU leaders describe members of the Palestinian security forces as freedom fighters?

The ""s indicated cynicism as regards them being freedom fighters - I used the term freedom fighters as I didnt want to get dragged off topic into a discussion over terms.

Quite possibly, but look at the position they're being asked to put themselves in.

I agree- Im not saying the EU should let them in- Id be happy if they were left to rot tbh but thats just me. Im thinking that Israel is often expected to make large risks in political and security terms by E.U. but when the E.U. is given the chance to make a postive intervention by defusing the seige theyre kinda shy about it themselves - despite being at far less risk. Youre correct in what you say about the extradition - the option to take the men in is a polticial one however, the extradition will be a legal decision Id imagine - politics will not be involved. The possibility arises of saying "Well take them, give them limited freedom but have them under surveillance and If Israel goes for an extradition then thats a matter for the courts- nothing to do with us".

Boston

Originally posted by bonkey


Thats funny, because every news source I can see, as well as a report on CNN 5 minutes ago said that the 13 were currently on Cyprus, awaiting a decision of which EU Member states would take them in.

It was also stated that the possibility also remains that they will remain on Cyprus, or that another nation acceptable to both sides may take them in.

The decision isnt expected until Monday at the earliest.

So I'm just wondering where you got your info from...

jc

Well you should look at sky news, they confirmed that the eu states have agreed to take them

Boston

Youll also note I never said it was right or wrong- merely that when the Israelis went in they reduced terrorist attacks significantly- hence the Israelis could be forgiven for thinking there was a link there.

the nubmer of dead civilians also increased, do you think theres a link between military action a the butching of innocents ?

Btw theres plenty of terrorists in the south, even mroe then the north.

Youll also note I never said it was right or wrong

yes how cowardly of you.

Oh its not 1933 re visited but there has been an upswing in violence against Jews and jewish synagogues as well as noticable support for extremist parties

takign a wild guess here but it might be down to israeli's recent actions :rolleyes:

. Im thinking that Israel is often expected to make large risks in political and security terms by E.U.

Bull****, the exil of these people is illegal under international law and is only been allowed because everyone knows sooner or later israel would strom the church and all 200 people would be killed.

bugler

Quelle surpris, the article I quoted above about the Likud motion?

Well it passed:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,714652,00.html

So now Israel's leader belongs to party that despite everything else that has been well catalogued, now also opposes the right of Palestinians to a homeland. Even Georgey Poregy didn't say such things!

Meanwhile, despite condemning the vote as "tragic for the state of Israel", Nobel Peace prize winner Shimon Peres is still in government with people who now refuse to acknowledge the fact that Palestinians just might have their own nation. This would be in continuing with the tradition of winning peace prizes and then proceeding on to self-parody.

Also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,714484,00.html

Some jewish extremists planned to bomb a local Palestinian girls school and hospital, but were arrested by Israeli security forces. The arrests drew criticism from hardline settlers' groups etc, with the leader of one group excusing the mens' actions by eloquently stating

I think the government should put bombs in hospitals but unfortunately the government doesn't do it, so it is up to the people to do those things

Dear me. Even Hamas would probably baulk at saying such a thing.

Biffa Bacon

I have to say I think a Palestinian state is a bad idea also, from the point of view of the Palestinians. It would be economically unviable, permanently propped up by aid from the US and EU and would be corruptly run by Arafat and his cronies. I believe the only fair and workable solution would be to establish joint Israeli-Palestinian sovereignty over the entire area of mandated Palestine, a new state in other words that would serve both identities.

bugler

Yes, but when you come out of dreamland the gloss of that idea will be lost. Let's not get confused about why Likud want to deny the Palestinians a state either. They are not worried about an unviable Palestinian economy, or the general welfare of Palestinians. This is merely another indicator of the Israeli right seeking to re-affirm its claim to what was 'promised' to the jews by mythology. Israeli citizens are going to be blown up in Israel aslong as Israel denies the Palestinians a state of their own. As for your reckoning of the potential economic prospects of such a state, that remains to be seen. The Palestinian economy has been dogged by the military occupation and the hegemony of its more powerful neighbours, it hasn't been given a chance.

Propped up by the EU? Do you know paid for those nice buildings that the Israeli army smashed, vandalised and levelled in the occupied territories? Better our money help a fledgling Palestinian state than provide fodder for Israel's oh so 'pure' armed forces. Propped up by the U.S? Imagine a small country in the Middle East, that can't survive without U.S aid...no need to imagine, that would be Israel.


Imperialism as we knew it is almost dead (not in the occupied territories though). People are entitled to a very fundamental right, Biffa. It's called "self-determination". Welcome to the 21st century.

Boston

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I have to say I think a Palestinian state is a bad idea also, from the point of view of the Palestinians. It would be economically unviable, permanently propped up by aid from the US and EU and would be corruptly run by Arafat and his cronies. I believe the only fair and workable solution would be to establish joint Israeli-Palestinian sovereignty over the entire area of mandated Palestine, a new state in other words that would serve both identities.

The country would be in two parts and you would need to go trough israel to get to each part.
it would be a nightmare, with israeli only roads, a limited police force and no military.

whats mroe the israelis do think a palestinian state is a great idea, just no a sovereign one as that may challenge israel