The press didnt report the truth about the Fence

You do realize that this is simply because Israel has occupied it for a couple of generations?

Why should the "Arab neighbors" have to make up for Israel's oppression of the Palestinians?

Also, I think that we all already discussed the whole Arab war thing and I think it was Israel that attacked the Arabs first in a preemptive attack.


Those lands that Israel is occupying is not their's by any moral right.

With our help Israel has oppressed and kept the Palestinians down and in inhumane conditions for years. The militants are fighting the only way they can with the only weapons they have against not only Israel but also the US.

Most of the regimes of the Arab world is corrupt and is only out for themselves and their oil interest and could care a less about the poor of the ordinary Arab or Muslim. Those regime prosper because of us and our leaders who pick and choose between corrupt leaders depending on who or what they need at the time. So the Palestinians cannot have help from those Arab leaders who have not helped anyone at all much less the Palestinians. However, that does not take away the fault and guilt of the Israeli oppressions.

I am not saying that I stand up and cheer when I hear about poor little chldren getting killed on a bus on the way to school, because I don't. I am just saying that there is another side and there are innocent children getting killed in Palestine everyday plus being oppressed in every other way that keeps them from being able to live normal lives so they can go to school on a bus in the first place.

never doubted it Foxy

As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.

An enthusiastic echo was heard May 20 from Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad:

Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.

On May 22, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping and all ships bound for Eilat. This blockade cut off Israel's only supply route with Asia and stopped the flow of oil from its main supplier, Iran. The following day, President Johnson expressed the belief that the blockade was illegal and unsuccessfully tried to organize an international flotilla to test it.

Nasser was fully aware of the pressure he was exerting to force Israel's hand. The day after the blockade was set up, he said defiantly: "The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war."

Nasser challenged Israel to fight almost daily. "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight," he said on May 27.9 The following day, he added: "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."

King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30. Nasser then announced:

The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations.

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."12 On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

The Arab rhetoric was matched by the mobilization of Arab forces. Approximately 250,000 troops (nearly half in Sinai), more than 2,000 tanks and 700 aircraft ringed Israel.

By this time, Israeli forces had been on alert for three weeks. The country could not remain fully mobilized indefinitely, nor could it allow its sea lane through the Gulf of Aqaba to be interdicted. Israel's best option was to strike first.On June 5, the order was given to attack Egypt.

People don't give the US the credit for the even-handedness it has demonstrated.

I can give countless examples of where we are the only thing holding Israel back from even more insane foreign policy (to use just one example they withdrew from Sianai under our threat to let Russia follow through on theirs).

This is a falsehood that you can't substantiate.

Do you know that Israel currently possesses Palestinian tax revenue that they are withholding?

Do you know that Israel systemically ransacked PA infrastructure? They did things like destory documents simply to reduce the Palestinian infrastructure to rubble. Heck they did that literally (reducing the PA to rubble).



Do you know, that under international law the occupying military has responsibilities?

McG, Israel is not responsible for Palestinian welfare. Israel chose, however, to decimate the Palestinian Authority, withold their revenue and occupy the territories.

Legally this comes with resonsibilities. These responsibilities Israel chose to accept with their occupation.

Now Israel wants to end the occupation. Good idea, they dont need the millstone around their necks.

Israel's objections with the Palestinian Authority led them to destroy it and occupy the territory. They have a legal responsibility to do many of the things you say they do not have the responsibility for.

If they destroy the Palestinian Government and occupy them, they take up this responsibility by choice.

Those countries are not destroying Palestinian Infrastructure systemically.

They are not witholding their tax revenue.

They are not occupying the Palestinian land.

Apples and oranges.

This is the fallacy of prevarication. The "infrastructure" required for some nuts to build bombs is not anything on the scale than is needed to run the country.



No, it's not nice. It's stupid. Israel needs to completely end Palestinian employment within Israel until the conflict is over.

It will be rough on Palestinian workers, but simply put they have no right to jobs in Israel. And their employment in Israel is hampering rights they do have, like the right to statehood.

I will give credit where credit is due. Very little due imo.



really, examples without number?



What was the Russian threat? Is it being even handed by preventing your ally going berserk?

What reason do the Israeli's give for withholding Palestinian tax revenues?

as far as the destruction of infrastructure goes, I believe that they do that to thwart terrorism. The PA does not have an outstanding history of being cooperative with the Israeli government. Neither side does. But that does place the responsibilty for supporting the palestinians squarely on the shoulders of Israel. What has the world community done to help the Palestinians besides condemning Israel?

This is just a rhetoric question, correct?

Just in case ...

The EU's relations with West Bank and Gaza Strip

IMO, this is an example of your lacking evenhandedness on this.



Steve, I don't have time to teach you English, so how about admitting that you understand the sentence perfectly and not wasting time on quips like this?



To bomb Israel into submission. Eisenhower told Israel, Britain and France that the US would allow them to do so if this group of nations did not immediately give up their attempt to seize the Suez canal.



Really Steve, you are showing your ignorace on this matter. At the time Israel was not a US ally. Israel was working with your country and with France and the US sided with Egypt to kick all three nations to the curb to protect Egypt's Suez Canal.

Allow me to elucidate:

In 1956 Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, Britain and France did not wish for Egypt to control this waterway so they devised a plan to use Israel to give them the pretext to seize it.

The plan was for Israel to invade, and for France and Britain to then come to the "rescue", sending in troops and telling each side to withdraw 10 miles on each side.

Eisenhower was pissed and said, "I've just never seen great powers make such a complete mess and botch of things!"

Russia was pissed too.

Eisenhower threatened Britain with oil sanctions and threatened to stand by and let Russia become involved directly. I recall a quote about "bombing to kingdom come" but do not recall if that was editorializing I had read or an Eisenhower quote.

Simply put Steve, the US wasn't even an ally of Israel's at the time at all and sided against it.

It was a turning point in history and because of Russia's encroachment in the mid east the Eisenhower Doctrine of helping nations in the mideast was created.

The alliance with Israel was forged from the cold war and fears of Russia's influence in the oil-rich region and not some blind love for Israel.

The US relationship with Israel is poorly understood, verily you demonstrate very little understanding of it.

Truman reluctantly even supported the creation of Israel. A man he admired greatly, George Marshall, said that it would be a mistake that would endager access to Arab oil and come acroos as pandering for the Jewish vote.

George Marshall went so far as to say that he'd personally vote against Truman in the elections if US recognition of Israel came to pass.

Truman didn't bow to this pressure but Israel was not a US ally until the threat of the Soviets in the region made it so. The US provided no aid to Israel initially.

When the US really started sideing with Israel we still maintained that Israel should return the land they captured in 67 (see resolution 242).

This has been the unwavering position of the US ever since then, and we probably would have forced Israel's hand if tensions with Russia* did not make the land a low priority.

* For example, Russia threatened to send in troops once and that sent the world to a nuclear alert.

During the cold war the US was the most pro-Israel and it had more to do with the Soviets than Israel. But even then this was not over a desire to protect Israel so much as out interests in the cold war and the oil-rich region.

Nixon epitomized this phase, he reportedly cautioned Kissenger against even the appearance of being too pro-Israel. He wanted Israel to win saying "thank God, they should" but also added that Israel "will be even more impossible to deal with than before".

This was not blind love, just cold war realpolitik that really ended with him.

Carter's presidency brought a new phase of the relationship. Sadat kicked the soviets out of Egypt and the US began it's relationships with the Arabs that continue to this day (for example, Israel and Egypt are the greatest recipients of US foreign aid, in that order).

Carter failed to get Israel out of the territories because of his failures in other areas, but the US policy since then has always been for Israel to go back to the green line.

Israel only gets away with what she does because of the muderous Palestinian bombers who give Israel the pretext to retain their hold on the land while acting in "self defense".

The US has rebuked and restrained Israel time and time again, and your position is based on ignorance of these events.

To cite just one example where you are wrong, Israel was not a US ally at all when the the US stood Israel Britain and France down.

well I'm not a mind reader. you never said you were referring to Suez 1956

Nothing specific to the revenue itself, it's just additional leverage in the conflict.

Edit: the stated reason is that they withold it because of Palestinian infractions in agreements etc, or that the Palestinian Authority can't be trusted or whatnot.

But it's just leverage.



There are very clear indications to the contrary. Israel destroyed PAlestinian governmental infrastructure in ways that can't be said to be promoting their security at all. Bombing the police and jails where militants are held only made police quit and made them less likely to fight the extremists.

The PAlestinian prisons are already "revolving door" prisons and bombing the infrastructure that keeps that tenuous grasp on control does nothing to help Israeli security.

Israel has a policy of punishing the PA arbitrarily in retaliation. It wasn't for asny specific security reasons, just a reciprocal act.

Israel would suffer an attack and then would retaliate against the Palestinian Authority, only reducing their capabilities to do anything at all.

Observing the conflict the purpose was very clear to me. Israel was dismantling a government in arbitrary punishment for the terrorism.

It may be understandable, but it was only related to security in the most coincidental way (e.g. any punishment of the Palestinian population is a punishment for the extremists in their midst).

But even if we pretend that all made sense there were clear examples of the IDF simply looting and destroying PA civil infrastructure. I'm talking about things like destroying their filing and such, I'd compare it to ransacking social security here and destroying civil infrastructure.



The PA has a better record than any Palestinian entity, and Israel's move against relative moderates belies, IMO, their intent.

Israel has never seemed to have a problem with acting against moderates, as delaying statehood is part of Israel's stated policy.

Just as statehood is seen as a reward by Israel they see punishing Palestinian civil infrastructure and infrastructure for said statehood as valid punishment.



This depends on what you mean when you say "supporting the palestinians".

Under the Geneva Convention Israel has certain very clear obligations in the civil realm (health, schools etc).

This was one of the big reasons Israel was keen to the Palestinian Authority and the limited self-governance (and is one reason Israel was holding tax revenue).

Israel allowed the creation of the PA to begin to take care of the Palestinian civil infrastructure and was doling out the Palestinian tax money.

With the new government the decision was made to destroy the PA, and reoccupy the territories and having done so Israel takes on the responsibility again.

Now Israel wants to withdraw and it's this back and forth that we keep seeing.

Israel will have been responsible for destroying it, and then will pull out and leave them to fix it in a steady theme in this cycle.



A lot.

And note to Steve, the US has done a lot too.

No mind reading was necessary, just knowledge of the situation.

There has only been one threat to Israel to withdraw from the Sianai or face the Soviets, my mention of this event clearly dates it as post-October 1956.

Craven if it was before the US was an Israeli ally that we stoped them from doing something to the Palestinians then does that really count in the here and now situation if we think about what we have done for the Palestinians since we became an ally?

I admit that I am ignorant, I don't know beans about the past wars and things.

However, I did read Clark's book and it does seem as if the United States went on a different track with Israel after Regan became president that seemed to side with Israel more. Also it can't be denied that we have given them tons of money and weapons that is out of proportion to what we have given Palestinians by a long shot.

I may be a bit biased, but I think Clinton truly was trying to be an honest broker. Also Bush is pushing for a two state solution. However the things he saids and the way he says it leaves no doubt about his complete lack of disrespect for the Palestinian people. Also, we always vote for Israel in the UN resolution things. Our media always goes on and on about every single bombing that Israel suffers but barely mentions anything that Israel does and if they do they disclaim it by saying it is because of a bomb the week before as though that excuses some of their past actions such as those "incursions" where they destroyed homes. It was during all this that Bush was meeting with Bush but refused to even see Arafat. Are those things not true? Why wouldn't people think the US is uneven towards Israel?

The example we were speaking of, was not involving the Palestinians at all, but the Egyptians.

There are examples from this very Bush administration of us reigning in Israeli action.

For example, in April of 2002 when Israel was launching large-scale incursions into Palestinian cities Bush made a speech where he demanded that Israel halt and reverse it's whole short-term strategy.

Here's the portion of the speech:



Now a lot of that was contextual padding, in the nuanced diplospeak of the mid-east a lot of what's in there was added for balance (for example, the US frequently vetoes resolutions that do not have the contextual balance while condemning an Israeli action. Even if we too condemn the action we will sometimes veto a resolution that does not condemn the action in "context". Which is a diplomatic euphemism in this conflict for not mentioning the other side's faults. When the "context" is added the US will somtimes abstain, which in this context is tantamount to voting against Israel.

Anywho, in the above demand Israel was really getting into the drive into the territories and was tearin' stuff up. Contrary to what folks like Limbaugh said Israel was not done, they had no intention to stop. Israel made a face-saving show of having finished but this was not true, and you can tell by events like when Sharon made the "appeasement" gaffe (comparing Bush's calls for them to slow down to "appeasement" of Hitler) that US pressure on Israel to withdraw was causing friction.

And Bush put the pressure on. Inside Israel there were some murmurs about how we were waging our war on terror and hampering them in our efforts to build the Iraq coalition.

We were causing sparks over there and Israel dragged their feet.

The speech had no clear timetable of what "immediate cease-fire" was supposed to mean. But knowlegable pundits could read it from a mile away. Bush was sending Powell in, and the unstated, but clear due to the traditions of diplospeak, message was that when Powell got there Israel had damn well bettr be back on their side of the line.

Israel played a bit of a face-saving bluff and snubbed us for a few days, deciding to pull back from only two of the 6 or so towns that they were operating in (if I remember correctly they had about a week or more before Powell was to show up).

This little act of Israeli defiance was met with very harsh (for the diplomatic standards) action by the US.

Bush told Anthony Zinni to personally deliver a message to Sharon in person that while not disclosed was widely known to be a message that Israel was to withdraw immediately.

Bush punctuated this message by a public comment saying "I meant what I said to the prime minister of Israel -- I expect there to be a withdrawal without delay".

This was very a very agressive stance, in diplomacy this is as harsh as it gets between allies.

It was further punctuated by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer who said of the two-town pull out:

"It's a start, As the president said last Thursday, all parties in the Middle East have responsibilities and the president expects all parties to step up to them."

This was a very clear example of the US pretty much telling Israel they had about a week to get the hell out of the towns they were operating in, and as expected, Israel bowed to the pressure.

That this was a confrontation of wills was best made clear by the attempt by Palestinian spokesperson Erakat to play up the rift:

"When he is defying, he is really defying President Bush's call for withdrawal, for stopping incursions," Erakat said. "He's saying I will delay my presence."

The US has done this time and time again in nearly all phases of our relationship with Israel. Israel's actions are extreme by most people's standards and we are frequently the only entity reigning them in.

The pressure on Israel was really evident in 2002 (running up to the invasion of Iraq), I recall some Israeli (who I don't remember and will paraphrase from memory instead of looking it up) who said something like this: "I will say something cruel, but Israel has killed fewer innocents than the Americans in Afghanistan."

This was in response to our pressure on them to "consider the consequences" of their actions, those calls were basically bitch-slapping them and were usually delivered by Fleischer. They usually went like this "while we understand Israel's right to defend herself blah blah blah, we ask that they consider the consequences of their actions... blah blah blah".

Time and time again the nuanced diplomatic deliveries of our disapproval reigned Israel in.

Another example of us reigning them in is Arafat. Israel has been ready to assasinate him for over 2 years now, and we are the only reason he is alive.

We've said time and time again publically that we would disapprove and in private channels we made this clear in no uncertain terms and even extracted promises to the effect that Arafat would not be harmed.



It's true that we give a lot more to Israel than to the Palestinians, but then again we give almost as much to Egypt, who Israel has fought with quite a lot.

The foreign aid we give each country is not charity but a strategic investment in the region.

Egypt's investment was because of their about face and making peace, as well as dumping an alliance with the Soviets.

Israel too, provides us with strategic return on the investment in a myriad of ways. Just one example is intel, as they provide us with copious amounts of it.

The foreign aid is a measure of the nation's usefullness to us strategically and not really how much we like the nation.

The two largest recipients of foreign aid are Israel and Egypt, both traditional adversaries who we've positioned ourselves with for strategic reasons.



Clinton's last ditch attempt at a serious legacy came too late, he should have tried it earlier and it might have worked.

But in case you are unaware Clinton blames Arafat for the failure. Arafat's negotiations were nothing short of idiotic and he blew the shot at peace by simply being an idiot. He couldn't maintain a coherent position and at times seemed not to even understand what was going on.

I agree with Clinton's accessment, Arafat bungled that negotiation spectacularly. I probably would have punched him if I were there, as he spoiled a good chance for his people by being an idiot in negotiatons. Israel came prepared to play the game well, and Arafat came there to sputter rhetoric and walked out.

Arafat's idiocy turned Israeli sympathy against the Palestinians, when he launched the intifada the Israelis saw it as a slap in their face, and so they should. Everyone sat down to talk and Arafat pulled a bonehead move and launched an intifada.

This bonehead move set the stage for more militaristic Sharon to take power and Israel reacted to the intifada in the manner typical to them in this conflict.



I don't know where you get the disrespect impression, personally I don't care what his respect level is, as he has done soem really important things.

Saying certain things in this conflict mean a lot. Going to the United Nations and giving US sanction for a Palestinian state is a precedent that tips the scales a wee bit. It can't be taken back easily and in on the record for the future. Don't underestimate this kind of verbal precedent in this conflict. In diplomatic terms it was resounding.

Bush went so far as to put a timeline on this it probably won't be met because of Palestinian political instability but it is not a lighthearted thing to do.

He's also called Israel on not only recognizing the fait accompli of Palestinian statehood but to work toward a "viable" state. Steve was right in that this is a crucial distinction and Bush put it on the record that we envision not only Palestinian statehood but viable statehood and expect Israel to act with this same goal in mind.

From the speech I quoted earlier:

Peace with Israel is the only avenue to prosperity and success for a new Palestinian state. The Palestinian people deserve peace and an opportunity to better their lives. They need their closest neighbor, Israel, to be an economic partner, not a mortal enemy. They deserve a government that respects human rights and a government that focuses on their needs -- education and health care -- rather than feeding their resentments. It is not enough for Arab nations to defend the Palestinian cause. They must truly help the Palestinian people by seeking peace and fighting terror and promoting development. [b]Israel faces hard choices of its own. Its government has supported the creation of a Palestinian state that is not a haven for terrorism. Yet, Israel also must recognize that such a state needs to be politically and economically viable. [/b]

No we don't. When the resolution has the "context" we demand we often abstain and let it pass.

For example:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/07/un.security.council/

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/09/24/world/un_mideast020924

That's just two examples I recall off the top of my head from the last few years.

Like I said, people do not remember these things and are so caught up with caricaturizing the conflict that they cease to pay attention and just buy the stereotype.

We do not always veto the resolutions against Israel and have let several through as long as they satisfy some criteria of "context" (mentioning the Palestinian terrorism) and sometimes even without context we abstain to send a message to Israel of our disapproval.



I disagree with this perception and I follow this conflict religiously. Our media is less critical of Israel than anywhere else in the world but they do not do what you are saying.

In fact, the New York Times, for example, was forced by Jewish pressure to do something like a weeklong series on Israeli victims after being lobbied for what people were saying was an inordinate focus on the effect of Israel's actions on the Palestinians.

I believe the NYT is owned by a Jewish family and didn't really see any significant pro-Palestinian bias but many did and called them on it, forcing them to counter with about a week of daily specials, which were basically emotional pieces on the Israeli suffering.

Furthermore, the language of the media nearly always mentions reprisal because the conflict itself centers on the pretext of revenge.

Each side is ALWAYS claiming that their next attack is revenge for the other side's last attack. And I think that you are confusing the pretexts that Palestinian terrorists and Israeli military use to kill each other for media bias.

The conflict is a cycle of perceived revenge, and no matter how it's reported it will come across that way because each side is always getting all hot under the collar and saying that terrible revenge is coming for the latest act (as if they weren't already interested in fighing each other).



This was diplomatic pressure, Arafat was slacking and being the bumbling idiot he is. Allowing a visit to the US is a huge carrot for a guy like him as it lends him a legitimacy that is subsequently translated into political capital.

The US grudgingly went along with Israel's brilliant (for their goals, not the peace process) idea of sidelining Arafat. And there's a bit of bias there.

But do note that Arafat did himself no favors by basically getting caught with his pants down and low level (I repeat, low level, not in bed with terrorists or anything) contacts between the PA and terrorist bombers.

Israel flatly refused to negotiate further with him and wanted to kill him. We were fighting a battle of wills with Israel on so many fronts that we went along with sidelining him (only after a while of Israel's "sideline Arafat" campaign) and extracted demands not to hurt him.

Of course the fact that he's a total fool, corrupt, and incompetent went a long way towards our agreeing. He's a bit unbalanced and unpredictable and dealing with really good Palestinians like Abu Mazen was preferrable (the only problem was that none had the name recognition and symbolism of Arafat, which is why we insist on protecting him).

Not meeting with Arafat was not a bias against Palestinians but a bias against Arafat that was, IMO, wise based on what Israel's position was.

Meeting him lends him legitimacy and undermines the other Palestinians we wish to deal with.

For an idea of the complexities of the intra-Palestinian political struggle and why we agreed to sideline him see the reasons for Abu Mazen's resignation (smart guy, as he has a shitty job).

He quit and mentioned Israel as one big reason (Israel was playing hardball again) and while I do not recall how explicitly it was mentioned I do remember him being pretty pissed off at Arafat for undermining his efforts and vainly trying to remain in power and make puppets of every Palestinian leader stepping up to the plate.

Simply put, Arafat gave many reasons to treat him that way, and not seeing him was not a comment on Palestinians but Arafat himself.

We met with other leaders many times, and refused to meet Arafat because we were supporting the effort to get a saner more moderate Palestinian leader to deal with.

Israel was so poisoned against Arafat that it made good strategic sense to let his career die on the vine and foster the climate for more moderate Palestinian leadership.