It's always quite interesting to learn about what we think, should think and could think here in "old" Europe. :wink:
It's even more interesting, however, to learn that quotes from some country's government are obviously only positive, when conform with the "world's leading nation". Otherwise, they were ignored. (Remember, how you laughed about the Spanish-Maroconian 'conflict'? Remember, what you told us Europeans about 'the criminal' Berlusconi'? And since when are the Baltic state's opinion of any interest in the USA?)
0 Replies
georgeob1
1
Reply
Sun 23 Feb, 2003 01:56 pm
A bit difficult to follow your meaning here, Walter. I believe the evidence shows us that governments in Europe and in the United States ignore each other equally in cases in which they disagree.
How much serious attention was given in Europe to the substance of the issues and reservations the United States had (and has) with respect to either the Kyoto or ICC treaties?
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
1
Reply
Sun 23 Feb, 2003 02:06 pm
Sorry to lead you in difficulties, George :wink: .
Well, as known, most European countries have another opinion on Kyoto, ICC and 'war against Iraq' than the USA.
We can notice it here, in our neighbourhood, at work and every day's politics: two opposite opinions aren't followed by instantly by big hugs.
0 Replies
steissd
1
Reply
Sun 23 Feb, 2003 02:07 pm
Mr. Seydlitz, there are no plans of transferring Palestinians to Jordan or elsewhere. On the contrary, Mr. Sharon makes all the efforts possible to avoid the transfer supporters to join the governmental coalition; he prefers to build a government of national unity that will include his main competitors to building a narrow right-wing coalition that will make it impossible to implement the modified "Road Maps" plan that is supposed to be made public very soon.
Unfortunately, part of the European public still perceives Mr. Sharon as a kind of Mideastern Himmler, while this politician is a moderate conservative standing on pragmatic positions.
0 Replies
seydlitz89
1
Reply
Sun 23 Feb, 2003 02:10 pm
Walter-
Greetings. Yes, you are right in that the Baltic countries never have counted for much, we hesitated for some time to even recognize them in 1991, but at the moment Bush needs to sell the impression that there are significant European states behind him so everyone gets counted . . .
How's Schroeder doing with the rank and file SPD? Any bad feelings coming up due to the US talking about pulling out of Germany? Do the people blame Bush or Schroeder for this?
0 Replies
seydlitz89
1
Reply
Sun 23 Feb, 2003 02:16 pm
steissd-
Hello. You're the first person I've ever heard call Sharon a "moderate", however I have heard him referred to as "a man of peace".
I guess we will have to wait and see. You do know of the van Crefeld article I was referring to . . . ?
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
1
Reply
Sun 23 Feb, 2003 02:27 pm
seydlitz
Both, my wife and I, have ID-cards, certifying, that we are inhabitants of the British Zone. :wink:
Well, seriously, I don't know it, because I don't live in that region. But, we had had here the same with the Canadian, Belgian and British troops.
At fisrt, it is always a shock for the cummunities. But mostly seen as a chance of creating some good urban development.
This was at least, what happened here the last years.
No, I don't think, any politican is blamed for this and there are no bad feelings this way: the US-Army is withdrawing its troops as did tthe other allies since years. It is a known fact.
Schröder and the SPD: I've spoken actually today with my member of parliament (Bundestags) about that. According to him (and my represantative to the state parliament), law makers and party are strong in supporting Schröder.
German citizen's support him by more than 80% on his opinion against the war.
This seems to be, however, the only point where Schröder/SPD and citizens match completely.
0 Replies
steissd
1
Reply
Sun 23 Feb, 2003 02:30 pm
You have not provided any link, so I had no possibility to read the article. By the way, it is true that Mr. Sharon wants peace. But real peace, and not triumph of terror. And the government led by him is ready for territorial concessions that will lead to creation of the independent Palestinian state. By the way, majority of hardliners have left Likud for another parties, like "National Union" (Yichood Lëoomee) of Avigdor Liebermann or "Liberty" (Cheroot) of Michael Kleiner.
0 Replies
seydlitz89
1
Reply
Sun 23 Feb, 2003 05:11 pm
Walter-
Thanks for your responses.
steissd-
I asked about the Crefeld piece because I have been unable to find the link. I have a hard copy of the article and an electronic copy (somewhere) . . . I thought maybe if you had read it you would have the link.
Your comments are heartening, but I still think we will have to wait and see. I hope for the best.
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
1
Reply
Mon 24 Feb, 2003 01:16 am
steissd
I wouldn't consider Shinui and National Religious Party to 'softies'. :wink:
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
1
Reply
Mon 24 Feb, 2003 01:23 am
Here's the article by Creveld:
Quote:
Sharon's plan is to drive Palestinians across the Jordan
(Filed: 28/04/2002)
THE leading Israeli historian Martin van Creveld predicts that a US attack on Iraq or a terrorist strike at home could trigger a massive mobilisation to clear the occupied territories of their two million Arabs
Two years ago, less than eight per cent of those who took part in a Gallup poll among Jewish Israelis said they were in favour of what is euphemistically called "transfer" - that is, the expulsion of perhaps two million Palestinians across the River Jordan. This month that figure reached 44 per cent.
Ariel Sharon
Earlier this year, when a journalist asked Ariel Sharon whether he favoured such a move, the Israeli prime minister said he did not think in such terms. A glance at his memoirs, however, shows that he has not always been so fastidious.
In September 1970 King Hussein of Jordan fell on the Palestinians in his kingdom, killing perhaps 5,000 to 10,000. The then Gen Sharon, serving as Commanding Officer, Southern Front, argued that Israel's policy of helping the king was a mistake; instead it should have tried to topple the Hashemite regime.
He has often said since that Jordan, which, according to him, has a Palestinian majority even now, is the Palestinian state. The inference - that the Palestinians should go there - is clear.
During its 1948 War of Independence, Israel drove 650,000 Palestinians from their homes into neighbouring countries. If it were to try something similar today, the outcome could well be a regional war. More and more people in Jerusalem believe that such is Mr Sharon's objective.
It might explain why Mr Sharon, famous for his ability to plan ahead, appears not to have a plan. In fact, he has always harboured a very clear plan - nothing less than to rid Israel of the Palestinians.
Few people, least of all me, want the following events to happen. But such a scenario could easily come about. Mr Sharon would have to wait for a suitable opportunity - such as an American offensive against Iraq, which some Israelis think is going to take place in early summer.
Mr Sharon himself told Colin Powell, the secretary of state, that America should not allow the situation in Israel to delay the operation.
An uprising in Jordan, followed by the collapse of King Abdullah's regime, would also present such an opportunity - as would a spectacular act of terrorism inside Israel that killed hundreds.
Should such circumstances arise, then Israel would mobilise with lightning speed - even now, much of its male population is on standby.
First, the country's three ultra-modern submarines would take up firing positions out at sea. Borders would be closed, a news blackout imposed, and all foreign journalists rounded up and confined to a hotel as guests of the Government.
A force of 12 divisions, 11 of them armoured, plus various territorial units suitable for occupation duties, would be deployed: five against Egypt, three against Syria, and one opposite Lebanon. This would leave three to face east as well as enough forces to put a tank inside every Arab-Israeli village just in case their populations get any funny ideas.
The expulsion of the Palestinians would require only a few brigades. They would not drag people out of their houses but use heavy artillery to drive them out; the damage caused to Jenin would look like a pinprick in comparison.
Any outside intervention would be held off by the Israeli air force. In 1982, the last time it engaged in large-scale operations, it destroyed 19 Syrian anti-aircraft batteries and shot down 100 Syrian aircraft against the loss of one.
Its advantage is much greater now than it was then and would present an awesome threat to any Syrian armoured attack on the Golan Heights.
As for the Egyptians, they are separated from Israel by 150 miles or so of open desert. Judging by what happened in 1967, should they try to cross it they would be destroyed.
The Jordanian and Lebanese armed forces are too small to count and Iraq is in no position to intervene, given that it has not recovered its pre-1991 strength and is being held down by the Americans. Saddam Hussein may launch some of the 30 to 40 missiles he probably has.
The damage they can do, however, is limited. Should Saddam be mad enough to resort to weapons of mass destruction, then Israel's response would be so "awesome and terrible" (as Yitzhak Shamir, the former prime minister, once said) as to defy the imagination.
Some believe that the international community will not permit such an ethnic cleansing. I would not count on it. If Mr Sharon decides to go ahead, the only country that can stop him is the United States.
The US, however, regards itself as being at war with parts of the Muslim world that have supported Osama bin Laden. America will not necessarily object to that world being taught a lesson - particularly if it could be as swift and brutal as the 1967 campaign; and also particularly if it does not disrupt the flow of oil for too long.
Israeli military experts estimate that such a war could be over in just eight days. If the Arab states do not intervene, it will end with the Palestinians expelled and Jordan in ruins.
If they do intervene, the result will be the same, with the main Arab armies destroyed. Israel would, of course, take some casualties, especially in the north, where its population would come under fire from Hizbollah.
However, their number would be limited and Israel would stand triumphant, as it did in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973. Are you listening Mr Arafat?
Prof van Creveld is author of The Sword and the Olive; a Critical History of the Israel Defence Force (New York, 1998). He lives in Jerusalem
0 Replies
steissd
1
Reply
Mon 24 Feb, 2003 02:15 am
IMHO, this is van Creveld's personal opinion; the mainstream Israeli politicians and mediamen do not regard seriously an option of transfer of Palestinians anywhere. On the contrary, Mr. Sharon makes an attempt to avoid incorporation into the new coalition the political party "Yihood Leumi" that advocates transfer; they will appear in the government only if there is no other choice -- Likud has less than a half of parliamentary seats, hence it is impossible to establish a government in absence of a coalition.
NRP is really a settlers' party, but it has never advocated transfer. By all means, it seems to me that NRP leadership is flexible enough; it is ready to give up certain isolated settlements, and to attempt to trade settlements' blocks for certain areas of the sovereign Israel, exclusively populated by the ethnic Arabs that identify themselves as Palestinians.
0 Replies
seydlitz89
1
Reply
Mon 24 Feb, 2003 05:46 am
Walter-
Yep, that's it. Thanks. Crefeld is a distinguished military historian and strategic thinker. If he is worried about this then there is reason imo.
steissd-
You make a compelling argument against the probability of such an action happening, but being American I have come to distrust what is said in public by governments in power. All to often they have their hidden military and political goals which they know would have only limited support. As I mentioned above, time will tell.
0 Replies
steissd
1
Reply
Mon 24 Feb, 2003 05:54 am
This is not only what Mr. Sharon declares in public is all about. Majority of local politicians and mediamen feel that the failure of the Israeli PR internationally is the obsolete perception of Mr. Sharon abroad, based on impressions of 1982. Mr. Sharon of 2003 is much more moderate and pragmatic than it is used to think about him abroad.
0 Replies
blatham
1
Reply
Mon 24 Feb, 2003 09:46 am
Or, he has learned to lie better. Politicians do this on occassion, I have it on good authority. His actions are NOT cause for much optimism.
0 Replies
HofT
1
Reply
Mon 24 Feb, 2003 11:39 am
Blatham - you're a writer of vast talent; not a claim I can make, though can read carefully. Check out this quote appearing earlier on this thread:
""""""""""""""""""""""""
"When the enemies publicly burn U.S. flags and puppets in shape of Uncle Sam or actual President (anyone being in office at the moment of demonstration), maffick on the 09/11 anniversary, no translation is needed."
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Next, look up "maffick" - a word vanished from circulation since the late unlamented Kim Philby stopped teaching English Lit. seminars at his last residence <G>
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
1
Reply
Mon 24 Feb, 2003 11:43 am
My God, is it really so long ago that I learnt English? [Not quoting by this that HofT mentioned my teacher by name! :wink: ]
My congratulations, Comrade Hinteler! BTW, what is your military/special rank? Mr. Filby, if I remember well, was a Lt.-Colonel of the KGB (just like President Putin prior to resignation from the force).
0 Replies
steissd
1
Reply
Mon 24 Feb, 2003 12:10 pm
One small question, Mr/Ms HofT: you have quoted a line from my response; not being a great specialist in irony, I would like to ask: what is wrong with the sentence? In case I made certain syntax errors in it, I want to apologize, and to explain this by the fact that English is not my mother tongue.