1
   

Carter blames Israel for Mideast conflict

 
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 10:32 am
Monte Cargo
Monte Cargo wrote:
My comment was more to address what happened to bring us to that point. Kennedy planned an uprising in the Bay of Pigs, and then backed out of providing air cover, leading to the massacre of thousands of Cubans by Fidel's communist army. That signaled U.S. weakness to Nikita Kruschev, and to show the U.S.A. that the U.S.S.R. meant business, they sent nukes for Castro to shoot at the United States if we attemped another invasion.

Tensions between The United States and Cuba had increased steadily since the Cuban Revolution of 1959. The Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations had judged that Castro's policies including the expropriation of US assets on the island and Cuba's increasing ties with the Soviet Union could not be tolerated.

On March 17, 1960 the Eisenhower administration agreed to a recommendation from the CIA to equip and drill Cuban exiles for action against the new Castro government. Eisenhower stated that it was the policy of the U.S. government to aid anti-Castro guerilla forces. The CIA began to recruit and train anti-Castro forces in the Sierra Madre mountains on the Pacific coast of Guatemala. Vice President Richard Nixon, not Eisenhower, reportedly pushed the plan forward.

The CIA was initially confident that it was capable of overthrowing Castro, having experience assisting in the overthrow of other foreign governments such as Iranian prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in 1954. Richard Mervin Bissell Jr., one of Allen Dulles three aides, was made director of "Operation Zapata." (There is no direct evidence tying this to Zapata Corporation.)

The original plan had called for landing the exile brigade in the vicinity of the old colonial city of Trinidad, Cuba, located in the central province of Sancti Spiritus approximately 400 km southeast of Havana at the foothills of the Escambray mountains. The selection of the Trinidad site provided a number of options that the exile brigade could exploit to their advantage during the invasion. The population of Trinidad was generally opposed to Castro and the rugged mountains outside the city provided an area of operations to which the invasion force could retreat and establish a guerrilla campaign were the landing to falter. Throughout 1960, the growing ranks of Brigade 2506 trained at locations throughout southern Florida and in Guatemala for the beach landing and possible mountain retreat.

On February 17, 1961, Kennedy asked his advisors whether the toppling of Castro might be related to weapon shipments and if it was possible to claim the real targets were modern fighter aircraft and rockets which endangered America's security. At the time, Cuba's army possessed Soviet tanks, artillery and small arms, and its air force consisted of B-26 medium bombers, Hawker Sea Furies (a fast and effective, though obsolete, propeller driven fighter-bomber), and T-33 jets left over from the Batista Air Force.

As Washington's plans evolved, critical details were changed that were to hamper chances of a successful mission without US help. These revised details included changing the landing area for Brigade 2506 to two points in Matanzas Province, 202 km southeast of Havana on the eastern edge of the Zapata peninsula at the Bahia de Cochinos (Bay of Pigs). The landings would take place on the Girón and Playa Larga beaches. This change effectively cut off contact with the rebels in the Escambray "War Against the Bandits". The Castro government had been warned by senior KGB agents Osvaldo Sánchez Cabrera and "Aragon", who respectively died violently before and after the invasion. The US government was aware that a high casualty rate was possible.

Although Cuban forces at the actual site surrendered, it soon became evident after contact with Cuban reinforcements that the exiles were not going to receive effective support at the site of the invasion and were likely to lose. Reports from both sides describe tank battles involving heavy USSR equipment. Kennedy decided against giving the faltering invasion US air support (though four US pilots were killed in Cuba during the invasion) because of his opposition to overt intervention. Kennedy also canceled several sorties of bombings (only two took place) on the grounded Cuban Airforce, which might have crippled the Cuban Airforce and given air superiority to the invaders. U.S. Marines were not sent in, even though there were support ships off the coast ready to land at a moment's notice.
0 Replies
 
Monte Cargo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 08:41 pm
Well, BBB, that was an incredible accounting. In all of the reminiscing of Camelot, some of the the ugly realities have been well shielded from people. The Bay of Pigs fiasco is certainly one of them.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 08:55 pm
MC, Those were tough decisions for anybody to make, but it looks much uglier with 20/20 hindesite, because we attached Camelot to the Kennedy family when all this was happening.

I'm not excusing what Kennedy failed to do, but it makes one wonder with his brains how he could have failed so miserably.
0 Replies
 
Monte Cargo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Dec, 2006 11:42 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
MC, Those were tough decisions for anybody to make, but it looks much uglier with 20/20 hindesite, because we attached Camelot to the Kennedy family when all this was happening.

I'm not excusing what Kennedy failed to do, but it makes one wonder with his brains how he could have failed so miserably.

That particular event certainly goes down on the minus side of the Kennedy Administration, CI, along with his infamous reputation for womanizing, but no one can argue that JFK had brains, charisma, great statesmanship abilities, great vision, and had served his country well in the Navy. He was a much better president by leaps and bounds IMO than Lyndon Johnson.

Kennedy's ideas today would likely be considered as being more than moderately republican by today's standards. Kennedy was for cutting taxes, defeating or at least stopping the spread of communism, legislated and championed the concept of traditional family values (although Kennedy could have made Bill Clinton look like a virgin when it came to fraternizing with the fairer sex).
0 Replies
 
bisca
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Dec, 2006 12:17 pm
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Dec, 2006 12:25 pm
The missiles in Turkey thing would be a total non-issue without the assassination because JFK and Kruschev had embarked on what JFK termed a Blueprint for Peace Race designed to rid the world of the nuclear menace. http://www.aftercapitalism.com/Blueprint_for_the_Peace_Race.pdf
0 Replies
 
bisca
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Dec, 2006 12:50 pm
The total "non-issue" about the Turkish Missles is disputed by none other than Seymour Hersh in "The Dark Side of Camelot" with documentation by Sorenson and Dobrynin. It is positively hysterical that anyone would think that the "shoe-banging" Kruschev would make peace with the USA. It was only after the Soviet Union imploded under the burden of being able to keep up with the Reagan led military build-up that Reagan was able to tell Gorbachev, not Khruschev, to "tear down this wall(Berlin wall).
0 Replies
 
bisca
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Dec, 2006 12:53 pm
Returning to the excellent list made by Monte Carlo. That list does truly show that the US has been frequently attacked by Muslim militants. The US expert on Islam. Bernard Lewis, has frequently written about the small sliver of Islamic extremists who believe that Allah has willed that the entire world be united under a new Islamic Caliphate. Such fanatics can not be dealt with under normal conditions and must be ruthlessly wiped out.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Dec, 2006 08:39 pm
Hey there, DeadKat.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Dec, 2006 01:37 am
I'm not sure I follow the point about our removal of the "obsolete" Jupiter missiles from Turkey in 1963/4. There is no doubt this was a reciprocal deal for the removal of the somewhat more modern and capable missiles Kruschev had installed in Cuba. However a brief glimpse at a map will reveal that these 1000NM missiles gave ours in Turkey about the same access to the USSR's key industrial and military targets as did those in Cuba have for ours.

Discussions about what Kennedy might have done with more time are a bit pointless, given that the problem was so complex and his ongoing actions so contradictory. There is no doubt Kennedy started and did not waiver from the intent to directly combat the Soviet proclaimed "Wars of national Liberation" and to build up the military capability to do so. Vietnam was merely the most prominent example. Despite the revisionist suggestions that kennedy was backing away from the commitment to the struggle in Vietnam the fact is our forces there were growing and our mission for them was expanding right up until the day of his death. Indeed he bequeather Johnson plans for a major escalation of the war which in fact LBJ carried out, in part because he didn't want to appear any less "tough" than the supposed 'best and brightest' of Camelot..

I believe Bernard Lewis is largely correct in his views on the dangers of fanatic Islamists and, more significantly, the several changes mainstream Islam will have to make to adapt to the modern world. That, however is most certainly not a justification for the injustices Israel has inflicted on the Palestinian victims of its prolonged occupation. Nor does it justify the adoption by Israel of some of the same retrograde tribal and religious preferences in its civil code of which Lewis so accurately criticizes the Moslem world. Moslem backwardness is no excuse for an Israeli version of the same thing.
0 Replies
 
Monte Cargo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Dec, 2006 02:00 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I'm not sure I follow the point about our removal of the "obsolete" Jupiter missiles from Turkey in 1963/4.

The point was that rather than being a courageous leader who stared down Kruschev and drove the Russians to dismantle their nuclear installations in Cuba, there was a serious concession that revealed a much less spectacular topogrophy of the Soviet/US diplomatic strategy here. Giving over our edge over the Soviets was the steep price we paid because of Kennedy's lack of fortitude in the way he handled the Bay of Pigs. Had Kruscheve been convinced that Kennedy was truly a president not to be tangled with, it is doubtful he would have installed nuclear capable missle sites so close to the United States.

Quote:
There is no doubt this was a reciprocal deal for the removal of the somewhat more modern and capable missiles Kruschev had installed in Cuba. However a brief glimpse at a map will reveal that these 1000NM missiles gave ours in Turkey about the same access to the USSR's key industrial and military targets as did those in Cuba have for ours.

Exactly. Prior to the arrival of these Cuban missles, and prior to the planned Cuban invasion, the United States had a distinct advantage over the Soviets.

Quote:
Discussions about what Kennedy might have done with more time are a bit pointless, given that the problem was so complex and his ongoing actions so contradictory. There is no doubt Kennedy started and did not waiver from the intent to directly combat the Soviet proclaimed "Wars of national Liberation" and to build up the military capability to do so.

George, although Kruschev was hardly on the same page as Kennedy (Kruschev believed that the United States maintained nuclear superiority and was in a first strike position) and thus sought to accelerate the Soviet arms buildup to play "catch-up" with the U.S., Kennedy wanted disarmament. Here's an excerpt from Kennedy's 1962 State of the Union Address which flies in the face directly contrary to your statement:
Quote:
But to halt the spread of these terrible weapons, to halt the contamination of the air, to halt the spiraling nuclear arms race, we remain ready to seek new avenues of agreement, our new Disarmament Program thus includes the following proposals:
    First, signing the test-ban treaty by all nations. This can be done now. Test ban negotiations need not and should not await general disarmament. Second, stopping the production of fissionable materials for use in weapons, and preventing their transfer to any nation now lacking in nuclear weapons. Third, prohibiting the transfer of control over nuclear weapons to states that do not own them. Fourth, keeping nuclear weapons from seeding new battlegrounds in outer space. Fifth, gradually destroying existing nuclear weapons and converting their materials to peaceful uses; and Finally, halting the unlimited testing and production of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles, and gradually destroying them as well." Address Before the General Assembly of the United Nations, New York City, September 25, 1961


World order will be secured only when the whole world has laid down these weapons which seem to offer us present security but threaten the future survival of the human race. That armistice day seems very far away. The vast resources on this planet are being devoted more and more to the means of destroying, instead of enriching human life but the world was not meant to be a prison in which man awaits his execution.

State of the Union Address, January 11, 1962

Quote:
Vietnam was merely the most prominent example. Despite the revisionist suggestions that kennedy was backing away from the commitment to the struggle in Vietnam the fact is our forces there were growing and our mission for them was expanding right up until the day of his death. Indeed he bequeather Johnson plans for a major escalation of the war which in fact LBJ carried out, in part because he didn't want to appear any less "tough" than the supposed 'best and brightest' of Camelot..

Vietnam was an issue through five administrations, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon & Ford.

Quote:
I believe Bernard Lewis is largely correct in his views on the dangers of fanatic Islamists and, more significantly, the several changes mainstream Islam will have to make to adapt to the modern world. That, however is most certainly not a justification for the injustices Israel has inflicted on the Palestinian victims of its prolonged occupation. Nor does it justify the adoption by Israel of some of the same retrograde tribal and religious preferences in its civil code of which Lewis so accurately criticizes the Moslem world. Moslem backwardness is no excuse for an Israeli version of the same thing.

In this chicken vs. the egg discussion, where anti-Israeli opinion advances this notion that occupation precedes terrorism, the basic charters of Hamas and Hezbollah reveal the pervasive truth; they do not recognize the right of Israel to exist as a state. On the other hand, no such basic tenet is contained in Hebrew or Zionist philosophy, that the Arabs do not have a right to statehood and their own land.

The joint Arab invasion of Israel occurred the eve before the U.N. Partition Resolution of 1947. Many of the Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany fled to Israel and thus the United States does have an interest that goes beyond merely choosing which Sfardic tribe the U.S. wishes to rally behind.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Dec, 2006 02:06 pm
John F Kennedy, 1958 (from wikipedia)

"Our Nation could have afforded, and can afford now, the steps necessary to close the missile gap." The problem with the term is shown in the dictionary's next quote, merely four years later, from the Listener, 19 April 1962: "The passages on the 'missile gap' are a little dated, since Mr Kennedy has now told us that it scarcely ever existed."

Kennedy was particularly connected to the phrase as he used it frequently during the 1960 American presidential election campaign to attack the Republicans for their supposed complacency on the subject of Russian Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). Both countries had been developing missile technologies since World War II often with the assistance of German scientists gained as a result of initiatives such as Operation Paperclip. The Russian launch of Sputnik 1 was simply the most obvious use of the missile technology compared to the stocks of military missiles both sides already had. The Russians also had concentrated mainly on larger, long distance ICBMs more suited for deployment to space whereas the Americans possessed many more smaller, short-range IRBMs. These were often deployed in Europe closer to Russia than the Russians could manage to get to the continental United States.

Beginning with the collection of photo-intelligence by U-2 overflights of the Soviet Union in 1956, the Eisenhower administration had increasing hard evidence that claims of a missile gap favoring the Soviet Union were false. However, fearing that public disclosure of this evidence would jeopardize the secret U-2 flights, Eisenhower elected not to directly refute the missile gap claims by opponents, including Kennedy during the 1960 campaign, by publicly citing the evidence from the U-2 overflights.

Moreover, Eisenhower was concerned that any direct public proof that the United States held vast superiority in numbers of missiles over the Soviets would publicly humiliate the Soviets by emphasizing their weakness and thus provoke them to behave more aggressively. Consequently, Eisenhower was frustrated by what he conclusively knew to be Kennedy's erroneous claims that the United States was behind the Soviet Union in number of missiles. But knowing the truth that America was substantially ahead in missiles, and confident that Americans would not believe that a professional soldier like him would ever leave America vulnerable to an enemy, Eisenhower chose not to publicly refute Kennedy.

Later evidence has emerged that one consequence of Kennedy pushing the false idea that America was behind the Soviets in a missile gap was that Soviet premier Nikita Kruschev and senior Soviet military figures began to believe that Kennedy was a dangerous extremist who, with the American military, was seeking to plant the idea of a Soviet first-strike capability to justify a pre-emptive American attack. This belief about Kennedy as a militarist was reinforced in Soviet minds by the Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961 and led to the Soviets placing nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962.
0 Replies
 
Monte Cargo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Dec, 2006 09:38 pm
dyslexia wrote:
John F Kennedy, 1958 (from wikipedia)

"Our Nation could have afforded, and can afford now, the steps necessary to close the missile gap." The problem with the term is shown in the dictionary's next quote, merely four years later, from the Listener, 19 April 1962: "The passages on the 'missile gap' are a little dated, since Mr Kennedy has now told us that it scarcely ever existed."

Kennedy was particularly connected to the phrase as he used it frequently during the 1960 American presidential election campaign to attack the Republicans for their supposed complacency on the subject of Russian Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). Both countries had been developing missile technologies since World War II often with the assistance of German scientists gained as a result of initiatives such as Operation Paperclip. The Russian launch of Sputnik 1 was simply the most obvious use of the missile technology compared to the stocks of military missiles both sides already had. The Russians also had concentrated mainly on larger, long distance ICBMs more suited for deployment to space whereas the Americans possessed many more smaller, short-range IRBMs. These were often deployed in Europe closer to Russia than the Russians could manage to get to the continental United States.

That's a switch! Here we once had a democratic president concerned that Congressional republicans weren't paying enough attention to the perceived lack of nuclear parity.

Yup, Sputnik launched in '61 and placed the Soviets firmly ahead in the space race. Once the Soviets could successfully launch into orbit, they had the technology by default to deliver a long range nuclear missle.

Quote:
Beginning with the collection of photo-intelligence by U-2 overflights of the Soviet Union in 1956, the Eisenhower administration had increasing hard evidence that claims of a missile gap favoring the Soviet Union were false. However, fearing that public disclosure of this evidence would jeopardize the secret U-2 flights, Eisenhower elected not to directly refute the missile gap claims by opponents, including Kennedy during the 1960 campaign, by publicly citing the evidence from the U-2 overflights.

Moreover, Eisenhower was concerned that any direct public proof that the United States held vast superiority in numbers of missiles over the Soviets would publicly humiliate the Soviets by emphasizing their weakness and thus provoke them to behave more aggressively. Consequently, Eisenhower was frustrated by what he conclusively knew to be Kennedy's erroneous claims that the United States was behind the Soviet Union in number of missiles. But knowing the truth that America was substantially ahead in missiles, and confident that Americans would not believe that a professional soldier like him would ever leave America vulnerable to an enemy, Eisenhower chose not to publicly refute Kennedy.

Later evidence has emerged that one consequence of Kennedy pushing the false idea that America was behind the Soviets in a missile gap was that Soviet premier Nikita Kruschev and senior Soviet military figures began to believe that Kennedy was a dangerous extremist who, with the American military, was seeking to plant the idea of a Soviet first-strike capability to justify a pre-emptive American attack. This belief about Kennedy as a militarist was reinforced in Soviet minds by the Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961 and led to the Soviets placing nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962.

With the wholesale inflitation of the KGB network in the U.S., it might have even been possible that Kruschev had his finger on the pulse of American progress firmer than Kennedy did! I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that there were leaks out of the Pentagon (although this thread's probably been taken too far off the point already to start discussing that here).

In any event, the Wikipedia offers a counterpoint to my earlier contention that Kruschev acted offensively instead of defensively. Kennedy's inauguration was January, 1961 and the first installation of Jupiter missles took place roughly October that year, so they bore Kennedy's signature to medium range nuclear armament. It was fascinating to see the cat and mouse game going on with both sides alternately switching roles.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jan, 2007 02:01 am
Ah, with the presence of spy planes overhead during Eisenhower's Administration flying i.e. the shooting down of the U2 Krushchev may have been egged into putting missiles in Cuba.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jan, 2007 10:44 am
0 Replies
 
Monte Cargo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jan, 2007 01:20 pm
talk72000 wrote:
Ah, with the presence of spy planes overhead during Eisenhower's Administration flying i.e. the shooting down of the U2 Krushchev may have been egged into putting missiles in Cuba.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-2_Crisis
Quote:
Four days after Powers disappeared, NASA issued a very detailed press release noting that an aircraft had "gone missing" north of Turkey.[2] The press release speculated that the pilot might have fallen unconscious while the autopilot was still engaged, even claiming that "the pilot reported over the emergency frequency that he was experiencing oxygen difficulties." To bolster this, a U-2 plane was quickly painted in NASA colors and shown to the media. (see photo).

After hearing this, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev announced to the Supreme Soviet (and hence the world) that a "spyplane" had been shot down, whereupon the U.S. issued a statement claiming that it was a "weather research aircraft" which strayed into Soviet airspace after the pilot had "difficulties with his oxygen equipment" while flying over Turkey. The White House, presuming Powers was dead, gracefully acknowledged that this might be the same plane, but still proclaimed "there was absolutely no deliberate attempt to violate Soviet airspace and never has been", and attempted to continue the facade by grounding all U-2 aircraft to check for "oxygen problems".

On May 7, Khrushchev dropped the bombshell:

"I must tell you a secret. When I made my first report I deliberately did not say that the pilot was alive and well... and now just look how many silly things [the Americans] have said." [1]

Not only was Powers still alive, though, but his plane was also essentially intact. The Soviets managed to recover the surveillance camera and even developed the photographs. Powers' survival pack, including 7500 rubles and jewelry for women, was also recovered. Today a large part of the wreck as well as many items from the survival pack are on display at the Central Museum of Armed Forces in Moscow.

Aftermath

The Paris Summit between Dwight Eisenhower and Nikita Khrushchev collapsed, in large part because Eisenhower refused to make apologies over the incident, demanded by Khrushchev. Khrushchev left the talks on May 16.

Powers pleaded guilty and was convicted of espionage on August 19 and sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment and 7 years of hard labor. He served one and three-quarter years of the sentence before being exchanged for Rudolf Abel on February 10, 1962. The exchange occurred on the Glienicke Bridge in Potsdam, Germany.

Another result of the crisis was that the US Corona spy satellite project was accelerated.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jan, 2007 01:30 pm
The problem is that the Pals have not stopped their rocketing of Israel. That is the reason Israel retaliates, and partly why there are economic sanctions against the Pal government.

Should the Hamas government finally recognize Israel, and take effective steps to stop the rocketing, Israel will happily sit down with them and effectuate peace.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jan, 2007 01:34 pm
Behind the Headlines: Israel's Response to the Escalation of Gaza Terrorism

26 Sep 2005
The rocketing of Israel from Gaza is a most serious terrorist aggression. Israel is exercising its right to self-defense when it responds to attacks on its territory, as any state is required to do.









Background

On Friday evening, September 23, 2005, a grave escalation took place in the security situation of the Gaza Strip. It began when some 20 Palestinians died in an inadvertant explosion of a Hamas truck filled with munitions as it was participating in a military parade in the Palestinian town of Jabalya near Gaza City.

Hamas blamed Israel for the blast and began firing volleys of Kassam rockets at Israel. Israel strenuously denied these accusations (a denial which was supported by the Palestinian Authority). Subsequently, some 40 Kassam rockets hit the southern Israeli town of Sderot and elsewhere in the Negev over the weekend; wounding five persons, two moderately, causing extensive damage, and forcing inhabitants of the region to flee to bomb shelters and reinforced rooms.

Following the Kassam salvoes, Israeli forces deployed around the Gaza Strip to prevent further attacks and to strike at the terrorist infrastructure of Gaza.


Responding to the Attack

The rocketing from Gaza of communities and their inhabitants in the sovereign territory of the State of Israel constitutes a most serious terrorist aggression. In responding to this attack on its territory, Israel is exercising its right to self-defense, as would any other state.

Ever since Israel's disengagement from Gaza, Hamas has been running amok in the streets, without the Palestinian leadership or public taking action to stop it. The central responsibility of the leadership of the PA is to put an end to the lawlessness within its territory, particularly the terrorism directed against the citizens of Israel.

It is unthinkable that the children of Sderot once again cannot sleep peacefully in their beds and go to school without fear, while their lives, and the lives of thousands of inhabitants of the northern Negev, are being threatened - when the Palestinians of Gaza continue to live normal lives.

The rampaging in Gaza of these armed terrorist organizations, and the absence of any reaction on the part of the Palestinian leadership or its security personnel harms, most of all, the Palestinian public, for it is forced to pay the price. In its abandonment of any restraints, Hamas has brought about the deaths of many Palestinians, among them children, and the wounding of dozens more.

When Israel completed its disengagement from Gaza, it extended its hand in peace - but the response has been not only the irresponsible killing of Palestinians by fellow Palestinians, but the shelling of innocent Israelis in an attempt to somehow justify Hamas's reckless and deadly behavior.

The PA must fight the terrorist organizations not only for Israel's sake, but first and foremost on behalf of the Palestinian people. The anarchy in the Gaza Strip is primarily a threat to the Palestinian Authority itself, and to the basic interests of the Palestinian people. Hamas and its ilk jeopardize any future stabilization and peace agreement.

Israel remains steadfast in its desire to further peace in the region, but at the same time will act with all necessary force and determination to halt the firing of Kassam rockets at its citizens - as it will persist in its struggle against Hamas and the other terrorist organizations that seek to destroy any chance for peace and calm in the region.

Because the PA and the Palestinian public have shown themselves to be totally incapable - or unwilling - to fulfill their commitments, Israel is forced to act alone. The international community, including the Arab countries, must make it unequivocally clear to the Palestinians that continued terrorism will mean an end to the Palestinian dream.
0 Replies
 
Monte Cargo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jan, 2007 01:35 pm
blueflame1 wrote:

Sad.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jan, 2007 03:34 pm
Monte Cargo,

We agree on Kennedy's desire to pursue a reduction in nuclear arms. However it is noteworthy that throughout his administration, the modernization, upgrade and production of these weapons and the systems to deliver them continued apace. I made the additional point that a parallel policy of Kennedy's was resistance to the Soviet-proclaimed "Wars of National Liberation" in the Third world. Vietnam was the most prominent example of this policy. Though it has become fashionable among Kennedy apologists to assert that he had become disenchanted and intended to reduce our involvement there, there are no facts that support this notion. Indeed it was former Kennedy aides in the subsequent Johnson Administration who were the strongest advocates for increasing our involvement there.

Monte Cargo wrote:
In this chicken vs. the egg discussion, where anti-Israeli opinion advances this notion that occupation precedes terrorism, the basic charters of Hamas and Hezbollah reveal the pervasive truth; they do not recognize the right of Israel to exist as a state. On the other hand, no such basic tenet is contained in Hebrew or Zionist philosophy, that the Arabs do not have a right to statehood and their own land.


The fact is that the use of systematic terrorism as a matter of political policy was introduced to Palestine by the Zionists. The Irgun and the Stern gang were the chief organizations doing this and their efforts were directed both at the native inhabitants of the land and the British occupiers. It was these organizations that provided most of the early leadership of the Israeli Likud Party and many of the Labor party as well.

While Israeli politicians and supporters loudly proclaim their willingness to see the creation of a normal state for the Palestinians, their actions do not match their rhetoric. While European Zionists loudly proclaimed their right to establish a Jewish state in Palestine, despite the contrary wishes of its inhabitants, the only "state" the Israelis have indicated they would tolerate for the Palestinians would have no rights to control the airspace above it or the water flowing through it. Except for the Gaza border with Egypt and the Mediterranean, it would have no border with any other country and no access to the sea. Indeed it would be broken up into 30 + enclaves, each surrounded by Israeli territory, and would remain forever subject to the sufferance of the Israeli military for communications and economic activity among them, or with the outside world.

This is no state in the normal usage of that term. indeed it closely resembles the "Bantustands" of Israel's old ally, the Apartheidt Government of South Africa. The fiction that the Israelis want the free development of a state for the Palestinians, while the latter want only the utter destruction of Israel is one of the greatest and most successful political sophistries of the modern era.

The fact is that while many zealots of Hamas and other Palestinian & Islamic organizations do indeed advocate the anihalation of the Israeli state, Israel, in its turn also advocates their anihalation. The fanatics on both sides of this dispute are similar enough. At the same time there are elements in the political spectra of both antagonists in this struggle that do call for peace and mutual tolerance and development.

Monte Cargo wrote:
The joint Arab invasion of Israel occurred the eve before the U.N. Partition Resolution of 1947. Many of the Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany fled to Israel and thus the United States does have an interest that goes beyond merely choosing which Sfardic tribe the U.S. wishes to rally behind.


I don't follow your logic here. Certainly the former European persecutors of Jews living there (and they weren't only Germans) do have the obligations and interests to which you refer, as do the former colonial masters of the region, the British and the French, However, the United States falls in neither category. We did support the Zionist interest in the UN and were the first major nation to recognize the new Israeli state, but these actions did not follow from the interests and moral obligations to which you appear to refer.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 12:12:38