Originally posted by Camp: Israel is an amazing ally and a beacon of truth in a turbulent world.
With all due respect, for all the rhetoric you've spewed here, you still seem to lack the basic understanding of the root of the current violent contentions between Israel (and the U.S.) and it's neighbors in the Middle East.
Do you care? Appears obvious that you don't.
In case you change your mind and want to understand some preliminary concerns, here is a good place to start:
The Palestinians’ Right of Return By Hussein Ibish and Ali Abunimah Human Rights Brief Winter, 2001
Palestinians are the largest and most long-suffering refugee population in the world. There are more than 3.7 million Palestinians registered as refugees by the United Nations Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA), the UN agency responsible for them. During the 1948 war, these people and their descendants were expelled or fled from their homes in what is now Israel. Their future and the status of their right of return has become one of the most contentious issues in the effort to find a lasting peace between Palestinians and Israelis.
Right of Return in International Law
The right of refugees to return to their homes is embedded deeply in customary international law and the most fundamental human rights instruments. According to prominent legal scholars Mallison and Mallison, "[h]istorically, the right of return was so universally accepted and practiced that it was not deemed necessary to prescribe or codify it in a formal manner."
Perhaps the most basic expression of the right, however, is contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Declaration), Article 13, which states that "[e]veryone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." It is a generally recognized principle of international law that when sovereignty or political control over an area changes hands, there is a concurrent transfer of responsibility for the population of that territory. Therefore it cannot be argued that Palestinians, who were expelled or fled from what became Israel during a period of conflict, no longer had any rights with regard to the country in which they had lived simply because of a change in the nature of the state or government in that territory. Moreover, where expulsion or prevention from return results in denationalization and statelessness, Article 15 of the Declaration, which stipulates that "[e]veryone has the right to a nationality," becomes a further relevant protection of the right of return. And certainly, where a population has been forcibly expelled, as Lex Takkenberg, the Chief of Field Relief and Social Services for UNRWA, points out "the right of return derives from the illegality of the expulsion itself" because "those expelled clearly have the right to reverse an illegal act, that is to return to their homeland."
The four Geneva Conventions assume the right of return in numerous articles and provisions. For example, all four Conventions provide that any formal denunciation of one state by another for violating provisions of the Conventions "shall not take effect until peace has been concluded, and until after operations connected with the release and repatriation," and in the case of Convention IV, Article 158, re-establishment "of the persons protected by the present Convention have been terminated." (Convention I, Article 63; Convention II, Article 62; Convention III, Article 142; Convention IV, Article 158). The underlying assumption of these provisions, and the numerous prohibitions in international law against involuntary repatriation under conditions of danger, can only be that of an absolute and universally accepted right of return.
In 1948, the UN adopted Resolution 194, which specifically applies the right of return to the Palestinian refugees. Paragraph 11 states "that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." The UN has reaffirmed this resolution practically every year since its adoption with near unanimity.
It is sometimes argued by opponents of the right of return that because Resolution 194 is a General Assembly resolution, rather than a Security Council resolution, it is "non-binding." The general principle of when and if a General Assembly resolution can be "binding" need not be debated to invalidate this argument. Israel's admittance to the UN as a member state, through Resolution 273, was conditioned on acceptance and implementation of Resolution 194. Therefore, Israel is bound, as a condition of membership in the UN, to implement 194 and to facilitate the return of the Palestinian refugees.
Despite this commitment, Israel has consistently denied the right of return. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Israel passed laws forbidding the return of refugees and expropriating their property. Israel also routinely killed in cold blood Palestinians who attempted to cross its borders in order to return to their homes
Resolution 194 is particularly noteworthy in that it provides for the return of the refugees not simply to "their country" or homeland, but to "their homes." The former UN Mediator for Palestine, Count Folke Bernadotte, recommended in his Progress Report of September 16, 1948, submitted the day before he was murdered by the Stern Gang, that "the right of the Arab refugees to return to their homes in Jewish controlled territory at the earliest possible date should be affirmed by the United Nations . . . ." His Report was the basis for much of the text of Resolution 194 and, as Takkenberg points out, "[i]t should be noted that the UN Mediator recommended that the right to return be affirmed rather than be established. Although the issue is not explicitly addressed in the report, Count Bernadotte was apparently of the opinion that the right of refugees to return already formed part of existing international law."
The Right of Return in Other Conflicts
These assumptions—that the right of refugees to return is an established and universally accepted principle of international law and that this right is linked to homes and property, not just to a country or homeland—formed the basis for much of the discourse of the United States, NATO, and the UN during the Kosovo conflict in 1999. Indeed, this conflict appears to have been a massive reaffirmation of the right of return as a general principle of international law, and even a valid casus belli for "humanitarian intervention" in the internal affairs of sovereign states, as well as being inextricably linked to specific homes and property rights.
During the Kosovo crisis, on April 6, 1999, former U.S. president Clinton declared that "[w]e cannot say, well, ‘we'll just take all these folks and forget about their rights to go home.’ The refugees belong in their own homes on their own land. Our immediate goal is to provide relief. Our long-term goal is to give them their right to return." Similar sentiments were expressed by British Prime Minister Tony Blair on May 19, 1999, who said, "[t]hese people have been driven from their homes and their homeland… Our mission is very simple and very clear. It is to make sure that they return and are able to live in peace and security as should be the right of any civilized human being."
NATO spokesman Jamie Shea told reporters at an April 24, 1999, briefing that "what is absolutely clear are our key preconditions which we are not going to negotiate on, which is the right to the return of refugees, access to humanitarian organizations, withdrawal of Serb forces, deployment of a very robust international force, and a political process." On April 5, 1999, Shea told the press that "[t]he most important thing is that at the end of the day… that those people should be able to exercise their right to return…."
United Nations humanitarian officials agreed with NATO political and military leaders that the right of return was a fundamental aspect of international human rights law as demonstrated by the crisis in Kosovo. On April 19, 1999, Dennis McNamara, Director of Protection at the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said of the Kosovo conflict, "[h]uman rights were at the heart of the exodus— the right to asylum was critical to saving thousands of lives, and the right to return would have to be honored for any lasting solution to be achieved."
The principle of the right of return was also expressed in the context of other recent conflicts. With regard to the conflict in and around the former Soviet republic of Georgia, the UN Security Council, in Resolution 1255 (1999), "reaffirms the unacceptability of the demographic changes resulting from the conflict and the imprescriptible right of all refugees and displaced persons affected by the conflict to return to their homes in secure conditions in accordance with international law and as set out in the Quadripartite Agreement of April 4, 1994, on the voluntary return of refugees and displaced persons (S/1994/397, annex II), and calls upon the parties to address this issue urgently by agreeing and implementing effective measures to guarantee the security of those who exercise their unconditional right to return." The discourse and debate in the Security Council surrounding the impact of this conflict on refugees referred repeatedly to the precedent set in the international reaction to the Kosovo crisis, which implicitly constituted a significant precedent regarding the right of return.
The work of the Clinton Administration's deputy treasury secretary, Stuart Eizenstat, with regard to the property rights of refugees and other victims of the Nazi Holocaust in Europe has great significance for the property rights of Palestinian refugees. Moreover, because the right of return is so intimately linked to property rights and original homes, the principles laid out by Eizenstat have profound implications for the right of return as well as property rights. Eizenstat's testimony before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Commission) in March 1999 is of particular relevance. He told the Commission that "the basic principle that wrongfully expropriated property should be restituted (or compensation paid) applies to them all [every country in Eastern and Central Europe], and their implementation of this principle is a measure of the extent to which they have successfully adopted democratic institutions, [and] the rule of law with respect to property rights." Eizenstat presented a "list of principles and best practices we would like to see adopted." Among these principles were that "[o]wners or their heirs should be eligible to claim personal property on a non discriminatory basis, without citizenship or residence requirements," and that "[r]estitution of property should result in a clear title to the property, generally including the right of resale, not simply the right to use property, which could be revoked at a later time." These principles for the return of, and compensation for, refugee property obviously must be applicable generally and not confined to the largely Jewish Holocaust assets claims to which Eizenstat is specifically referring. Obviously, if the property rights of Jewish Europeans survive after more than 56 years following expropriation, those of Palestinian refugees must similarly survive after 53 years or less. Moreover, if such property rights survive after so many years and pass from one generation to the next, surely the more fundamental right of return and residence in one’s own home and country cannot more easily expire.
Supporters of Israel often claim that the creation of a Palestinian state would obviate the need for implementing the right of return of Palestinian refugees. This was reflected in Clinton’s peace proposal of December 2000, which sought to replace the right of return to actual homes and properties with a Zionist-like attitude that would see "return" as being satisfied by physical presence in any part of historic Palestine. Instead of return to their homes, Clinton would "allow them to return to a Palestinian state that will provide all Palestinians with a place they can safely and proudly call home." This is the equivalent of asking Kosovo Albanians to be satisfied with a "return" to Albania and renunciation of the right to go back to their homes in Kosovo. By this logic, Poland and other European states could argue that the creation of Israel obviates its duty to restore Jewish property.
Conclusion
What Palestinians expect is that the right of refugees to return to their homes should be recognized by Israel, and that the choice be given to refugees as required by Resolution 194. It is likely that hundreds of thousands might well choose to return, especially Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. But some, perhaps many, Palestinians would likely accept compensation for the simple reason that the homes and villages they may wish to return to no longer exist. Others might hesitate to decide to live as Arabs in an Israeli state. Once Israel accepts the right of return, Palestinians and Israelis will then have to negotiate modalities for the orderly administration of a return program. This could include limits on the number of refugees returning each year, although not a cap on the total who would have the right to return, among many other administrative options. However, fundamental elements of a just settlement must include full recognition of the right of return, a real choice for refugees between return and adequate compensation, and restitution and modalities to ensure that return occurs at a rate that refugees can be absorbed into Israel with priority given to those refugees most in need of return.
If we are ever to resolve this conflict, we must reject the notion that the refugees "are an obstacle to peace" whom, with their stubborn demands for their rights, are spoilers at everyone else’s party. The essence of peace is minimal justice, and the essence of justice for the Palestinians is justice for the refugees. Israeli concerns and questions about the right of return are understandable and must be addressed, but Israel’s absolute rejection of the rights of refugees cannot be the final word.
We have to start the discussion from a point that can lead to a settlement with which both Israelis and Palestinians can live, that meets the requirements of justice, and respects refugees’ human rights. If the right of return is permanently abrogated, it is not just the Palestinian refugees who would suffer. Humanity in general would be deeply impoverished if we start renouncing and repudiating rights long since upheld as inviolable, and our slow and painful quest to build a world that provides equal protection to all human beings will be dealt a crippling blow.
The only reason the Palestinians have no Right of Return is because Jordan and Egypt denied them under military threat entry into thair nation. So, while Jews allowed Jews from anywhere to immigrate to Israel, Arabs denied their Palestinian brothers citizenship they deserved under the Balfour Declaration.
Weird happenings there in the middle east.
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Originally posted by Gnarlodious: The only reason the Palestinians have no Right of Return is because Jordan and Egypt denied them under military threat entry into thair nation. So, while Jews allowed Jews from anywhere to immigrate to Israel, Arabs denied their Palestinian brothers citizenship they deserved under the Balfour Declaration.
Pretty weird happenings there in the middle east.
'The only reason the Palestinians have no Right of Return is? Jordan and Egypt denied them under military threat entry into thair nation.'
Do you wanna have another go at that one Gnarly?
In the interest of progress?
Posts: 6749 | Location: here again | Registered: 12 November 2004
Originally posted by Camp: Israel is an amazing ally and a beacon of truth in a turbulent world.
With all due respect, for all the rhetoric you've spewed here, you still seem to lack the basic understanding of the root of the current violent contentions between Israel (and the U.S.) and it's neighbors in the Middle East.
Do you care? Appears obvious that you don't.
In case you change your mind and want to understand some preliminary concerns, here is a good place to start:
The Palestinians’ Right of Return By Hussein Ibish and Ali Abunimah Human Rights Brief Winter, 2001
Palestinians are the largest and most long-suffering refugee population in the world. There are more than 3.7 million Palestinians registered as refugees by the United Nations Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA), the UN agency responsible for them. During the 1948 war, these people and their descendants were expelled or fled from their homes in what is now Israel. Their future and the status of their right of return has become one of the most contentious issues in the effort to find a lasting peace between Palestinians and Israelis.
Right of Return in International Law
The right of refugees to return to their homes is embedded deeply in customary international law and the most fundamental human rights instruments. According to prominent legal scholars Mallison and Mallison, "[h]istorically, the right of return was so universally accepted and practiced that it was not deemed necessary to prescribe or codify it in a formal manner."
Perhaps the most basic expression of the right, however, is contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Declaration), Article 13, which states that "[e]veryone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." It is a generally recognized principle of international law that when sovereignty or political control over an area changes hands, there is a concurrent transfer of responsibility for the population of that territory. Therefore it cannot be argued that Palestinians, who were expelled or fled from what became Israel during a period of conflict, no longer had any rights with regard to the country in which they had lived simply because of a change in the nature of the state or government in that territory. Moreover, where expulsion or prevention from return results in denationalization and statelessness, Article 15 of the Declaration, which stipulates that "[e]veryone has the right to a nationality," becomes a further relevant protection of the right of return. And certainly, where a population has been forcibly expelled, as Lex Takkenberg, the Chief of Field Relief and Social Services for UNRWA, points out "the right of return derives from the illegality of the expulsion itself" because "those expelled clearly have the right to reverse an illegal act, that is to return to their homeland."
The four Geneva Conventions assume the right of return in numerous articles and provisions. For example, all four Conventions provide that any formal denunciation of one state by another for violating provisions of the Conventions "shall not take effect until peace has been concluded, and until after operations connected with the release and repatriation," and in the case of Convention IV, Article 158, re-establishment "of the persons protected by the present Convention have been terminated." (Convention I, Article 63; Convention II, Article 62; Convention III, Article 142; Convention IV, Article 158). The underlying assumption of these provisions, and the numerous prohibitions in international law against involuntary repatriation under conditions of danger, can only be that of an absolute and universally accepted right of return.
In 1948, the UN adopted Resolution 194, which specifically applies the right of return to the Palestinian refugees. Paragraph 11 states "that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." The UN has reaffirmed this resolution practically every year since its adoption with near unanimity.
It is sometimes argued by opponents of the right of return that because Resolution 194 is a General Assembly resolution, rather than a Security Council resolution, it is "non-binding." The general principle of when and if a General Assembly resolution can be "binding" need not be debated to invalidate this argument. Israel's admittance to the UN as a member state, through Resolution 273, was conditioned on acceptance and implementation of Resolution 194. Therefore, Israel is bound, as a condition of membership in the UN, to implement 194 and to facilitate the return of the Palestinian refugees.
Despite this commitment, Israel has consistently denied the right of return. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Israel passed laws forbidding the return of refugees and expropriating their property. Israel also routinely killed in cold blood Palestinians who attempted to cross its borders in order to return to their homes
Resolution 194 is particularly noteworthy in that it provides for the return of the refugees not simply to "their country" or homeland, but to "their homes." The former UN Mediator for Palestine, Count Folke Bernadotte, recommended in his Progress Report of September 16, 1948, submitted the day before he was murdered by the Stern Gang, that "the right of the Arab refugees to return to their homes in Jewish controlled territory at the earliest possible date should be affirmed by the United Nations . . . ." His Report was the basis for much of the text of Resolution 194 and, as Takkenberg points out, "[i]t should be noted that the UN Mediator recommended that the right to return be affirmed rather than be established. Although the issue is not explicitly addressed in the report, Count Bernadotte was apparently of the opinion that the right of refugees to return already formed part of existing international law."
The Right of Return in Other Conflicts
These assumptions—that the right of refugees to return is an established and universally accepted principle of international law and that this right is linked to homes and property, not just to a country or homeland—formed the basis for much of the discourse of the United States, NATO, and the UN during the Kosovo conflict in 1999. Indeed, this conflict appears to have been a massive reaffirmation of the right of return as a general principle of international law, and even a valid casus belli for "humanitarian intervention" in the internal affairs of sovereign states, as well as being inextricably linked to specific homes and property rights.
During the Kosovo crisis, on April 6, 1999, former U.S. president Clinton declared that "[w]e cannot say, well, ‘we'll just take all these folks and forget about their rights to go home.’ The refugees belong in their own homes on their own land. Our immediate goal is to provide relief. Our long-term goal is to give them their right to return." Similar sentiments were expressed by British Prime Minister Tony Blair on May 19, 1999, who said, "[t]hese people have been driven from their homes and their homeland… Our mission is very simple and very clear. It is to make sure that they return and are able to live in peace and security as should be the right of any civilized human being."
NATO spokesman Jamie Shea told reporters at an April 24, 1999, briefing that "what is absolutely clear are our key preconditions which we are not going to negotiate on, which is the right to the return of refugees, access to humanitarian organizations, withdrawal of Serb forces, deployment of a very robust international force, and a political process." On April 5, 1999, Shea told the press that "[t]he most important thing is that at the end of the day… that those people should be able to exercise their right to return…."
United Nations humanitarian officials agreed with NATO political and military leaders that the right of return was a fundamental aspect of international human rights law as demonstrated by the crisis in Kosovo. On April 19, 1999, Dennis McNamara, Director of Protection at the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said of the Kosovo conflict, "[h]uman rights were at the heart of the exodus— the right to asylum was critical to saving thousands of lives, and the right to return would have to be honored for any lasting solution to be achieved."
The principle of the right of return was also expressed in the context of other recent conflicts. With regard to the conflict in and around the former Soviet republic of Georgia, the UN Security Council, in Resolution 1255 (1999), "reaffirms the unacceptability of the demographic changes resulting from the conflict and the imprescriptible right of all refugees and displaced persons affected by the conflict to return to their homes in secure conditions in accordance with international law and as set out in the Quadripartite Agreement of April 4, 1994, on the voluntary return of refugees and displaced persons (S/1994/397, annex II), and calls upon the parties to address this issue urgently by agreeing and implementing effective measures to guarantee the security of those who exercise their unconditional right to return." The discourse and debate in the Security Council surrounding the impact of this conflict on refugees referred repeatedly to the precedent set in the international reaction to the Kosovo crisis, which implicitly constituted a significant precedent regarding the right of return.
The work of the Clinton Administration's deputy treasury secretary, Stuart Eizenstat, with regard to the property rights of refugees and other victims of the Nazi Holocaust in Europe has great significance for the property rights of Palestinian refugees. Moreover, because the right of return is so intimately linked to property rights and original homes, the principles laid out by Eizenstat have profound implications for the right of return as well as property rights. Eizenstat's testimony before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Commission) in March 1999 is of particular relevance. He told the Commission that "the basic principle that wrongfully expropriated property should be restituted (or compensation paid) applies to them all [every country in Eastern and Central Europe], and their implementation of this principle is a measure of the extent to which they have successfully adopted democratic institutions, [and] the rule of law with respect to property rights." Eizenstat presented a "list of principles and best practices we would like to see adopted." Among these principles were that "[o]wners or their heirs should be eligible to claim personal property on a non discriminatory basis, without citizenship or residence requirements," and that "[r]estitution of property should result in a clear title to the property, generally including the right of resale, not simply the right to use property, which could be revoked at a later time." These principles for the return of, and compensation for, refugee property obviously must be applicable generally and not confined to the largely Jewish Holocaust assets claims to which Eizenstat is specifically referring. Obviously, if the property rights of Jewish Europeans survive after more than 56 years following expropriation, those of Palestinian refugees must similarly survive after 53 years or less. Moreover, if such property rights survive after so many years and pass from one generation to the next, surely the more fundamental right of return and residence in one’s own home and country cannot more easily expire.
Supporters of Israel often claim that the creation of a Palestinian state would obviate the need for implementing the right of return of Palestinian refugees. This was reflected in Clinton’s peace proposal of December 2000, which sought to replace the right of return to actual homes and properties with a Zionist-like attitude that would see "return" as being satisfied by physical presence in any part of historic Palestine. Instead of return to their homes, Clinton would "allow them to return to a Palestinian state that will provide all Palestinians with a place they can safely and proudly call home." This is the equivalent of asking Kosovo Albanians to be satisfied with a "return" to Albania and renunciation of the right to go back to their homes in Kosovo. By this logic, Poland and other European states could argue that the creation of Israel obviates its duty to restore Jewish property.
Conclusion
What Palestinians expect is that the right of refugees to return to their homes should be recognized by Israel, and that the choice be given to refugees as required by Resolution 194. It is likely that hundreds of thousands might well choose to return, especially Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. But some, perhaps many, Palestinians would likely accept compensation for the simple reason that the homes and villages they may wish to return to no longer exist. Others might hesitate to decide to live as Arabs in an Israeli state. Once Israel accepts the right of return, Palestinians and Israelis will then have to negotiate modalities for the orderly administration of a return program. This could include limits on the number of refugees returning each year, although not a cap on the total who would have the right to return, among many other administrative options. However, fundamental elements of a just settlement must include full recognition of the right of return, a real choice for refugees between return and adequate compensation, and restitution and modalities to ensure that return occurs at a rate that refugees can be absorbed into Israel with priority given to those refugees most in need of return.
If we are ever to resolve this conflict, we must reject the notion that the refugees "are an obstacle to peace" whom, with their stubborn demands for their rights, are spoilers at everyone else’s party. The essence of peace is minimal justice, and the essence of justice for the Palestinians is justice for the refugees. Israeli concerns and questions about the right of return are understandable and must be addressed, but Israel’s absolute rejection of the rights of refugees cannot be the final word.
We have to start the discussion from a point that can lead to a settlement with which both Israelis and Palestinians can live, that meets the requirements of justice, and respects refugees’ human rights. If the right of return is permanently abrogated, it is not just the Palestinian refugees who would suffer. Humanity in general would be deeply impoverished if we start renouncing and repudiating rights long since upheld as inviolable, and our slow and painful quest to build a world that provides equal protection to all human beings will be dealt a crippling blow.
No I have a keen understanding of the nefarious will that is at the core of the mohammadist doctrine. The blame the victim lies will only continue to work for the men enslaving the women of the islamic states.
Israel won its territory twice after it was legally granted. End of story. Both sides have shit on each other, but for the islamists they have it written in the book as how to properly shit on their infidel neighbors.
If the [television] craze continues...we are destined to have a nation of morons. Daniel L. Marsh. 1950.
Posts: 889 | Location: Pittsburgh | Registered: 14 April 2004
Originally posted by Gnarlodious: The only reason the Palestinians have no Right of Return is because Jordan and Egypt denied them under military threat entry into thair nation. So, while Jews allowed Jews from anywhere to immigrate to Israel, Arabs denied their Palestinian brothers citizenship they deserved under the Balfour Declaration.
Weird happenings there in the middle east.
It all makes sense when you look at it from a jihadistic angle.
If the [television] craze continues...we are destined to have a nation of morons. Daniel L. Marsh. 1950.
Posts: 889 | Location: Pittsburgh | Registered: 14 April 2004
Originally posted by Camp: No I have a keen understanding of the nefarious will that is at the core of the mohammadist doctrine. The blame the victim lies will only continue to work for the men enslaving the women of the islamic states.
Israel won its territory twice after it was legally granted. End of story. Both sides have shit on each other, but for the islamists they have it written in the book as how to properly shit on their infidel neighbors.
To tell you the truth, I can't figure out why "your type" loves the Lavon Affair so much. Just now I read on Google News that 41 died in a suicide bombing in Pakistan. Are you suggesting the Israelis are responsible for that?
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Gnarly, I too am amazed at every Jew hater seems to know every little thing has done wrong in the whole world, but fail to see even a little bit of the damage that Muslims have done in the name of Cartoons or beauty contests (Nigeria).
quote:
Aman decided to activate the network in the spring of 1954. On July 2, a post office in Alexandria was firebombed, and on July 14, the U.S. Information Agency libraries in Alexandria and Cairo, and a British-owned theater were bombed. The bombs themselves were homemade, consisting of bags containing acid placed over nitroglycerine. The bombs were inserted into books, and placed on the shelves of the libraries just before closing time. Several hours later, as the acid ate through the bags, the bombs would explode. They did little damage to the targets and caused no injuries or deaths. Egyptian authorities arrested one suspect, Robert Dassa, when his bomb accidentally ignited prematurely in his pocket. Having searched his apartment, they found incriminating evidence and names of accomplices to the operation. Several suspects were arrested, including Egyptian Jews and undercover Israelis.
The trial against those arrested lasted until January 27, 1955, when two of the accused (Moshe Marzouk and Shmuel Azar) were condemned to execution by hanging, two were acquitted, and the rest received lengthy prison terms. Two suspects had committed suicide in prison, and another (Israeli agent Avraham Seidenberg (Avri Elad) alias Paul Frank) had managed to escape.
The trial was criticized as a show trial, and there were credible allegations that evidence had been extracted by torture.
The imprisoned operatives were eventually freed in 1967, in a secret addendum to a POW exchange.
Soon after the affair, Mossad chief Isser Harel expressed suspicion to Aman concerning the integrity of Avri Elad. Despite his concerns, Aman continued using Elad for intelligence operations until 1956, when he was caught trying to sell Israeli documents to the Egyptians. Elad was tried and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. In 1980, Harel publically revealed evidence that Elad had been turned by the Egyptians even before Operation Suzannah. If true, this would imply that Egyptian Intelligence was aware of the operation from the beginning. Lavon Affair
So let me get this straight. It was worth bringing up an opperation that failed to change any oppinion, by the fact that the perpetrators were caught for something that happened over 50 years ago. And it caused little to no damage. And it caused no deaths/injuries. And the Bombs they were using did not even kill the man that had it in his pants when it went off. LOL,LOL,LOL. This is a matter for trivial pursuit and not a discusion about world events.
How many of those suicide bombings that Gnarly brought up are investigated and the criminals brought to justice?
But reaper, keep it up. I love your knowledge of some trivia pursuit questions. Next up, Ford made a call to Germany on March 13,1933.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
palie dogs have the right to return to egypt, syria, or jordan. they can take theri pick..oh, wait..thats right. damn, egypt, syria, and jordan dont want the palie dogs back anymore than anyone else in the world wants them around. i suggest a broad and sweeping reform whereby liberals are forced to open their doors of their homes (or wherever they happen to be squating at the time) to the palie dogs, and have them come into their homes as guests until they can find some patch of sand that is good enough for the sandy palies. maybe part of iran or saudi arabia
How keen the storied hunter's eye prevails upon the land To seek the unsuspecting and the weak; And powerless the fabled sat, too smug to lift a hand toward the foe that threatened from the deep
Posts: 2 | Location: USA | Registered: 11 April 2006
The cycle of violence between the Jews and the Egyptians continues with no end in sight in Egypt. After eight previous plagues that have destroyed the Egyptian infrastructure and disrupted the lives of ordinary Egyptian citizens, the Jews launched a new offensive this week in the form of the plague of darkness. Western journalists were particularly enraged by this plague. "It is simply impossible to report when you can't see an inch in front of you," complained a frustrated Andrea Koppel of CNN. "I have heard from my reliable Egyptian contacts that in the midst of the blanket of blackness, the Jews were annihilating thousands of Egyptians. Their word is solid enough evidence for me." While the Jews contend that the plagues are justified given the harsh slavery imposed upon them by the Egyptians, Pharaoh, the Egyptian leader, rebuts this claim. "If only the plagues would let up, there would be no slavery. We just want to live plague-free. It is the right of every society." Saeb Erekat, an Egyptian spokesperson, complains that slavery is justifiable given the Jews' superior weaponry supplied to them by the superpower God. The Europeans are particularly enraged by the latest Jewish offensive. "The Jewish aggression must cease if there is to be peace in the region. The Jews should go back to slavery for the good of the rest of the world," stated an angry French President Jacques Chirac. Even several Jews agree. Adam Shapiro, a Jew, has barricaded himself within Pharaoh's chambers to protect Pharaoh from what is feared will be the next plague, the death of the firstborn. Mr. Shapiro claims that while slavery is not necessarily a good thing, it is the product of the plagues and when the plagues end, so will the slavery. "The Jews have gone too far with plagues such as locusts and epidemic which have virtually destroyed the Egyptian economy," Mr. Shapiro laments. The United States is demanding that Moses and Aaron, the Jewish leaders, continue to negotiate with Pharaoh. While Moses points out that Pharaoh had made promise after promise to free the Jewish people only to immediately break them and thereafter impose harsher and harsher slavery, Richard Boucher of the State Department assails the latest offensive. "Pharaoh is not in complete control of the taskmasters," Mr. Boucher states. "The Jews must return to the negotiating table and will accomplish nothing through these plagues." The latest round of violence comes in the face of a bold new Saudi peace overture. If only the Jews will give up their language, change their names to Egyptian names and cease having male children, the Arab nations will incline toward peace with them, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah declared.
Yes only if those Jew bastards negotiate "fairly".
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Originally posted by Camp: No I have a keen understanding of the nefarious will that is at the core of the mohammadist doctrine. The blame the victim lies will only continue to work for the men enslaving the women of the islamic states.
Israel won its territory twice after it was legally granted. End of story. Both sides have shit on each other, but for the islamists they have it written in the book as how to properly shit on their infidel neighbors.
One-trick ponies like you would offer some constructive input if you could get off your high horse and recognize the subjective manipulations of history from both sides.
Mohammads minions have decided that globalization means bringing the jihad to all.
You don't have a "none of the above" choice.
Submit or fight. At least learn to look at the world through the mind of a jihadi. I doubt you can though.
If the [television] craze continues...we are destined to have a nation of morons. Daniel L. Marsh. 1950.
Posts: 889 | Location: Pittsburgh | Registered: 14 April 2004
To tell you the truth, I can't figure out why "your type" loves the Lavon Affair so much. Just now I read on Google News that 41 died in a suicide bombing in Pakistan. Are you suggesting the Israelis are responsible for that?
Amazing, my type? what about "your type" that loves to discredit it so much hate seeing the truth huh? they have a history of starting wars from deceit. But I guess you love that huh?
By way of deception thou shalt do war
Posts: 100 | Location: Portland | Registered: 25 January 2006
But reaper, keep it up. I love your knowledge of some trivia pursuit questions. Next up, Ford made a call to Germany on March 13,1933.
I will keep bringing it up because people like you want everyone to forget it ever happened, you do realize that they keep doing it right? as for a jew hater sorry I don't hate jews(only ones that do this sort of thing) unlike you and your type.
By way of deception thou shalt do war
Posts: 100 | Location: Portland | Registered: 25 January 2006
reaper, after viewing the videos of the WTC burning and people jumping to their death, Zacarias Moussaoui left singing "Burn in the USA" to the tune of "Born in the USA".
As your username suggests, you evidently identify with the Cult of Destruction that the Islamic Jihad represents. I would ask you how you justify Moussaoui's rendition of Springsteen in the context of your previous posts.
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
I will keep bringing it up because people like you want everyone to forget it ever happened, you do realize that they keep doing it right? as for a jew hater sorry I don't hate jews(only ones that do this sort of thing) unlike you and your type.
No I don't want to forget history, but not so sure about you. This incident you brought up in the grand scheme of life, amounts to little more than a side note that had no consequences and little in the way of results. Unlike the everyday news of Terrorists commiting acts against humanity, as Gnarlodious has pointed out.
Why not show us how the Jews are controlling the world? And that they keep doing this stuff? Like making a fool of themselves by not even having a good technique for bomb making.
As far as Jew hating, I have not said you are such. I could care less if you hate or love Jews. Only if you create grand conspiracies that are fictional.
Latly, what is my type?
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Originally posted by Lord Dreadmore: ....palie dogs ....
What hate-filled, vile language....since thoughts preceed language, it's no surprise that you write that way.
quote:
Originally posted by Camp: ....recognize the subjective manipulations of history from both sides ....
I have, long ago. I choose, unlike you, to not merely regurgitate the tried and tired old lines of "Israeli's are victims and Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians are terrorists. Please get real....perhaps you could at least feign intellectuality dear Camp.
quote:
Originally posted by Gnarl: ....after viewing the videos of the WTC (blah, blah, blah)....
And here we go again with the predictable and delusional hate rhetoric of Gnarl...'all several hundred million Muslims around the world are all evil because 19 of them were involved with 9/11.'
So much hate, Gnarl....so little tolerance - why?
.
Posts: 98 | Location: New York City | Registered: 10 March 2006
I have, long ago. I choose, unlike you, to not merely regurgitate the tried and tired old lines of "Israeli's are victims and Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians are terrorists. Please get real....perhaps you could at least feign intellectuality dear Camp.
So you refuse to see the preponderance of evidence and just snipe from your perch. What a keen intellectual you are. I learn so much here.
If the [television] craze continues...we are destined to have a nation of morons. Daniel L. Marsh. 1950.
Posts: 889 | Location: Pittsburgh | Registered: 14 April 2004
I don't know what I said that was so "hateful and intolerant", that is for you to accuse me of. I actually like the Arabs, and consider myself tolerant of them to a fault. I am even tolerant towards the Jews, despite all their failings. I am what you call a "moderate". Live and let live, did you ever hear of that?
Unfortunately, the most extreme faction of Islam is their spokesman. Murder and destruction are their methods, and the "redemption of Islam" means we must all be believers or die. That is what Allah commands them.
Compare that to the Jewish religion. They do not proselytize, murder or topple governments. I would ask you, why can't Islam be more like Judaism? The God of the Jews is a god of life, not murder, destruction and death.
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Originally posted by Camp: So you refuse to see the preponderance of evidence and just snipe from your perch.
Would you please stop looking in the mirror when you write such things. Teapot - kettle, you know.
quote:
I learn so much here.
And still, you haven't learned some of the most important things....like history for example.
Poor Camp, still messed up.
.
I'll play rubber and glue pattycake if you want.
You're an intolerant bigot-hater. You want to pretend that the injustices on both sides are somehow "even" when clearly they are not. Mohammadism has a clear doctrine of conquest through brotherhood, intimidation, and violence. No other ideology has this. China has sacrificed a complete generation to families with no uncles or neices. India is the probably the most peaceful nation on the planet and if not for the British they would also have been over-run by the mohammadists. All cultures around the world are making sacrifices while one continues to issue shrill defiant demands and tries to populate its way to the top while the military jihad stays on az low boil.
Your turn. Show me a pacifist with a koran in his or her hand.
If the [television] craze continues...we are destined to have a nation of morons. Daniel L. Marsh. 1950.
Posts: 889 | Location: Pittsburgh | Registered: 14 April 2004
Originally posted by Camp: You're an intolerant bigot-hater.
I am intolerant of and do hate bigotry, you are right. If you want me to hate you, just keep up the sorts of rhetoric you have been spewing here and in no time I might be intolerant of your bigotry as well.
quote:
You want to ...(blah, blah, blah)...low boil.
You still avoid addressing the daily egregious and unconscionable mistreatment and brutality of Palestinians at the behest of the terrorizing Israeli leadership, the forced population transfers, and the daily hardships that many Palestinians are forced into by Israeli policy. No surprise that you skirt addressing these things....you think some day perhaps you can be intellectually honest about this?
By the way, as I've said before, I don't condone the retributional suicide bombings. What I do, is acknowledge that they are a result of absolute despair by a peoples who've been terrorized by a brutal Israeli leadership.
Likewise, I don't condone any religionists' use of violence and exploitation of others whether they be christian, jew, or mohammadist, especially if perpetrated not out of desperation for survival or basic dignity to their human rights.
Sadly, when a population of adherents consider themselves of more importance, higher social stature, having greater intrinsic value than others as seen in the sort of pugnacious, arrogant rhetoric regurgitated in the mantra, "We are god's chosen people" then of course that sets the stage for conflict. This arrogant attitude IS at the crux of the conflict between those Israeli's who harbor this ideology (and who happen to have been in power in Israel since day one) and the Palestinians.
.
Posts: 98 | Location: New York City | Registered: 10 March 2006
Just reading right now about the suicide bomb attack in Tel Aviv. I'm afraid calling the Jews arrogant does not justify terrorism. In fact, everything you say in your previous post is the same things the Palestinians say to justify murdering innocent civilians in Tel Aviv.
Yes, the Jews are damnable people all right, if they would just disappear from this planet it would suddenly be Paradise... The Garden of Eden... there would be no more terrorism... gasoline would return to 1959 prices...
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Gnarlodious,
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Originally posted by Camp: You're an intolerant bigot-hater.
I am intolerant of and do hate bigotry, you are right. If you want me to hate you, just keep up the sorts of rhetoric you have been spewing here and in no time I might be intolerant of your bigotry as well.
quote:
You want to ...(blah, blah, blah)...low boil.
You still avoid addressing the daily egregious and unconscionable mistreatment and brutality of Palestinians at the behest of the terrorizing Israeli leadership, the forced population transfers, and the daily hardships that many Palestinians are forced into by Israeli policy. No surprise that you skirt addressing these things....you think some day perhaps you can be intellectually honest about this?
By the way, as I've said before, I don't condone the retributional suicide bombings. What I do, is acknowledge that they are a result of absolute despair by a peoples who've been terrorized by a brutal Israeli leadership.
Likewise, I don't condone any religionists' use of violence and exploitation of others whether they be christian, jew, or mohammadist, especially if perpetrated not out of desperation for survival or basic dignity to their human rights.
Sadly, when a population of adherents consider themselves of more importance, higher social stature, having greater intrinsic value than others as seen in the sort of pugnacious, arrogant rhetoric regurgitated in the mantra, "We are god's chosen people" then of course that sets the stage for conflict. This arrogant attitude IS at the crux of the conflict between those Israeli's who harbor this ideology (and who happen to have been in power in Israel since day one) and the Palestinians.
.
Self-loathing is so "in" these days. No middle ground to be found.
If the [television] craze continues...we are destined to have a nation of morons. Daniel L. Marsh. 1950.
Posts: 889 | Location: Pittsburgh | Registered: 14 April 2004
"...the Jews are damnable people all right, if they would just disappear from this planet it would suddenly be Paradise... The Garden of Eden... there would be no more terrorism... gasoline would return to 1959 prices..."
We already knew you are an anti-Semite, you didn't need to remind us again.
Sadly, just like the Israeli leadership, you bring no intellectual honesty to these discussions, simply the same old 'blame the victim' mentality.
That hasn't worked yet....I doubt that it will ever.
Posts: 98 | Location: New York City | Registered: 10 March 2006
Let us now put the emphasis back where it belongs...on the ideology of division and hate...
A Tunisian Intellectual on The Arab Obsession with Vengeance
In two articles that appeared on the liberal website Elaph(1), Tunisian intellectual Al-'Afif Al-Akhdar analyzed and criticized dominant values in the Arab world. Al-Akhdar, currently residing in Paris, was a regular columnist for the London Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat, but was fired at the instruction of the paper's owner, Saudi Prince Khaled ibn Sultan, for saying during a talk show on Al-Jazeera that Saudi practices such amputating body parts render the regime "barbaric."(2) In the first article, Al-Akhdar sets out the logic and goal of the attack on Baghdad, as "told" by the missiles as they fall on the city; in the second, he looks at deeply rooted thought patterns and values in the Arab world. The following are excerpts from the two articles: I. 'What Did the Missiles Falling on Baghdad Tell Me?'(3)
"...All the peoples of the world are moving forward along the course of history towards globalization, a society of knowledge, and political modernization – all but you, who race in the opposite direction."
"The Eastern European countries have moved peacefully and with lightning speed from murderous Stalinist totalitarianism to democracy, and from economic backwardness to continuing economic growth that amazed even the most optimistic predictions. As for you, you're moving in rapid steps from backwardness into sub-backwardness, and from poverty into sub-poverty. As population growth and weapons acquisitions increase, economic growth and education decline into degradation. The peoples of mankind are governed by the law of progress, while you are governed by the law of regression."
"You replaced the dictatorship of the Shah for the theocracy of [Ayatolla] Khomeini, from the pores of whose skin the blood was dripping. In Sudan, Hassan Al-Turabi – nicknamed by our media 'the pope of world terror' – turned against Al-Sadeq Al-Mahdi's elected government after he was toppled by free elections, and established on the ruins [of Al-Mahdi's government] a militaristic and bloody Islamic regime, unique of its kind in the annals of this country, that set it back decades in all spheres."
"Febrile and delusional with the solitary, fixed idea of military vengeance for their two centuries of defeat at the hands of the West and Israel, your political and intellectual elites became crippled. [This is] instead of restoring your legitimate rights through negotiation, as is being done by your contemporaries – except for you who are resolved to achieve through terror what others have achieved through diplomacy."
"This insane obsession with vengeance has robbed your minds of the ability to think reasonably. That is why you are incapable of identifying your real problems and defining your political, economic, social, and educational priorities. In contrast to almost all other societies, your societies are... completely closed. We [missiles] are resolved to purge your madness of vindictiveness and [cure] your historical castration complex by lancing your narcissistic, putrid wound..."
"The neutral, and at times even sympathetic, disregard shown by vast sectors of the Baghdad populace and Iraqi intelligentsia – whom Saddam tortured... for 35 years – towards the fall of Baghdad, was an incentive for us [the missiles] to expand our plans to retake [Iraq] and to intervene in the domestic affairs of other Arab capitals as well, since they refuse to open their societies to political and media pluralism and to respect human rights... as long as they consider – like Baghdad did – acquiring WMD so as to ruin their own people, first economically and then politically and militarily. This is what the moronic and despotic Saddam regime did, more than any other regime in the Arab world and the entire world."
'The Missiles Will Force You - as They did Nazi Germany and Militaristic Japan - to Open to Democracy and Moderation'
"We know that your obscurantist religious culture is a terrible obstacle hindering your transition to a society less closed, less oppressive, and less hostile towards the individual, the woman, the non-Muslim, the rational, the modern, and toward life itself. We also know that your political imagination has learned nothing, from the days of Caliph 'Uthman [the third caliph after Prophet Muhammad's death] to the days of Saddam, except for this saying: 'Nothing can remove a caliph except for death or complete heresy' – but not his oppression [of his people]. We, [the missiles] are targeting this obsolete political imagination so as to force it to open to democracy and its helpmeet, moderation. We know that with you, success cannot be guaranteed, but the experience is worth a shot..."
"We would be lying if we told you that we want you to be realistic, rational, open-minded democrats and modernists for love of your beautiful eyes, because on the scale of our values you will always be a mere mustard seed. [No,] we do this for the sake of our strategic interests in the Middle East and in the oil fields, and for the sake of our security – at which you struck [as soon as you realized] you were capable of doing so, with terror and a frantic race to obtain WMD. This is an explosive mixture that we can't let you play with."
"Our decision – that is, bringing you into modernization, against your will and in the service of our interests – suits the interests of important sectors of your enlightened elites and those who listen to them. [These range from] the elites and the people of Iraq to the elite and the people of Iran, who entertain vain hopes of granting civil and human rights to those whom you have deprived of these rights – like the Sunnis in Iran, whom Khomenei considered 'impure' and who are denied all rights, so that even Friday prayer and burial services for their deceased are held in one single mosque in Tehran."
"[Another example is the] Shi'ites of Iraq, outcast although they are the overwhelming majority, and the same discrimination is applied to Shi'ites of Saudi Arabia, whom the jurisprudents of Wahabbi terror call Rawafidha(4) and issue Fatwas prohibiting Sunnis from consuming meat slaughtered by Shi'ites. The same is true also for the non-Muslims whom you have cast into a 'ground-zero' of civil rights. And for women who you degraded to a status half that of men in judicial [affairs] and [in matters of] inheritance, and into nothing at all in matters of civil rights. You even deprived them of the right to drive a car (as in Saudi Arabia) or of the right to a passport without their husbands' permission (as in Jordan and Algiers – although President 'Abd Al-'Aziz Buteflika has formed a committee to prepare a bill on personal status like the law in Tunisia. So, welcome to the club of modernization)."
"Why don't you consider solving your real problems while you squander out of unique stupidity all your material and human resources, thus compounding fourfold this [vicious] circle. Perhaps your fabricated problems have overwhelmed the remnants of your intelligence."
"We have efficiently dealt with a similar crazed obsession with vengeance by means of occupation, in Nazi Germany and in militaristic Japan. Today, the Germans and Japanese have completely forgotten the idea of wasting their resources for the sake of acquiring conventional and non-conventional weapons. They have learned to allocate their resources wisely so as to modernize their economy, [upgrade] their educational [system], and [improve] their political establishments. Similarly, through bombs, we also dealt with Serbia's madness for ethnic purging and taught it how to play the game of democracy and moderation in statesmanship and how to extradite its Saddam... to the International Criminal Court, to stand trial as a war criminal. And here we are, attempting this same bitter treatment with you, lest perhaps... In any case, this is your last chance, O masters of the missed opportunity..."
II. 'Why Does the Arab Sisyphus Lift the Heavy Rock Only to Drop it on His Own Feet?'(5)
"There are white days and black days in the history of people. Their white days are those that give them their founding myths – that is, historical and symbolical events that shape their collective human imagination, like the [French Revolution's 1789] Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. There is no substitute for these founding myths in inspiring the [human] imagination and in setting the [peoples'] creative energies in motion."
"The black days are those on which these peoples suffered defeats that they were incapable of absorbing, psychologically or intellectually, in such a way that they could derive the real conclusions. In this situation, people tend to curl up within themselves like frightened snails, to brood about their dark thoughts – their catastrophes and their collective obsession with vengeance – and to use them as a pivot that diverts them to suicidal political and militaristic decisions. [They do this] instead of [using] the same circumstances to elevate themselves by way of dignified and creative collective action, aimed at rehabilitating their self-confidence, and triumphing over those thoughts."
"Throughout modern Arab history, the collective Arab imagination has needed a healthy and inspirational founding myth. Yet this imagination has suffered defeats disproving the Arabs' self-deceiving notions about themselves as 'the best nation that has been delivered to mankind.'[Koran](6) They were struck by impossible obsession with avenging [each of] their defeats, from the days of the Mamluk defeat at the hands of Napoleon Bonaparte in the late 1700s to the defeat of [Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser] Arafat at the hands of [Israeli Prime Minster Ariel] Sharon at the beginning of the 21st century. [This] in addition to two centuries of defeat by [Western] imperialism, that left its open, festering wounds."
'The Tribal Arab Culture of Vengeance Transmuted their Defeats into a Fixated, Vengeful Mentality'
"This deep-rooted culture of tribal vengefulness in the [Arab] collective consciousness is a fundamental driving force. [This driving force] has transmuted this consciousness into a fixated, brooding, vengeful mentality, instead of transforming [that kind of culture] into a [source of] far-sighted thought and self-criticism, as a grasp for a spring board for a consciousness of the vital necessity to emulate the enemy, that is becoming like him in modern knowledge, thought and politics, so as to reshape the traditional personality and adapt it to the requirements of the time, as did Japan in the aftermath of its unprecedented defeat in the history of mankind in 1945."
"The culture of tribal vengeance haunts... not only in our relations with the other but also our relations with each other, between Arab countries and within each country, from honor crimes [i.e. murder of women] to tribal and factional strife. Rightly, Muhammad Hasannain Haikal(7) called the 20 years of war between the Al-Gama'a Al-Islamiyya and Islamic Jihad organizations and the [Egyptian] police 'the blood vengeance war between the police tribe and the Islamist tribe.'"
"The hysteria of vengeance on the West and on its protégée Israel has disastrous results – for example, the Arab traditional elite's phobia of Western modernism. The Western imperialism that followed this Western modernism crippled this elite, depriving it of the ability of rational statesmanship. [Statesmanship] that includes [the adoption of] constructive [Western] innovation; setting realistic aims; playing the political game rationally; realistically interpreting the [global or regional] balance of power and harnessing [this interpretation] in the decision-making [process]; managing crises sensibly by peaceably bringing the conditions of its solution into fruition; and, finally, developing decision-making procedures."
"The policy of vengeance that prevails today, especially among the influential elites in Palestine, Syria and Iraq, has banished any rational policy from their domestic decision making. In their domestic policy, these elites dismiss all public discussion. In their foreign policy, they refuse to negotiate. This is how these elites increase the likelihood of implosion [i.e. domestic strife] and war. It [also] explains their careening from one domestic outbreak [of violence] into the next, and from one destructive war into the next, much fiercer war."
"These traditional leaderships, saturated with collective narcissism, have undergone the same experience as people afflicted with depression. They are driven by their guilt-struck emotions to self-punishment, which is likely to end in suicide. This collective self-punishment is revealed in many cases, which I will summarize in two [phenomenon]: a) an 'all or nothing' policy, and b) a cult of armament and violence aimed at salvaging the injured face of this collective narcissism through martial victory, hoping that this would wash out the disgrace of military defeats."
'The Neurotic Tenacity of an 'All or Nothing' Policy and Its Consequences'
"The 'all or nothing' policy was behind [Jerusalem's Grand Mufti] Haj Amin Al-Huseini's rejection of the Peel Commission [1937] [decision] to grant the Palestinians 80% of the land of Palestine, and of the 1947 UN resolution to grant the Palestinians 45% of Palestine. This policy also motivated Hafez Al-Assad, at the end of the summit conference with president Clinton in 2000, to refuse [the offer to] regain the Golan Heights except for 200 meters on the eastern bank of the Sea of Galilee, claiming that when he was in the army, he used to wade and fish in the lake! And what was the result? Great difficulty for his successor in regaining even a single meter in the foreseeable future, save for concessions that the Israeli leadership only ever dreamed of."
"The cult of arming with WMD drove Saddam Hussein into delirious... decisions. [Such as the decisions] to strike the Kurds with chemical weapons; shoot tear gas at demonstrators – [tear gas] produced from aflatoxins that cause liver cancer... as revealed by Saddam's former scientific advisor Dr. Hussein Al-Shahrastani; attack Iran with chemical weapons; invade Kuwait; in addition to wasting - over 35 years - his country's material and human resources on the altar of his vengeful obsession and insane passion for martial victory."
"Currently, Iraq's resources, which include the second largest oil reserves in the world, qualify this country, economically and scientifically, to be the Japan of the Arab world. [Instead, it] became one of the poorest, most despotic and bloodiest countries in the world."
"The fanatical and neurotic tenacity of the [policy of] 'all or nothing' and martial victory are, without a doubt [the source] of Hamas's program to 'liberate Palestine to the last grain of earth and to restore it as a Waqf [religious endowment] for all the world's Muslims' – and [the factor] behind [Hamas's] insane refusal to accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and east Jerusalem."
"And what was the result, after the suicidal operations had failed to fulfill this impossible aim? Hamas's spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, appealed to Israeli PM Sharon for a 10-year truce [Hudna], in the aftermath of which [the circumstances would be reassessed]."
"This kind of suicidal policy was also behind Yasser Arafat's unexpected shift from promising negotiations to futile armed struggle and Intifada, that has proven no less futile."
"And why is that? It was because Chairman Arafat envied Hizbullah's success at 'expelling' the Israeli army from the Israeli security zone [in Lebanon]. Overnight, he decided to shift from negotiating with to expelling the occupying Israeli army, and unilaterally declaring a fully sovereign Palestinian state without [paying] the price of recognizing Israel – as Egypt and Jordan had already done. And what was the outcome of this vengeful and suicidal decision? Unprecedented self-punishment: The occupying army [Israel] returned to 42% of the territories liberated through negotiation."
"By the same logic, Chairman Arafat turned down president Clinton's proposal to regain 97% of the occupied territories, with a promise of $40 billion to resettle the Palestinian refugees within the promised Palestinian state. And what was the outcome of this decision, which was in disregard of any consideration of Palestinian national interest for establishing a homeland and a lasting state? The outcome is that Arafat and his people are today in grave danger."
'The Arabs and Muslims - Both Masses and Elites Alike - Believed in Bin Laden and Acclaimed Him'
"The last 'hero' of the Arab and Islamic nation, the Wahabbi terrorist Osama bin Laden, wanted to avenge his Arab and Islamic nation on the 'Crusaders' by attacking New York and Washington, D.C. The Arabs and the Muslims, both elites and masses, believed in him and acclaimed him. And what was the result? The complete opposite: The U.S. invaded Afghanistan and expelled bin Laden and his patrons, the Taliban, from the country, with determination to uproot them. In addition, our 'hero' [bin Laden] provided the neoconservatives in the American administration the chance they longed for to implement their geopolitical vision: to redefine and reorganize their priorities independently of their European allies. Abandoning the formalities of international law – which was for a long time a shield for the 'oppressed ones,' of whom bin Laden was the self-appointed spokesman – put an end to the prospects of the emergence of an economically and militarily unified Europe as [another] global pole, [a vision] of which the Arabs dreamed night and day."
"Finally, bin Laden also inadvertently helped [the neoconservatives] to reshape international relationships in accordance with the [new] global balance of superpowers that brought about the U.S.'s ascendancy as the most powerful superpower in the world, economically and militarily. Now, this superpower insists on unilaterally controlling international decision-making in an attempt to curb the proliferation of WMD and liquidate Islamic terror by pursuing it and monitoring the countries that generate terror through religious Jihad education – an education which all Arab countries implement, except Tunisia – and replacing the regimes that arm and shelter terror. "
"These are the disastrous outcomes that the Arabs themselves produced with their own hands, because of their obsession with vengeance..."
Notes:
(1) The Elaph website is the first daily Arab independent on-line newspaper. It was established by Saudi businessman, journalist, and author Othman Al-Omeir, former editor of the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat as well as former editor of the Saudi papers Al-Jazira, Al-Riyadh, Al-Yawm, and Al-Majalla. (http://promo.elaph.com) (2) See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 439, http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cg...=sd&ID=SP43902 (3)http://www.elaph.com.:9090/elaph/ara...D=PRINTaRTICLE (4) "The recalcitrant," a term of abuse used by the Sunnis to describe those who refused to swear an oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr and 'Umar. (5)http://www.elaph.com.:9090/elaph/ara...D=PRINTARTICLE (6) Koran, Surat Aal-'Imran [3] , verse 110. (7) Prominent Egyptian editor of Al-Ahram and advisor to former Egyptian president Nasser.
Notice that the KORAN is cited. Too funny. Too bad the stakes are so high.
If the [television] craze continues...we are destined to have a nation of morons. Daniel L. Marsh. 1950.
Posts: 889 | Location: Pittsburgh | Registered: 14 April 2004
Thank you reaper for you words of encouragement. But I have not spread any lies, while you have brought up incidents of over 50 years ago by a few Jew bastards that only showed how stupid they really were.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
A loyal American stands up for his country and condemns the insidious, parasitical pro-Israel lobby that is bringing it to bankruptcy and ruin. _________________________________________
Another War For Israel
By Charley Reese
04/18/06 -- -- The Israeli lobby and the neoconservatives are beating the drums for war with Iran. I hope the president is not that dangerously stupid. The betting on whether he is that stupid is about even.
The neocons — who, being self-centered, seemingly have no concept of human nature — are advancing the premise that a military attack on Iran will cause the people to lose faith in their government and result in regime change.
A military attack on Iran will have the opposite effect. The people will rally to their government, and any hope of regime change will be dead. That people will rally around their existing leaders in the face of an attack by a foreign power is as certain as sunrise. Neither Israel nor the U.S. could do a greater favor for the ruling mullahs and Iran's president than to launch an attack. It would cement their hold on power.
The neocons' fallacious premise has already been disproved. In the first Gulf War, the first Bush administration confidently incited the Shiites and the Kurds to rebel after Saddam Hussein's forces were expelled from Kuwait. The administration thought that Saddam, embarrassed by a crushing military defeat, would fall from power in Iraq easily. Instead, he rallied his forces and crushed both the Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the north. Oops.
In the first place, it is not embarrassing for a Third World country with obsolete equipment to be defeated by the world's No. 1 military superpower. In the second place, the Sunnis, however much they might have disliked Saddam, disliked even more the thought of being ruled by Kurds or Shiites. In the third place, by President George H.W. Bush's decision to not go to Baghdad, Saddam could say he duked it out with the world's superpower and was still standing after the fight. That, in most eyes, could be counted as a victory.
Some months ago, an Iranian human-rights advocate pleaded with the current Bush administration to cease its rhetorical attacks on the Iranian government. She said, quite accurately, that such attacks make life impossible for Iranian reformers. Needless to say, the blockheads in Washington ignored her.
What did we do when the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked? We rallied behind George W. Bush — Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. That's the natural reaction of normal human beings, and the Iranians are normal human beings. Attack their country and they will rally round the flag.
The Iranians still insist they are not seeking nuclear weapons, and there's not a scrap of evidence to contradict that claim. They still adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They have often called for a nuclear-free Middle East.
Once again, the dead roach in America's salad is Israel. The U.S. hypocritically opposes a nuclear-free Middle East because Israel has nuclear weapons. We hypocritically claim the Iranians are in violation of international law when, in fact, it is Israel that refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses international inspections. Given our craven obedience to Israel, we have exactly zero credibility in the Arab and Muslim world.
As I have said before, I don't care if the Iranians do develop nuclear weapons. My whole adult life was lived with 30,000 Soviet nuclear weapons aimed at me. I can certainly live with the six or seven Iran might be able to scrape together in the next five to 10 years. In the meantime, the U.S. government should kick the Israeli lobby out of the country and support Iran and the Arab League in pushing for a nuclear-free Middle East.
The Israeli lobby pushing America to fight yet another war for Israel reminds me of what the French ambassador to Great Britain said at a party: "Why does the world allow this (expletive deleted) little country to cause so much trouble?"
Why indeed? You should ask your politicians that question.
Posts: 145 | Location: Canada | Registered: 16 November 2005
That cracked me up, the writer is incapable of character discernment. He assumes that the Iranians are restrained and defensive like the Israelis, when in fact they recently threatened to burn Israel off the planet. Israel has never threatened to eradicate a nation regardless of the acrimony between them and their enemies. So, by their deeds they are known. The Israelis are responsible, and the Arabs are maniacs.
-- The only time we see the middle of the road is as we run from side to side. R.O.Clark
Posts: 3959 | Location: Santa Fe | Registered: 11 June 2003
Originally posted by reaper: Camp, Gnarly, and rutherford, you three are hillarious. Keep up the good work and spread more lies. Soon it just won't matter anymore.
It's the Jihad. Beware of the jihad, not the lies. The lies are part of the jihad. The pillar of faith that keeps the submitters submitted.
If the [television] craze continues...we are destined to have a nation of morons. Daniel L. Marsh. 1950.
Posts: 889 | Location: Pittsburgh | Registered: 14 April 2004
That's a very insightful and accurate article...thanks for sharing it.
As you will find, there are a few history revisionists and Israeli terrorism apologists here in this forum who want to pretend that the victimizer (Isreal) is the victim and that Israel's brutal subjugation of the Palestinian people (influenced heavily by Zionist ideology) is always on the side of justice.
I read their crap and simply laugh at their ludicrous claims....a little laughter might not be so bad afterall. I just wonder if they take their own absurdities as serious?
.
Posts: 98 | Location: New York City | Registered: 10 March 2006
As you will find, there are a few history revisionists and Israeli terrorism apologists here in this forum who want to pretend that the victimizer (Isreal) is the victim and that Israel's brutal subjugation of the Palestinian people (influenced heavily by Zionist ideology) is always on the side of justice.
I read their crap and simply laugh at their ludicrous claims....a little laughter might not be so bad afterall. I just wonder if they take their own absurdities as serious?
.
As I read your snapshot of relativism that is supposed to equal 1457 years of mohammadist expansion by Jihad I can only think the same.
Jerusalem has been fought over for thousands of years yet you would pin all the blame on the oppressed denizens of Israel with so much as criticizing the ideology of hate.
Real deep thoughts there Mr. Handy.
If the [television] craze continues...we are destined to have a nation of morons. Daniel L. Marsh. 1950.
Posts: 889 | Location: Pittsburgh | Registered: 14 April 2004
We've not had a good row, in a very long time, Sunrise. What's left to argue about? :shrug:
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
A good way to threaten somebody is to light a stick of dynamite. Then you call the guy and hold the burning fuse up to the phone. "Hear that?" you say. "That's dynamite, baby."
Now, this is the kind of Friday afternoon conversation that makes "sense"; thanks for getting it started, Ren.
quote:
If I lived back in the wild west days, instead of carrying a six-gun in my holster, I'd carry a soldering iron. That way, if some smart-aleck cowboy said something like "Hey, look. He's carrying a soldering iron!" and started laughing, and everybody else started laughing, I could just say, "That's right, it's a soldering iron. The soldering iron of justice." Then everybody would get real quiet and ashamed, because they had made fun of the soldering iron of justice, and I could probably hit them up for a free drink.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Anytime I see something screech across a room and latch onto someones neck, and the guy screams and tries to get it off, I have to laugh, because, what is that thing?
To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no choreography, and the dancers hit each other.
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
"If you go flying back through time, and you see somebody flying forward into the future, it's probably best to avoid eye contact."
(Thanks for the fresh list, douglaslee.)
--------------------------------------------------------------- "if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got." ---------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6804 | Location: usa | Registered: 09 February 2006
Individuals are legally responsible for their views. Messages or parts of messages may be quoted or read on the radio, or reprinted in Thom's books and other materials.
Read-Only Topic
