Dan there are few options. 1- Israel annects west bank and gaza. They should give voting rights to everyone then, unless they practice the final solution of transferring palestinians out of Palestine as suggested by many "wise and higly democratic" israeli politicians many also part of the government. 2- Permit the birth of Palestinian state while dismantling most of (illegal, do you know the meaning of illegal?) settlements. Sharon is trying to obtain most of west bank and leaving some palestinian bantustan (you know south africa...). p.s. I agree with DoctorJones (basically my opinions are perfectly tuned with his), israeli newspapers are ar more balanced than US ones. Ha'aretz is a very good newspaper. It's far more important to lead US public opinion than israeli one. Also because of the fact that israelis do live there and it's harder to fool them with half truths. p.p.s. Googlesearch JINSA and some of you're questions about the real power of US jewish lobbies would have some further answers.
This would of course be where I do the full 180 on supporting Israel. The only reason the Milosevic option is even approaching the mainstream, though, is because of the infanticide - er, intifada. Palestinian suicide bombers are the best friends ultra-Orthodox ultra-Likudniks (and their fundamentalist Christian fake allies in America) ever had. Yeah, there would always be someone saying "Let's annex the Biblical kingdom of Israel," but the civil war is providing a lot more credence to that argument than it deserves. Yeah, because, the Palestinians are really scrupulous about distinguishing legal settlements from illegal ones. I've always been in favor of telling anyone stupid enough to move to the West Bank that they shouldn't be surprised when they wake up one morning to find themselves proud citizens of Arafatistan. But ceding settlements is something that would have come about through negotiation. I won't patronize you by asking for the definition of the word - but if you do have one handy, you might want to forward it to the boys in Ramallah. I sure do. It's where I stopped reading. Which is strange, because usually I'm a big fan of using loaded, historically inaccurate jargon designed to inflame passions rather than accurately describe the situation.* Tell you what, why don't you post a nice, long, detailed, tedious description about why Israel is exactly like apartheid South Africa, and maybe that'll cheer me up. *well, when it's used against the Bush junta.
Settlements are all illegal. This under Geneva convenction and UN opinion (also USA). UN said it right after occupation. Ok you're occupying some others land for defensive reasons, don't steal though the land to the legitimate owners. It's important to be honest. Israel thru the settlement's policy is just stealing. It's doing it since 67 in west bank. If you forget or undervalue this then you can't understand the most important reason why palestinians are not well mannered gentlemen. That's why US opinion and european opinion is usually different on this subject. We don't forget the main issues on the ground because of some palestinian butchers. What it's wrong and what is right must be understood examining the main issues not the acts of a precise terroristic organization. IMHO. I know you don't forget it so don't take it personally. I never said Sharon wants to duplicate exactly south african situation (changing the name of the state from Israel to South Africa or painting palestinans in black or changing the spoken language to afrikaans). He likes the idea of a southafrican-like Great Israel. Mine was a way to describe his project in few words. Let's say he wants to annex most of west bank leaving some accurately isolated palestinian "independent" areas. My preferred israeli, Uri Avnery, says it. http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/article246.html http://www.countercurrents.org/pa-avnery080503.htm ah since you quit reading when you read the word bantustan you weren't able to read my googlesarch suggestion "JINSA". That organization shows up well the neutrality of the US admin. Just look at the members and read their opinions. http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,785394,00.html
Ah I see, so Margolis is somehow anti-Israel and therefore an unreliable source because he was a staunch supporter of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan. May I remind you that our government during the Reagan Administration was also a staunch supporter of the mujahadeen during their struggle against the Soviets. And now we are also staunch allies with the Pakistanis in the War on Terror. Do these facts make us anti-Israel as well? As for his being embedded with Muslim forces in Bosnia, Kashmir and Chechnya, he's a journalist. He obviously has expertise in that area so covering these conflicts from their vantage point doesn't make him a flaming "death to Israel" jihadist In fact the struggle of the Bosnian Muslims against the ethnic cleansing of the Serbs was a quite noble endeavor if you ask me so I wouldn't hold that against him. In any event why would Pollard turn over information to Israel which was only useful to the Soviets if they didn't plan on utilizing it in barter? http://www.mideastfacts.com/new_yorker_pollard.html "The New Yorker said officials believed Pollard's information ultimately wound up in Soviet hands before the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, noting that much of the information which Pollard allegedly leaked to Israel was of practical value only to the Soviet Union." "The magazine said that Pollard gave away a 10-volume surveillance manual, described by one ex-intelligence officer as "the Bible," which contained detailed information on how US intelligence collects signals anywhere in the world." "The magazine also quoted sources as saying Pollard passed on more than a year's worth of daily reports from a Navy surveillance station in Spain, which tracked movements of Soviet nuclear submarines. Such material could help "reveal ways to hide a military operation," the report claimed." Curious that Israel would need information of surveillance of Soviet submarines. And before you insinuate any anti-Israel bias this is the "Jerusalem Post" reporting on an article in the "New Yorker" magazine And furthermore: http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1999/01/990118-pollard.htm "INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS BELIEVE SOME OF THE MATERIAL GOT INTO SOVIET HANDS. IN THEIR OPINION, EITHER THE ISRAELIS TRADED THE INFORMATION FOR JEWS TRYING TO LEAVE THE SOVIET UNION OR KGB SPIES IN ISRAEL OBTAINED IT. A CLOSE READING OF THE DOCUMENTS WOULD HAVE REVEALED U-S SOURCES IN THE SOVIET UNION AND MAY WELL HAVE COST THEM THEIR LIVES. "MR. DIGENOVA SAYS CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS WERE UNDER SUSPICION, BUT NOTHING COULD BE PROVED. IT IS DIFFICULT TO REACH ANY DEFINITE CONCLUSIONS, SAYS MR DIGENOVA, SINCE ISRAEL HAS RETURNED VERY LITTLE OF THE STOLEN MATERIAL." If Israel in fact only received information which it needed for it own security use why won't they return all of the material which was stolen? We're their allies aren't we? And my point on the CIA sources was that Margolis received his information from these sources. And from your own link: http://cnn.com.tr/virtual/editions/europe/2000/roof/change.pop/frameset.exclude.html "U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials say there are indications that top-secret satellite and signals intelligence Pollard gave to Israel ended up in the hands of the Soviet Union. " I would hardly call that zero evidence.
More about JINSA. http://www.jinsa.org/ JINSA and PNAC are brothers or at least friends. http://www.rense.com/general39/tenet.htm I know the fact that Perle and Wolfovitz are members of JINSA and PNAC could be irrelevant. Anyway it's better to know it. http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=JINSA http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest p.s. The links are just to show some curious links between some organizations thru some preminent US admin members.
You're kidding me. Throughout the Cold War, and the 1973 war especially, both sides were seen as proxies of the superpowers. The Rooskies gave the Arab militaries almost all of their hardware. Uh, yeah, Israel would like to know where Russian subs were. I would. Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanson are the culprits here. What with them turning over information directly to Russia, why would they need Israel's alleged information? Hm?
I just found it funny that you left out the second paragraph. He's totally anti-Israel, by the way. You must know this, right? As for your other stuff, it's all based on the SAME lie of one or two anonymous CIA officials, before Ames and Hanssen were caught. Quite possibly one or two of them were the anonymous sources. By the way, and this is indisputable, Israel was even more worried about the Soviet Union that the USA was. [/QUOTE]
Perle isn't running the country anymore. It's just Wolfowitz now, with the help of Douglas Feith and Scooter Libby. Libby could be running the country, but you can't let a guy named "Scooter" have his finger on the button, if you get my drift.
From Washington's "Farewell Address" - “nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils 7 Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.”
btw also cheney participated http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=JINSA Are you suggesting that Perle (before he resigned but also after), Wolfovitz, Cheney, Feith are irrelevant in deciding US foreign policies? Maybe, I leave conclusions to each reader.
I've uncovered another plot. All four of those men are members of the American Automobile Assocation. It's no coincidence that AAA recently put out this book: Based on the cover, we can see a neo-conservative expansionist policy being implemented by the heretofore neutral AAA, an organization which should be more concerned about AMERICAN automobile travel instead of catering to Zionist traitors. My sources also reveal that several road projects in Palestine, TX have been cancelled. Coincidence? I think not.
Yeah that makes sense except: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/576453/posts "A number of officials strongly suspect that the Israelis repackaged much of Pollard's material and provided it to the Soviet Union in exchange for continued Soviet permission for Jews to emigrate to Israel. Other officials go further, and say there was reason to believe that secret information was exchanged for Jews working in highly sensitive positions in the Soviet Union. A significant percentage of Pollard's documents, including some that described the techniques the American Navy used to track Soviet submarines around the world, WAS OF PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE ONLY TO THE SOVIET UNION. One longtime C.I.A. officer who worked as a station chief in the Middle East said he understood that "certain elements in the Israeli military had used it" -- Pollard's material -- "to trade for people they wanted to get out," including Jewish scientists working in missile technology and on nuclear issues. Pollard's spying came at a time when the Israeli government was publicly committed to the free flow of Jewish emigres from the Soviet Union. The officials stressed the fact that they had no hard evidence -- no "smoking gun," in the form of a document from an Israeli or a Soviet archive -- to demonstrate the link between Pollard, Israel, and the Soviet Union, but they also said that the documents that Pollard had been directed by his Israeli handlers to betray led them to no other conclusion." Now I'm sure you guys will call all of these CIA officers (not just one or two) liars and allege that Seymour Hersh is rabidly anti-Israel right? It really stretches the limits of credulity that Israel would take (and direct Pollard to steal) information which was only useful to the Soviets for some benign purpose. You guys can blame Hansen and Ames all you want, it doesn't change the fact that many officials in our intelligence community firmly believe that the information Pollard stole ended up in the hands of the Soviets.
That's your source? You have got to be FUCKING kidding me. Free Republic? Jesus. Edit - clicked on the link, it's that SAME freaking New Yorker article from 1999. Fine. Great. Robert Hanssen (I've been booting the spelling of his name) was arrested in 2001. HMMMM. Think that MIGHT qualify as new evidence?
Members of Jinsa actually produce statements about Israeli foreign policy, dude. Sure, it's right it's all another conspiracy theory. If wolfovitz etc express their likudnish opinions when they're playing with the Jinsa it doesn't mean they have the same political opinion outside... Very clever. Congratulations Ben. http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,785394,00.html I mean, those that produced this *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*# do have now important roles in deciding US foreign policy. No way you can deny it without looking ridicolous.
To wander completely off-topic. For those of you who are even slightly enviro-concious or just plain like breathing clean air AAA is a BAD, BAD company. They come off as just your friendly tow truck drivers and map makers but in reality they have pushed a strong pro-road, pro-automobile, anti-mass transit and anit-higher CAFE standards agenda for many years. The actually employ a small cadre of lobbyists. Secret Life of AAA: http://www.nrdc.org/amicus/01win/aaa/aaa.asp
Unquestionably. Hersh is one of the most anti-Israeli writers on the planet. Are you saying he gets a free "Hersh" pass? I would say more, but I'm waiting for a phone call from Clarence Thomas about civil rights.