The Middle East part 2

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]MLK and civil rights activists used the media has a effective tool to get their point. The images of dogs attacking defenseless children and adults.

Oh now I see - like the Israeli government would suddenly change it's policy after Shattila or when 5 year olds get shot by soldiers. Or when they feel regret and change it's policy whenever they shoot down news reporters and UN workers.

I guess you must be right

[Bernadotte 0]

Hamas leader Rantisi got hit and may be dead. We can only hope.

[turms 0]

link to the story here

[theavonlady 2]

Dead.

[denoir 0]

Why not? It seem to have worked with Yassin. Or at least there have been no serious retributions so far. I can only guess that it made some serious infrastructural damage to Hamas or we would have seen a number of organized attacks.

Of course such assasinations are something a society that is supposed to be civilized should be ashamed of, but let's be realistic. Brute force can give results fairly well.

So, what happens if Hamas and similar organizations are wiped out? Well, I'd say that the palestinian people will probably in the short run be worse off. On the other hand, while not being  a nice or fair solution, it is still a solution. Perhaps with the endless string of peace deals the details have overshadowed the big picture.

I don't know but perhaps Sharon's brute tactics and Bush's support actually (connected with creation of a palestinian state) can actually give some form of peace that works, even if it isn't the most fair peace. So the palestinians get screwed to an extent, but is that perhaps worth for a lasting peace? Or will it just create problems again in the future?

[Bernadotte 0]

I was worried that Yassin's assassination would launch either Rantisi or Khaled Mashal into the leader's throne.  It turned out that both of them wanted the job and the momentary confusion over who should really take over probably contributed to some inaction.  Now that things have been cleared up let's hope Israel finds a way to dispatch Mashal too.

Avon, is Mashal still in Damascus?

[theavonlady 2]

Avon, is Mashal still in Damascus?

Yes. Jordan kicked him out long ago.

And then there's Nasrallah.

[Bernadotte 0]

Anti-nuke sympathisers, mark your calendars.  Mordechai Vanunu will be released from an Isreali prison on 21 April, just 3 weeks from today.

Who's Mordechai Vanunu?

He's the guy who blew the whistle on Israel's top secret nuclear weapons program in the mid-80s.  So top secret that Israel's parliament didn't even know about it.  Of course, he didn't reveal all until he was safe in Europe.  What he didn't expect was that Israel's secret service would successfully locate, drug and kidnap him back to Israel where he'd spend the next 12 years of an 18 year prison sentence in solitary confinement.  For all the sordid details I recommend this recent report.

Google News only returns about 80 hits right now, but this should increase dramatically as celebrities and activists prepare to celebrate his release.

228 hits now  

519 hits now

Quote[/b] ]Vanunu, 50, a former nuclear technician whose 18-year term for treason ends tomorrow, will not be able to travel abroad for at least a year, speak with foreigners or approach Israeli ports or borders. He will also be barred from discussing his work at Israel’s Dimona reactor.  Vanunu was given a map of Israel marking the areas off-limits to him, the Defence Ministry said.

...

The London-based human rights group Amnesty International said the restrictions violate Vanunu’s rights.  “Vanunu must not be subject to arbitrary restrictions and violations of his fundamental rights on the basis of pretexts or suspicions about what he may do the future,†Amnesty International said in a statement.

-- The Scotsman

[SpongeBob 0]

Nuke Whistleblower Wants Israel's Reactor Destroyed

http://www.reuters.com/newsArt....4863226

Quote[/b] ]Mon Apr 19, 2004 06:35 AM ET

By Allyn Fisher-Ilan

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Mordechai Vanunu, about to complete an 18-year jail term for spilling Israeli nuclear secrets, has called for the destruction of Israel's secretive Dimona reactor, newspapers reported on Monday.

"Just like the Iraqi reactor was destroyed, I want the Israeli reactor destroyed," Vanunu, referring to Israel's 1981 bombing near Baghdad, was quoted as saying in a videotaped meeting recently with security officers.

"I am defending the Arab world," he said in the interview, according to a transcript carried by newspapers. The tape was to be broadcast later in the day.

Vanunu, a former technician at the Dimona reactor, was jailed in 1986 as a traitor after disclosing information to Britain's Sunday Times newspaper which led analysts to conclude Israel had produced as many as 200 nuclear bombs at the facility.

Israel maintains a strategic ambiguity over its nuclear program in an attempt to ward off its foes while avoiding a regional arms race. It has kept the Dimona facility, in southern Israel, closed to international inspection. Vanunu, 49, is expected to be placed under restrictions as soon as he is released on Wednesday, the government having decided to bar him from leaving the country, tap his phone and bar his access to the press for a probationary period.

Release of the videotape appeared aimed at bolstering the government's case in a court challenge Israel's civil liberties union is mounting on Vanunu's behalf against the edicts.

Challenging Israel's right to exist, he declared: "There is no need for a Jewish state. There should be a Palestinian state. Whoever wants to be Jewish can live anywhere."

Vanunu said he hoped to fight the restrictions and move overseas. He denied having anything sensitive left to divulge and threatened to defy some restrictions using the Internet.

"I've been inside for 20 years, everything has changed. Science has advanced...so what I saw seems very outdated to me," Vanunu said.

Vanunu also maintained he was neither a spy nor a traitor.

"I wanted to inform the world about what happened. It's not treason," and outside Israel "five or six billion people (see me)...as a positive figure."

Asked why he had chosen to convert to Christianity back in the 1980s, Vanunu replied: "I think Islam and Judaism are both the same backward religion...Christianity is progressive."

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Asked why he had chosen to convert to Christianity back in the 1980s, Vanunu replied: "I think Islam and Judaism are both the same backward religion...Christianity is progressive."

He's all yours!

[Scorpio 0]

Funny...what does his religion have anything to do with it?

[Longinius 1]

The guy spent 11 years and six months in solitary confinement... Thats a long time :/

[Bernadotte 0]

The guy spent 11 years and six months in solitary confinement... Thats a long time :/

For the first 2 1/2 years, his cell had no natural light and a fluorescent tube was kept on 24 hours a day.  The only reason he was removed from solitary confinement was because of much lobbying and campaigning by his supporters and the backing of a couple of Israeli members of parliament.

IMO, the big question is why did Israel want to keep their nukes a secret?  You don't keep nukes a secret if you wish to deter conflict.  However, if your hope is to surprise your attackers by utterly obliterating their major cities and killing millions of innocent people... well then of course you keep them a secret.

[Bernadotte 0]

'Arafat could be target' - Sharon

Quote[/b] ]Mr Sharon told Israel's Channel Two that in his first meeting with President Bush three years ago "I accepted his request not to harm Arafat physically.  "But I am released from this commitment. I release myself from this commitment regarding Arafat," he said.

Sharon killing Arafat would be too good to be true.

It would be a great thing for the Israeli people.

It would be an even greater thing for the Palestinian people.

And it would cause enormous damage to Israel's right-wing in the international community.

Like I said... too good to be true.  

[denoir 0]

Do you really think that if you kill off their leaders one by one that those replace them will be moderates?

Arafat is far from being the worst possible leader. On the contrary he acknowledges Israels right to exist etc which is far more than many of the more radical leaders do.

[Koolkid101 0]

Why not build a wall all around the country in their territory? Wouldn't that solve everything?

[Bernadotte 0]

Do you really think that if you kill off their leaders one by one that those replace them will be moderates?

Arafat is far from being the worst possible leader. On the contrary he acknowledges Israels right to exist etc which is far more than many of the more radical leaders do.

1.  There are Palestinian Gandhis and Mandelas in the world who are not allowed to help their people because of Arafat.  There are even a few in the territories who must remain silent and in the background until Arafat is gone.

2.  Arafat's PLO is and always has been extremely corrupt.  Hamas originally came into existence solely as a means of shepharding aid funds to the people who needed it and past the corrupt fingers of Arafat's gangsters.

3.  Arafat is a bullheaded, egotistical moron.  The classic example was in 1990, when he single-handedly vetoed his entire executive who had all unanimously voted against supporting Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

Certainly there have been Palestinian leaders worse than Arafat, but most were killed long ago.  So he definitely ranks amongst the worst survivors.  I was rather opposed to Sheik Yassin's killing.  We should all be so lucky that our enemies are lead by deaf/blind quadraplegics rather than the likes of Rantisi.

[denoir 0]

1.  There are Palestinian Ghandis and Mandelas in the world who are not allowed to help their people because of Arafat.  There are even a few in the territories who must remain silent and in the background until Arafat is gone.

I think Ghandi is a flawed comparison. His non-violent strikes had immense effects on British trade. India was an economic factor and that made a big difference.

Mandela is not a desirable example. As much as I respect the man and his cause, he made little difference. The apartheid regime fell because of its own weight. Mandela first got out of prison when the old regime was falling apart.

Quote[/b] ]2. Arafat's PLO is and always has been extremely corrupt. Hamas originally came into existence solely as a means of shepharding aid funds to the people who needed it and past the corrupt fingers of Arafat's gangsters.

3. Arafat is a bullheaded, egotistical moron. The classic example was in 1990, when he single-handedly vetoed his entire executive who had all unanimously voted against supporting Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

All true, but he is also the symbol of Palestinian resistance. If you ask people around the world for a Palestinian leader, most people will only know Arafat. Europe which happens to be Israels primary trade partner would not take an assasination lightly. Sanctions would be quite possible and I doubt that they would even bother going through the UN for that. Support for the Palestinian cause would increase around the world. The US would not like it too much either. Not to mention how the Arab countries would feel.

And for what? You have no idea of who will take his place. I have a feeling that if you assasinate Arafat the Palestinians will not be in a conciliatory mood and would likely choose the most radical leader they could find.

Quote[/b] ]Certainly there have been Palestinian leaders worse than Arafat, but most were killed long ago. So he definitely ranks amongst the worst survivors. I was rather opposed to Sheik Yassin's killing. We should all be so lucky that our enemies are lead by deaf/blind quadraplegics rather than the likes of Rantisi.

And what guarantees to you have that Arafat won't be replaced by another Rantisi? As I said, it's highly unlikely that the Palestinians will take Arafats death lightly and would likely go radical.

Assasinations are unpredictable. The international laws that exist are not just because we all want to be nice human beings but because they have practical consequences. A modern state should not be solving its problems through assasinations. It is a form of state terrorism and will most likely just make the people in the region more sceptical to Israel and the people in the world less likely to help.

Bottom line: As we don't know the consequences of an assasination it is far more reasonable to stick to the rules.

[Bernadotte 0]

1.  There are Palestinian Ghandis and Mandelas in the world who are not allowed to help their people because of Arafat.  There are even a few in the territories who must remain silent and in the background until Arafat is gone.

I think Ghandi is a flawed comparison. His non-violent strikes had immense effects on British trade. India was an economic factor and that made a big difference.

Mandela is not a desirable example. As much as I respect the man and his cause, he made little difference. The apartheid regime fell because of its own weight. Mandela first got out of prison when the old regime was falling apart.

I could have said there are Palestinian Martin Luther King Juniors in the world, too, even though I would not compare Palestine with the US; nor with India; nor with South Africa.  I was comparing the methods and principles of Arafat with those of Gandhi and Mandela, rather than what they accomplished or their specific circumstances.  I'm sure I don't need to tell you that if someone like King, Gandhi or Mandela had led the Palestinians he would not likely have spent his career so emersed in terrorism and corruption.

Quote[/b] ]2.  Arafat's PLO is and always has been extremely corrupt.  Hamas originally came into existence solely as a means of shepharding aid funds to the people who needed it and past the corrupt fingers of Arafat's gangsters.

3.  Arafat is a bullheaded, egotistical moron.  The classic example was in 1990, when he single-handedly vetoed his entire executive who had all unanimously voted against supporting Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.

All true, but he is also the symbol of Palestinian resistance. If you ask people around the world for a Palestinian leader, most people will only know Arafat.

Yup, but other potential leaders do exist.  And you will certainly hear more from them after Arafat is gone.

Europe which happens to be Israels primary trade partner would not take an assasination lightly. Sanctions would be quite possible and I doubt that they would even bother going through the UN for that. Support for the Palestinian cause would increase around the world. The US would not like it too much either. Not to mention how the Arab countries would feel.

...Not to mention how Israel's political center and left would feel.  The anger and any possible sanctions would probably not last a day longer than Sharon's government.

And for what? You have no idea of who will take his place.

I have a few ideas.

Dr Marwan Kanafani is no Mother Teresa, but his name might be worth noting.

I have a feeling that if you assasinate Arafat the Palestinians will not be in a conciliatory mood and would likely choose the most radical leader they could find.

Perhaps it depends on what you mean by replace - by interim appointment or free elections?  I know of no possible appointment more radical or just plain stubborn than Arafat himself.  And, if a free election would not be possible for some time in the aftermath of Arafat's killing, there would be plenty of opportunity for cooling off and assessing new faces.

Assasinations are unpredictable. The international laws that exist are not just because we all want to be nice human beings but because they have practical consequences. A modern state should not be solving its problems through assasinations. It is a form of state terrorism and will most likely just make the people in the region more sceptical to Israel and the people in the world less likely to help.

Bottom line: As we don't know the consequences of an assasination it is far more reasonable to stick to the rules.

Stick to the rules?  Is that what they're doing right now?

I understand your desire for predictability, especially in such a volatile setting.  But the consequences would really be much more predictable and stable than you think.

For me the bottom line is this:

I am not an advocate of killing unless it can save a significant number of innocent lives.  Arafat's death would save countless innocent lives on both sides.  In fact, the only person whose death would save more lives is Sharon's.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Do you really think that if you kill off their leaders one by one that those replace them will be moderates?

Good point! Not only that. Now the new leaders will not be announced publicly anymore and I bet they are good in keeping the name secret. Maybe they will even create satelite-authorities, so it will even be tougher for the Mossad to target an even more radical organisation.

[Apollo 0]

I have read that an European survey has shown that most european's see Israel as the biggest threat to peace in the world ,with quite convincing numbers.

Afcourse for European's ,turkey has a way more valuable and culturally acceptable possition in the middle east as an ally than Israel ,while for the U.S israel might be of greater importance. (well Israeli lobby'rs move a lot of green one's)

It's a fact that from the Moment that new israeli's and Zionists began to settle land in the middle east they were hated by all people around them.It's also a fact that while israel takes multiple measurement's to combat terrorism ,the conflict has been escalating since 3 years ago (Sharon visitis Al Aqsa) and since then really hasn't been deminished in furiosity.

Another fact is that the greater majority of Palestinian terrorists originates from refugee camps ,often people or their children's that have been displaced by Israeli settlers or army and who lost most of their possesions or even future ,and that the construction of the new security fence wich is about 10-15% ready has already displaced some thousand Palestinians who used to live in former Palestinian lands now annexed within the security fence.Such refugee camps are often visited by heavy armor brigade's to root out terrorists ,by wich often a big amount of infrastructure is demolished.Arguably such incursion's of palestinian armor brigade's also see's a large deathtoll among civilian's and non combetants ,though often the Israeli would argue that what independant observers see as non combetants or civilians are actually terrorists.

I wonder what must be the thought's of an average 18 year old palestinian that was raised in a Palestinian refugee camp and actually managed to survive until his 18th.He would have seen a lot of destruction ,an x amount of his family would be killed.His education would be low and mostly dependant what his family and religion thought him ,often anti-jewish propaganda.His chances for a carreer would be very low ,and the daily reality of the camps would be very hard.He would have been accustomed to countless Israeli chekup's ate checkpoint's often manned by Inexperienced ,very young IDF soldiers only strentghening his hate against them.

I'm not saying for him to become a terrorist would be a rightfull thing ,but it's just the reality that these refugee camps are hotbeds of terrorists ,and that when israel will continue it's agressive method's of colonization and annexation resulting in the displacement of thousands of Palestinians that the terrorists threat will grow.

[billybob2002 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040424/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_mideast&cid=544&ncid=716

Quote[/b] ]

Bush Cautions Sharon About Harming Arafat

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) has cautioned Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) against harming Yasser Arafat (news - web sites), a White House official said Friday after the Israeli leader said he was no longer bound by a promise to spare Arafat from attack.

Quote[/b] ]The White House hours later said that Bush in last week's meeting had "reiterated his opposition to such an action" against the Palestinian leader.

"We have made it entirely clear to the Israeli government," said National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack. "The president was pretty clear."

[Bernadotte 0]

Last September, when Sharon threatened to expell Arafat I said he was bluffing.

...

So why would Israel bluff about expelling Arafat?

Because a growing segment of the Israeli public are getting tired of waiting for Sharon to reduce terrorism and improve the economy.  Now Sharon will be able to claim that it is the international community who is keeping things from getting better by preventing the removal of Arafat.

Now Sharon is bluffing about killing Arafat for the same reason.  And again, it's working perfectly.

World warns Israel against targeting Arafat

[Koolkid101 0]

Why not build a wall all around the country in their territory? Wouldn't that solve everything?

ANyone have an answer?

[Bernadotte 0]

Why not build a wall all around the country in their territory? Wouldn't that solve everything?

ANyone have an answer?

Israel also believes this will help to solve the terrorism problem.  However, the biggest problem with building a barrier around the Palestinian territories is that about 400,000 Israelis have built settlements in those areas.  So, Israel will try to solve the settler problem 2 ways:

1.  All settlers in the Gaza strip will be removed.  There are only about 7,000 settlers and Gaza already has a barrier around it.

2.  The barrier being built around the West Bank will cut in around the biggest Israeli settlements so that they will not be separated from Israel.  However, losing their land is what the Palestinians have been fighting against for more than 80 years, so they are not too happy with the path of this new barrier.