Ariel Sharon

[Laocoön]

As most of you know, Ariel Sharon has warned the US not to appease the Arabs at Israel's expense, in a comment damaging to the US's effort to establish a coalition to act against bin Laden. Part of Sharon's remark is undoubtably in response to Bush's announcement, without having first conferred with Sharon, that he supports the idea of a Palestinian state.

But Ariel Sharon is a very cunning and dangerous person, and it would be foolish to assume that he merely made a remark damaging to his nation's sponsor solely out of emotion. So what else might he be up to?

Sharon has in many respects been a one-trick pony. Sure, he also has a few lines on his resume due to wholesale slaughter and due to attacking during ceasefire, but anyone can do that. The trick that Sharon has built his career on is that of doing something completely agressive and contrary to any agreed-upon plans, and in so doing force his compatriots to follow his path even if only to bail him out. He did this in 1956 when Israel invaded the Sinai peninsula, and he did it in 1973 when he took his troops across the Suez Canal and into Egypt, very nearly losing them in the process.

So with his latest comments, Sharon has forced remarks from the White House that Israel has no stronger friend than the US or than George Bush. It is now out in the open that we are only using the Arab states because we need them, while our true allegiance lies with Israel. This immediately creates the danger that we might suddenly lose the support of the Arab states when we have troops in the field that depend upon supplies coming through those states, but there doesn't seem to be any real gain for Israel, or for Sharon's vision for Israel, in that.

My fear is that Sharon might try to ignite a general war in the Middle East when the US has a whole lot of its military in the area. If this can be done in a way such that it is clear that the Arabs (either the states or the population) are against us -- a coordinated attack by Arabs on our military there in several different places would probably do that, if it could be provoked -- the US could end up fighting directly in the war on Israel's side. I think that in Sharon's vision for Israel, that would be the hugest step forward imaginable.

The way that Sharon might ignite a general war would be to begin wholesale slaughter of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, to a degree beyond any reason. He did the same thing a long time ago in the Gaza Strip, with quite a bit of success in controlling terrorism. He could quite easily do this in a manner that we would not notice very much in the West if we have the War on Terrorism dominating our headlines. The Arabs would be well aware of it, and individuals if not governments would be likely to respond.

I think it would be prudent for the US to plan on completely abandonning Israel if this scenario arises, if only so that we have an alternative to playing Sharon's game.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-10-06 08:48 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

I must admit, this is not something I had considered, but you make a compelling argument. In a word, scary. In such a scenario, if we were to abandon Israel completely, I presume we would have to withdraw our forces from the region in order to disengage? Effectively ending our War on Terrorism? Obviously, we would continue to be diligent here at home, but going after the terrorists where they are would be out of the question. What do you see as the short and long term consequences were this scenario to play out?

[Anonymous]

Genius. Sharon can bulldoze the Dome of the Rock and launch a massive offensive into Palestine and kill all the terrorists.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jewy Jewison on 2001-10-06 12:51 ]</font>

[Hierophant]

So, we abandon Israel, Israel falls, what next?

After Israel, the so-called "moderate" Arab states become the next target of the extremists.

The whole thing sounds too risky for either side to engage in.

The Palestinians will never accept a Palestinian state, except for the whole of Israel. Even if they do accept one, it will only be as a stepping stone; they will not make peace. Certainly, Israel and Palestine will never be good neighbors. Maybe a UN mediated DMZ between the two would work.

[Laocoön]

Mainiac:

The scenario I've outlined is pretty far-fetched because it depends upon being able to provoke particular responses from people: the Arabs must react in a way that targets Americans with Israel; and the US must respond to this by joining a general war in the Middle East rather than by just backing out. Still, it is not entirely unlikely, and Israel has the ability to manipulate both situations as events unfold.

Pursuing the scenario is not, however, particularly risky to Sharon's vision for Israel. It is very likely a no-lose situation. He massacres Palestinians, which he would do if he could get away with it in any case. If the Arab states attack Israel in response, without targetting the US, Israel is in a general war that it can still rely upon the US to make sure it wins: Arab armies crushed; Israel's position more secure; deeper wedge driven between US and Arabs. The worst thing that could happen is that the US finally gets serious about reining Israel in, and insists that the attacks on Palestinians stop. In this case, Sharon is politically sacrificed -- the Israelis present the story that a rogue PM caused all this trouble, but now they're ready for make-up sex with the US. Sharon's political career ends (again), but the guy is 72, so there was not going to be much more of a career for him anyway.

So I don't see any reason that Sharon should not pursue this course.

Also, Sharon is not necessarily the sharpest knife in the drawer -- his ambition could very easily get the better of his intellect, and he could pursue the strategy even if it has little hope of working. He's done similar things before.

Anyway, suppose general war breaks out in the Middle East. If the US joins on Israel's side, all of the Arab armies are destroyed, along with a big chunk of their populations, the US occupies the oil fields, and Israel is free to do whatever it wishes in a greatly expanded territory.

If the US does not join the war (I don't think it is plausible that the US would abandon Israel in a general war; if we threaten to abandon them, it would be while they are trying to provoke the war, and under threat of abandonment they would shape up), then Israel destroys most of the Arab armies along with a fair chunk of their populations, expands its territory, and completes the ethnic cleansing and annexation of the Occupied Territories. Israel becomes a true power in its own right, and has very little reliance on the US. The Arabs are kept impoverished, demilitarized, and disunified, and Israel eventually has pretty thorough control of the region.

[Anonymous]

I don't think Israel is going to go there. I don't even think they're going to be around in 50 years. Bottom line is there are a billion people out to get them and they're not going to stop until they win.

Israel started off with an advantage, their people were educated and modern. Arabs were backwards 50 years ago but are rapidly modernizing to meet Israel's challenge. Eventually they'll be as modern as Israel. You can also see they're learning from their mistakes. What makes you think they'll ever give up? It took them 200 years to reclaim Jeruselam after the Crusades. I estimate 100 years this time.

For example, if there were another war it would be Israel's toughest one yet. They might have to use nuclear weapons to win. The Arabs are much better equipped and trained now. They used to get all their weapons and training from the Soviets. Soviet equipment and training are pitifully inferior. I know you're going to respond with Vietnam's success, but remember 1.5 million Vietnamese died vs. 50,000 Americans in that war so it wasn't much of a success. Now Arabs have smartened up and opt for sophisticted American weapons and training just like Israel has. F-15s, modern air bases, Abrams tanks. Israel's going to have a hard time facing virtually an American army. Another example, they used to have an uneducated army and population, now I bet a lot of their people have been through college and can be a little more creative in battle than just "run and shoot."

I would hate to be an Israeli, generations of war with an enemy so large and so determined they're basically undefeatable.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Voice of Reason on 2001-10-07 11:34 ]</font>

[Hierophant]

As for Lao's scenario with the U.S. helping Israel to destroy the Arab nations, the end result I would foresee there is that we become overtly Imperialistic for the first time in our history.

In short, we take the oil fields.

Then, we disarm the Israeli's and everyone else in the region.

Strategically, it would be foolish to have the upper hand in such an outcome and not eliminate the key strategic threat in the region - the control of the oil. Without this issue, we would never go to such bother in such an unstable region, nor allow such destabilizing influences (e.g. arming Saddam to fight the Iranians, only to have to beat down Saddam after he invades Kuwait.)

[Laocoön]

VoR, you seem to contradict yourself: Israel is not going to "go there," but the Arab threat to Israel is insurmountable and getting worse. If Israel has any hope for survival (by your estimation), it would seem that it should force the issue as soon as possible, before any hope it has is completely extinguished.

In any case, the question is not whether it would be advantageous for Israel to take the opportunity of a "War on Terrorism" to begin a general war in the Middle East; the question is whether Ariel Sharon thinks it would be advantageous. And it is very clear from his history that Sharon believes that security is only acquired through the destruction of enemies.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

On 2001-10-07 11:24, Voice of Reason wrote:
Now Arabs have smartened up and opt for sophisticted American weapons and training just like Israel has. F-15s, modern air bases, Abrams tanks. Israel's going to have a hard time facing virtually an American army. Another example, they used to have an uneducated army and population, now I bet a lot of their people have been through college and can be a little more creative in battle than just "run and shoot."


I disagree. Arab armies have never shown any capacity to wage a coordinated, large-scale military operation. They can point to only one meaningful victory in 50 years, namely the surprise attack across the Suez in 1973, a success which was quickly reversed. I'm not even sure Arab culture can be adapted to the conduct of military operations, which rely on precise timing and individual initiative of key subordinates. The Israelis have been masters at defeating simultaneous but poorly-executed attacks from all sides in the past.

Don't place too much importance on sophisticated weaponry, either. It's like saying a novice runner with great shoes will win the race, or an idiot grad student with a great computer will produce a brilliant thesis. Without the leadership and military expertise to take advantage of good equipment, it either ends up in the wrong place at the wrong time or becomes expensive smoking wreckage.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aaron Brachowitz on 2001-10-08 10:32 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

Also note the arrogance of people like AB. This is another reason why the Arabs have a better chance. AB, I understand the sense of security you need to give yourself, but you're suffering from insane dellusions if you don't understand the superiority of American weapons. In every war since WW2, the side with American weapons has dominated. Wars are all about technology.

If Sharon tries anything against Egypt or Saudi Arabia, he can expect top notch F-15Es flown by American trained pilots to take out his military infrastructure. Just the Patriot missile alone (which Saudi Arabia's military installations are blanketed with) could provide a decisive advantage.

AB, I worry for your children and grandchildren.

[Intents]

What if we put our money into seriously reducing our dependency on oil rather than in military battles? If the money is removed as such a tempting target, then there would be less incentive for minds to come up with ideas to control the smaller pot of money. This is presented as a modernized version of the traditional divide and conquer military strategy.

[anon789]

I would love to see a turn from oil. I'm no treehugger, but Bush's previous statement about future dependency on oil was scary. Perhaps this war will serve to change both consumer and corporate habits with regards to oil consumption.

[Anonymous]

I hope the last two posters aren't driving gas guzzlers. There are plenty of electric cars out there for you if you're serious.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

On 2001-10-08 10:55, Voice of Reason wrote:
AB, I understand the sense of security you need to give yourself, but you're suffering from insane dellusions if you don't understand the superiority of American weapons.

I have a pretty good handle on the superiority of American weaponry, having used some of it during the Gulf War. I also have an idea of how small of a factor the weapons are compared to less tangible things like:

-- leadership and initiative (from general down to corporal)
-- training
-- logistics (hugely important for weapons systems that consume large amounts of fuel and ammo)
-- command and control
-- intelligence collection and dissemination
-- sound doctrine (without it, all of the above are useless)
-- flexibility (ability to improvise when things don't go as planned, or to take advantage of unexpected opportunities)

The Arabs fail on all counts. Their weapons are show pieces to intimidate internal opposition, and rewards from the US for occasionally saying the right things. Fighting the Israelis would be like a double-A team taking on the Yankees -- they might get a base hit or two but they're not going to win the game.

[Anonymous]

AB, it's understandable that you and most Israelis need to have this belief that you're invincible. You would understandably go insane with fear and paranoia without it.

Good luck.

[G. Ringo]

Is it not clear now that the Arabs are against us? Why would you not want the United States and Israel together to defeat them?

[Dumbo]

It is clear that stupidity, as in the last post, is the real ennemy.

[Weatherman]

On 2001-10-08 11:25, Voice of Reason wrote:
AB, it's understandable that you and most Israelis need to have this belief that you're invincible.


Why do you assume he's an Israeli? He fought in the Gulf War and is posting here, so I'd give good odds on him being American.

You guys have some interesting conspiracy theories.

*edited golf typo

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Weatherman on 2001-10-08 17:23 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

Golf war?

It's obvious some American citizens are Israeli at heart.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-08 13:45, Gregor Grub wrote:
Is it not clear now that the Arabs are against us? Why would you not want the United States and Israel together to defeat them?


Because so many innocent people would be killed if that happened, far more, I think, than if it were avoided. That, and that there is no clear moral justification for it.

Gregor, I know that you are fairly religious. Do you think that Deuteronomy 20:16-18 gives Israel the right to kill or drive out all of the Arabs who were in the Land of Israel in 1948 or who are there now?

[Guerilla poster]

VOR,

I think your response about electric cars is stupid. The posters main point is that we should develop other means to fuel our world.

Is technology such a bad thing to you? Is an oil-fueled car so important to you that you want to risk your children's life to protect that? M

Maybe scientists can or will develop a car that runs on the "hot air" I hear emanating from you.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Personally I would love to be rid of our dependence on Arab oil. It gives legitimacy to governments that are anti-democratic, and it provides money to fund terrorism. It would be a colossal f-you to the Arabs to set a national goal of zero oil dependence in fifty years and then achieve it.

[Anonymous]

GR, you're a hypocrite like most anti-oil people are. You preach less dependence on oil, but when offered the chance to drive an electric car you turn it down, opting for a gas powered car.

[Guerilla poster]

VOR,

I am not hypocritical. Your electric car argument is a great argument if I tell people they should be less wasteful and not drive their car then I drive a gas-powered car. That is hypocritical.

I am simply saying we should support research on more modern ways to fuel our world. The problem is that my only choice now is an electric car versus a gas-powered car. Doing a cost benefit analysis the gas-powered car wins.

But that may not always be the case if alternative fuels become easier to use and perform better. Is it so unthinkable to you that we can develop other sources fuel such that we can cut our dependency on oil?

Where is the hypocricy(Sp?) in believing in our scientists to improve our world? Why don't you keep listening to those special interest groups that tell you oil is the only way?

[Intents]

My car gets 40 mpg. I traded in the 20 mpg vehicle in May. The oil lobby is extremely powerful and the production cost per barrel in Saudi Arabia is about $2. There is no doubt that a lot of money has been spent marginalizing calls for alternatives. A reflection on who benefits from this implies, imho, the way to break this back is to create a word-of-mouth demand that will not be stopped through media manipulation. The possibility of this is similar to certain fantasies coming true, it seems.

Let me introduce another back to break: the Taliban is sitting on 3,000 tons of Heroin. It is their Fort Knox, and getss them in bed with some very powerful forces in the world. How can we decrease the value of this stockpile if, for some reason, our armies are unable to search and destroy?

[mikey]

Yes GP, it would be great to develop new technologies. But when you do your cost benefit analysis and decide to go with gas, like the rest of us, you are telling the car manufacturers that you DON'T care enough about alternative energy to put your money where your mouth is and that makes you (like the rest of us) a hypocrite.

We all want to sit around and wait for someone to develop new technology "on their dime" so we can use it. Why should Ford or GM spend billions of dollars developing alternative cars?

We want the guy at the assembly plant to buy our goods and services, but when we go to buy a car, we do the cost/benefits analysis and get a Toyota. Gee, why doesn't he like us?

[Guerilla poster]

Mikey,

Good point. I am a realist and I understand the many obstacles (which also include the fact that both political parties are in the pocket of big oil) but it bothers me when people label you a tree-hugger and a hypocrite when you mention that alternatives to oil may be possible.

The oil-powered car is a very good product and relatively cheap so it will be very difficult for a competitive alternative to come along without much time and money. I can get into some economy theory arguments on how oil is under-priced as externalities are not considered but I will spare you.

[Laocoön]

A new development: Arafat seems about to fall. While Israel and various idiots around the world have criticized him for not reining in the radicals among the Palestinians enough, he has actually been walking a very fine tight-rope of restraining the radicals without losing political authority. It now appears that he has lost political authority. This plays into the hands of my proposed Sharon effort: more radical Palestinian leaders will emerge, justifying a more violent Israeli response. And most of the world will forget that it was Sharon's actions that lead fairly directly to Arafat being replaced by more radical leaders.

[an2001on]

"he has actually been walking a very fine tight-rope of restraining the radicals without losing political authority"

Arafat doesn't seem to restrain the radicals for almost a year. He even couldn't cease fire. I don't think he would be able to contribute anything to the peace process. If Palestinians want peace, they would replace Arafat with someone who'd be able to control the violence and negotiate with Israelis. If they want war, they would replace him with somebody more radical and will, probably, pay for that.

[Intents]

Arafat stands in the way of bringing Hezbollah and Hammas into the open. Let's deal with these guys directly so they can listen to us now and hear us later.

[E. Blackadder]

…But Ariel Sharon is a very cunning and dangerous person, and it would be foolish to assume that he merely made a remark damaging to his nation's sponsor solely out of emotion. So what else might he be up to…

…Also, Sharon is not necessarily the sharpest knife in the drawer - his ambition could very easily get the better of his intellect, and he could pursue the strategy even if it has little hope of working. He's done similar things before…

Are we trying to have it both ways?

…He massacres Palestinians, which he would do if he could get away with it in any case…

Don't hold back, Lao. Tell us what you really think.

…The way that Sharon might ignite a general war would be to begin wholesale slaughter of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, to a degree beyond any reason. He did the same thing a long time ago in the Gaza Strip, with quite a bit of success in controlling terrorism...

Are you arguing for or against this kind of action?

…He could quite easily do this in a manner that we would not notice very much in the West if we have the War on Terrorism dominating our headlines.

I can think of nothing better than: "B------t!" Perhaps that reflects a bankruptcy of my opinions. I just don't think the media would allow that.

…The Arabs are kept impoverished, demilitarized, and disunified, and Israel eventually has pretty thorough control of the region.

Uh, the Arabs will be impoverished as long as they don't adopt a rights schema along the lines of western civilization - or finding something even better. The Arabs are very unified on their support for the elimination of Israel, as measured by newspaper columns and popular music. I don't see that poverty is an issue for Arab leaders, who could achieve some degree of comfort by opening trade and normalizing relations with Israel - if they survive.

Israel may be tough to beat on the battlefield, but it will never be a regional superpower until it can build itself via local trade. And that can't happen unilaterally.

[Guerilla poster]

"Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat on Wednesday condemned the September 11 attacks on the United States as "blind terrorism." Arafat also said he also welcomed the signals from the Bush administration of its support for a Palestinian state."



Blind Terrorism so that is how he is justifying Palestinina terrorism.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-10 16:00, E. Blackadder wrote:
…But Ariel Sharon is a very cunning and dangerous person, and it would be foolish to assume that he merely made a remark damaging to his nation's sponsor solely out of emotion. So what else might he be up to…

…Also, Sharon is not necessarily the sharpest knife in the drawer - his ambition could very easily get the better of his intellect, and he could pursue the strategy even if it has little hope of working. He's done similar things before…

Are we trying to have it both ways?


"Cunning" and "not the sharpest knife in the drawer?" Yes. There is no contradiction, Grasshopper: one may be both cunning and a fool. I wouldn't say that Sharon is a fool, but he has been known to do foolish things.


…He massacres Palestinians, which he would do if he could get away with it in any case…

Don't hold back, Lao. Tell us what you really think.


I think that in all likelihood, Sharon has been complicit (at least!) in war crimes. The Knesset even rebuked him after his 1982 butchery. And, I think that he'd do more of the same if he could.


…The way that Sharon might ignite a general war would be to begin wholesale slaughter of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, to a degree beyond any reason. He did the same thing a long time ago in the Gaza Strip, with quite a bit of success in controlling terrorism...

Are you arguing for or against this kind of action?


There is no argument; these are statements of fact: wholesale slaughter of Palestinians would likely provoke a general war in the Middle East, and Sharon had quite a bit of success in controlling terrorism in the Gaza Strip through it. Similarly, wholesale slaughter of people in poor neighborhoods in America would reduce crime and unemployment. This does not mean that it is the right thing to do.


…He could quite easily do this in a manner that we would not notice very much in the West if we have the War on Terrorism dominating our headlines.

I can think of nothing better than: "B------t!" Perhaps that reflects a bankruptcy of my opinions. I just don't think the media would allow that.


Really? Then, pop quiz: what's going on in Israel right now? And how hard did you have to dig to know? How hard do you think you'd have had to dig a week ago, if the same things were going on? How hard do you think you'll have to dig in a couple more weeks, when we have people on the ground providing daily reports from Afghanistan?


…The Arabs are kept impoverished, demilitarized, and disunified, and Israel eventually has pretty thorough control of the region.

Uh, the Arabs will be impoverished as long as they don't adopt a rights schema along the lines of western civilization - or finding something even better.


...and, as I have written before, freedom in Arab states would generally result in their attacking Israel. A major part (at this point, Communism no longer being a serious threat) of why we do not oppose totalitarian regimes in the Middle East is that democracies would fairly quickly go to war with Israel. But, with that caveat, I agree with you.


The Arabs are very unified on their support for the elimination of Israel, as measured by newspaper columns and popular music.


Yes, the resentment of Israel is extremely pervasive. Which is why the argument that our support of Israel has nothing to do with the September 11 attacks holds so little water.


I don't see that poverty is an issue for Arab leaders, who could achieve some degree of comfort by opening trade and normalizing relations with Israel - if they survive.


Not sure why you put "if they survive" there, but since you did, yes, the survival of Arab leaders who would open up trade and normalize relations with Israel would come into question, due to their populations' adamant opposition to such endeavors.


Israel may be tough to beat on the battlefield, but it will never be a regional superpower until it can build itself via local trade. And that can't happen unilaterally.


I disagree. It is the only Westward-looking nation in the area, and it sits on the Med. With some more territory and resources, it could become a regional superpower fairly easily by developing heavy industry and trading in the Med. Not sure what kind of resources are available nearby toward developing heavy industry, but even that is not so important any more: even in the US, it is very nearly cheaper to import steel than to produce it.

[an2001on]

"Not sure what kind of resources are available nearby toward developing heavy industry, but even that is not so important any more: even in the US, it is very nearly cheaper to import steel than to produce it.
"

I always thought that a real super-power can be independent if and when it needs to. Theoretically, the US can be independent of Arabian oil, there are other sources within the US or other countries (say, Russia). We also can be independent of any other country when it comes to strategic resources and industries (and, therefore, can declare war if we opt to).

Israel is in much tougher position - it misses or doesn't have much of many strategic resources, water for example. However, they do have heavy industry (need to in order to produce tanks and airplanes) and, of course, electronics.

[Jala]

On 2001-10-10 17:59, Laocoön wrote:
even in the US, it is very nearly cheaper to import steel than to produce it.


Not to nit-pick, but one of the reasons it is so much cheaper to import steel is because the foreign producers are heavily subsidized by their governments.

[E. Blackadder]

I disagree with your assertion that democracy in the Arab states would result in a war with Israel.

My opinion is that it is the very lack of freedom -- and a controlled press -- that is feeding the bloodlust, above and beyond whatever complaints the Arab world may regard as legitimate.

(A controlled press can rather readily sway public opinion. Here in America, the endless coverage of the school shootings has led to kids being suspended on the basis of pointing fingers as symbolic guns, and now on mere drawings. (secondary point: American school administrators are the most idiotic people in our republic; You will not be surprised that I speak from experience))

Thriving democracies rarely instigate war. If your point is that nominal Arab democracies would in fact be theocracies, and that the press would still be controlled, then your point is taken.

However: Turkey was friendly with Israel, last time I checked. Do I need to check again? And Turkey (not Arabic) shares the Islamic faith with most Arabs.

And in Iran (no more Arabic than is Turkey), to the extent that the people are given the right to select limited leaders, the people are electing the most moderate of the choices allowed to them.

Egypt reached a peace accord with Israel when Sadat (elected) was in power (i.e. until he was assassinated).

[as an aside, until recently, no two countries with McDonalds also had come to war.]

I don't see the Arab / non-Arab split between Middle-eastern Muslims as being that distinctive for that purpose.

[alex]

EB, you have an interesting hypoth. about democracy. However, I don't think turkey should be brought into it - they're not israel's next door neighbor. And how has turkish democracy improved relations between turkey, and say, it's eternal foe greece,or greek cypriots, or the kurdish minority within turkey? Do you know if democracy has improved any of these situations?

[Laocoön]

Kind of annoying that the old have died, but the young haven't forgotten, isn't it, EB?

First off, an "election" in Egypt is not exactly what we think of: Sadat won election in 1970 with over 90% of the vote. (Unclear whether the subsequent imprisonment of 10% of the population was related to this result...)

Second, while the dictatorships in the Arab states do use Israel-bashing to keep people's minds off of the fact that they're poor and oppressed, the opposition movements tend to claim that the establishments aren't anti-Israeli enough. The Arab dictators would probably be happy to see Israel-bashing die down. Note that Saddam Hussein dragged out the anti-Israel banner only in desperation, when his ass was kicked and he thought he might have a slim hope of forcing an Arab alliance against Israel to bail himself out.

Third, maybe economically thriving democracies tend not to instigate war (unless they think they can win quickly), but the Arab states that are in any danger of becoming democratic are in no danger of becoming economically thriving. Most wars, I think, come out of nationalist movements, and Pan-Arabism is the prevailing nationalist movement of the region, and the liberation of Palestine has always been one of Pan-Arabism's most important tenets (obviously, I disagree with your dismissal of the Arab/non-Arab distinction). I think it is a very good bet that any Arab state that escaped tyrannical control would pretty quickly adopt Pan-Arabism.

[Weatherman]

On 2001-10-11 12:08, Laocoön wrote:
Second, while the dictatorships in the Arab states do use Israel-bashing to keep people's minds off of the fact that they're poor and oppressed, the opposition movements tend to claim that the establishments aren't anti-Israeli enough.


Israel seems to be an easy scapegoat in poor Arab countries. It's interesting how much exposure to western culture their leaders have had compared to the masses they're trying to incite. You may be underestimating the degree that Arab hatred of Israel is being exploited for political support.

I'm also curious about your portrayal of Sharon as a barbarous murderer. I think we learned in Vietnam how hard it can sometimes be to separate civilians from targets. You seem to be able to empathize with Muslim terrorists; I find it strange that you have none for Sharon.

[alex]

Sharon had some political problems in the 80's when he allegedly allowed the massacre of hundreds of palestinian refugees in lebanon. That might support the "barbarous murderer" label. Last week alone, israel killed at least 25 palestinians. The israeli killers were acting in official capacity, and their boss was - you got it!- Ariel Sharon. Maybe more reason for the label. He ain't been waving the olive branch, either. he cancels every peace meeting out of fear of the palestinians looking good. The man is a saint!

[G. Ringo]

Lao,

I am not sure that some disabling of the Arab countries, enough to prevent them from attacking the United States, such as destroying their ability to fly planes, is not possible without actually carrying out mass killing.

The passage that you quoted requires killing pagan Canaanites when they resist Israelite rule in the Land of Israel. You cannot generalize it to Arabs, although Israel is justified in taking necessary defensive measures.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-11 15:30, Weatherman wrote:
Israel seems to be an easy scapegoat in poor Arab countries. It's interesting how much exposure to western culture their leaders have had compared to the masses they're trying to incite. You may be underestimating the degree that Arab hatred of Israel is being exploited for political support.


That could be true. We might find out -- for the first time, there is actually something approaching a free press in the Arab Middle East in the television network of Al-Jazeeri. They are the ones who provide all of the videos of bin Laden to CNN et all. They have also interviewed Shimon Peres.


I'm also curious about your portrayal of Sharon as a barbarous murderer. I think we learned in Vietnam how hard it can sometimes be to separate civilians from targets. You seem to be able to empathize with Muslim terrorists; I find it strange that you have none for Sharon.


If I had Sharon's goals and his perceptions, I would support just about everything he does. I cannot sympathize with his goals because, as far as I can see, he pretty clearly believes that Israelis should get what they want regardless of the cost to anyone else. I have little doubt that Palestinian goals are ultimately as bad as this or worse, but in a sense their complaints now are based on their having been denied rights that I think everyone should have.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-11 19:54, Gregor Grub wrote:
I am not sure that some disabling of the Arab countries, enough to prevent them from attacking the United States, such as destroying their ability to fly planes, is not possible without actually carrying out mass killing.


If I'm following the negatives here correctly, you are saying that you think it is possible to prevent Arab countries from attacking the US without mass killing. (Is that correct?) I guess I mostly disagree -- the US is almost perfectly safe from conventional attack from Arabs; it is only terrorist attacks that we need to worry about. If we do not wish to follow the race-based policies of Israel in internal security, I think the only defenses against terrorist attacks from Arabs are to eliminate the reason that we are a target or to kill an awful lot of people.


The passage that you quoted requires killing pagan Canaanites when they resist Israelite rule in the Land of Israel. You cannot generalize it to Arabs, although Israel is justified in taking necessary defensive measures.


Thanks for responding. I feel bad about putting you on the spot with questions like that, but you tend to write forthrightly and without shame about what you believe, so I find you a reliable source of information. And now I'm going to ask another question that I feel bad about: Do you think that the Arabs living in the Land of Israel in the 20th and 21st centuries had/have the right to self-determination, or do they have no right to resist Israelite rule in the Land of Israel?

[G. Ringo]

Lao,

I do not know what you mean by race-based policies. I did not say that I think that the United States can defend itself without any injury to Arabs who may be innocent. I said that I believe that the United States can defend itself without going through with mass killing. I do believe that.

I personally believe that the Land of Israel was given to Israel by God; so Arabs do not have a right to self-determination there. However, I do not believe that the sword is the right means to win a battle of beliefs. We need an arrangement for different religions and secularists to coexist peacefully until the truth proves itself. I believe that the State of Israel does provide such an arrangement. The Kneset with proportional representation, in which every interest group holds a balance of power, enables each group to win on those issues that are really essential to the survival of its way of life. This is something less than self-determination at the level of national independence, but Israeli Arabs have full freedom to practice their religions (with government support) and have a valuable voting right. In no Arab country do citizens have anywhere near the same rights.

[alex]

On 2001-10-12 13:10, Gregor Grub wrote:
Lao,

I do not know what you mean by race-based policies.


Gregor,

One example of a race based policy practiced by israel for internal security might be the practice of tying up arab israelis for hours before they can board El AL, but not tying up jewish israelis for hours before they board El Al. Another example might be refusing to let muslim men under a certain age visit mosques on days when the israeli government is worried that once again "the natives are getting restless".

[Joined10MinBefore911Hit]

IMO, Sharon would not be in power had the Oslo accords gone its normal way. His power is a reactionary response by the Israelis, but an understandable one.

I personally don't care for the man as a politician, although I don't oppose his actions in the IDF.

If we are going to fight terrorism, we need to be more Machiavellian [sp?] about it, and he could teach us a few things.

[G. Ringo]

If by "race based policies" you mean subjecting Arabs to more scrutiny than others where there is danger of terrorism, I am all for more thorough underwriting where the risk is greater. By the way, Arabs are not a race.

[alex]

In everday language, GG, it's acceptable to say that arabs have their own race. Next, you'll tell me that their are no palestinians, either. These things are slippery by nature, that's why the field of identity politics is so big. Like, how do you define a jew, in a cut and dry way that includes all jews and excludes all non jews?? it ain't gonna happen, my friend.

As far as defense against terrorism, some terrorism is perhaps justified. Like if some native group here was just oppressed, oppressed oppressed and got fed up with not getting what was rightfully theirs, and then bombed the WTC, well I'd have to say we had it coming. Morally speaking, one way to view the israeli-palestinian conflict is that you have terrorism, one evil, resisting colonialism, another evil. To complicate it, some of the colonialists have engaged in terrorism, like when Begin was nice enough to blow up the king david hotel. Also, the colonialists have been pretty eager to attack with their armies and weapons, and to crush the natives, economically speaking. I think that the blanket indictment of terrorism is bogus. Moreover, I don't feel israel is justified in defending against palestinian terrorism. I think people should catch hell for setting up shop in Palestine, we need to stop colonialism. Maybe, for example, tibetans would be better off now if they were willing to slam china with terrorism.

[Weatherman]

On 2001-10-12 17:24, alex wrote:
In everday language, GG, it's acceptable to say that arabs have their own race


It's simplistic and probably more than a little insensitive. I can think of at least 5 races that you might consider part of the "Arab" race; All of which are part of the caucasoid subspecies.


I think that the blanket indictment of terrorism is bogus.

Has terrorism EVER accomplished its goals? Could you even conceive of a time when it might?

[Griffin 1]

On 2001-10-12 17:24, alex wrote:
In everday language, GG, it's acceptable to say that arabs have their own race. Next, you'll tell me that their are no palestinians, either. These things are slippery by nature, that's why the field of identity politics is so big. Like, how do you define a jew, in a cut and dry way that includes all jews and excludes all non jews?? it ain't gonna happen, my friend.



You're the one who said "raced based policies".

[Rockhound]

As far as defense against terrorism, some terrorism is perhaps justified.

I've never read a more idiotic statement in my life. You're either an idiot or brainwashed.

Next he'll be saying "Rape is sometimes justified". "Torture is sometimes justified." and "Genocide is sometimes justified."

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-12 13:10, Gregor Grub wrote:

I do not know what you mean by race-based policies. I did not say that I think that the United States can defend itself without any injury to Arabs who may be innocent. I said that I believe that the United States can defend itself without going through with mass killing. I do believe that.


Alex's example is one of what I mean by race-based policies. I'm guessing (from your response to Alex) that you think that the US can defend itself by subjecting Arabs to more scrutiny than other people. Do you see that this would mean abridging our national values of equality and individuality? If this happens, then the terrorists will have won.


I personally believe that the Land of Israel was given to Israel by God; so Arabs do not have a right to self-determination there.


Can you appreciate that this notion is entirely contrary to the American notions that all people are created equal, and that all people have a right to have a say in the government that rules them and its form? Can you appreciate that, as an atheist, I resent supporting a religious notion through my tax dollars?


However, I do not believe that the sword is the right means to win a battle of beliefs. We need an arrangement for different religions and secularists to coexist peacefully until the truth proves itself. I believe that the State of Israel does provide such an arrangement. The Kneset with proportional representation, in which every interest group holds a balance of power, enables each group to win on those issues that are really essential to the survival of its way of life. This is something less than self-determination at the level of national independence, but Israeli Arabs have full freedom to practice their religions (with government support) and have a valuable voting right. In no Arab country do citizens have anywhere near the same rights.


What provisions does Israel have for claims for reparations for land taken from Palestinians in 1948 and in 1967?

[Laocoön]

To the extent that US policy supports Gregor's opinion, it is more than just a personal belief.

And your comment on atheism being a religious belief is irrelevant. No one should have to support a religious belief with which he disagrees.

[E. Blackadder]

On 2001-10-13 07:54, Laoco?n wrote:
I'm guessing (from your response to Alex) that you think that the US can defend itself by subjecting Arabs to more scrutiny than other people. Do you see that this would mean abridging our national values of equality and individuality? If this happens, then the terrorists will have won.

Can you appreciate that this notion is entirely contrary to the American notions that all people are created equal, and that all people have a right to have a say in the government that rules them and its form?


Ergo, law enforcement can look for suspects, as long as they have no idea what they look like.

There's an extremely big difference between: 1) a higher chance of being stopped and questioned; and 2) being killed by someone. At least I assume so, I have been subject to the former.


Can you appreciate that, as an atheist, I resent supporting a religious notion through my tax dollars?


Your tax dollars are being spent on highway construction linking Birmingham, AL and Memphis, TN.

But seriously, as an atheist, is it necessary for you to control every dollar of federal spending? If you are right and there is no God, then this spending is merely irrelevant, much as tens of billions spent on the misguided "war on poverty" are.

Let's go further. Assume that the Arabs have discovered a long-lost claim to Monaco, their new 4th most holy city in Islam. (pick another locale if you prefer), which they then seige.

Are you going to decide that: 1) Monaco has no right to our help; and 2) we should give Monaco to the Arabs?

I think your position is similar to that of a pre 12/7/41 pacifist:

"Who cares about Great Britain?

They burned down our White House in, what, 1812?

They impressed Americans into service in the British Navy.

They taxed us without representation.

They hanged (or is it hung?) Nathan Hale, and oppressed us until we kicked their butts out of America.

They don't even speak American English. Why should we help THEM?"

Ans: Because they were fighting pure human evil.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: E. Blackadder on 2001-10-13 16:40 ]</font>

[E. Blackadder]

And, anyway, Lao, the savagery in the middle east is not entirely one-sided. Consider the invasion of Lebanon by Syria. Surely this has even less justification than anything we've talked about to this point.

http://www.wlo-usa.org/Press_Release/remember_oct_13.htm

[Laocoön]

Ergo, law enforcement can look for suspects, as long as they have no idea what they look like.


No, Grasshopper. Relax -- breathe in; breathe out. When there has been a crime committed, law enforcement can look for suspects based upon what they are believed to look like. When no crime has been committed, law enforcement should not stop and question people based on the notion that their racial and ethnic characteristics indicate that they might commit a crime.


Your tax dollars are being spent on highway construction linking Birmingham, AL and Memphis, TN.

But seriously, as an atheist, is it necessary for you to control every dollar of federal spending? If you are right and there is no God, then this spending is merely irrelevant, much as tens of billions spent on the misguided "war on poverty" are.


My copy of the Constitution must be missing the Amendment that says the Government shall not respect or support an establishment of a highway linking Birmingham and Memphis, nor an establishment of a war on poverty.


Let's go further. Assume that the Arabs have discovered a long-lost claim to Monaco, their new 4th most holy city in Islam. (pick another locale if you prefer), which they then seige.

Are you going to decide that: 1) Monaco has no right to our help; and 2) we should give Monaco to the Arabs?


No; neither. And if we changed the date to 1948 or 1967 and "Arabs" to "Israelis," "Islam" to "Judaism," and "Monaco" to "Jeruselum," that would not change my opinion. What about you?


I think your position is similar to that of a pre 12/7/41 pacifist:

"Who cares about Great Britain?

They burned down our White House in, what, 1812?

They impressed Americans into service in the British Navy.

They taxed us without representation.

They hanged (or is it hung?) Nathan Hale, and oppressed us until we kicked their butts out of America.

They don't even speak American English. Why should we help THEM?"


Hmm... that all really hurts when people are saying that the September 11 attacks are in response to the defeat of the Turks by a Polish army at Vienna in 1683, and not in response to US policy in Israel (which of course is ridiculous).


Ans: Because they were fighting pure human evil.


Do you, dear, sweet, Grasshopper, think that the Arabs who want to reclaim Palestine represent pure human evil? And if we believe that the Arabs who want to reclaim Palestine represtent pure human evil, then aren't they justified in trying to destroy us just as we will inevitably try to destroy them?

And let's go further still. You seem to think that the immigration of Zionists to Palestine prior to 1948 (which occurred to the objections of the native population) and the subsequent establishment of the State of Israel are both legitimate -- even if we might not approve of similar actions today -- because they all occurred according to the law as it existed at the time.

But I submit that no reasonable person of good will can believe that events that affect people are legitimized as long as they occurred according to the law as it existed at the time -- most of the Holocaust occurred according to the law as it existed in Nazi Germany.

Is there some other reason that the immigrations of Zionists to Palestine and the subsequent establishment of the State of Israel should be accepted as entirely legitimate? Or do we (as I suspect) have to consider particular aspects of both events on their own merits, if we want to believe, as reasonable people of good will, that they are legitimate?


And, anyway, Lao, the savagery in the middle east is not entirely one-sided. Consider the invasion of Lebanon by Syria. Surely this has even less justification than anything we've talked about to this point.


I'm fairly certain that I've never claimed that the savagery is one-sided. However, US support is almost entirely one-sided, and I think that we have a responsibility to avoid supporting savagery.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-10-13 21:58 ]</font>

[E. Blackadder]

When there has been a crime committed, law enforcement can look for suspects based upon what they are believed to look like. When no crime has been committed, law enforcement should not stop and question people based on the notion that their racial and ethnic characteristics indicate that they might commit a crime.


I think your analysis ignores the issue of the magnitude of the potential crime. And the classification of certain acts as crimes and not as actions in furtherance of war.

[edit follows, to make an earlier lame joke easier to follow...]

Your tax dollars are being spent solely on highway construction linking Birmingham, AL and Memphis, TN.

No; neither. And if we changed the date to 1948 or 1967 and "Arabs" to "Israelis," "Islam" to "Judaism," and "Monaco" to "Jeruselum," that would not change my opinion. What about you?


How do we change the date?

Hmm... that all really hurts when people are saying that the September 11 attacks are in response to the defeat of the Turks by a Polish army at Vienna in 1683, and not in response to US policy in Israel (which of course is ridiculous).

I haven't heard that one yet. I'm thinking of trying to snag a copy of bin Laden's manifesto, so as to get original source, but the wahhabbi movement idea seems to me to have some merit as a hypothesis.


Do you, dear, sweet, Grasshopper, think that the Arabs who want to reclaim Palestine represent pure human evil? And if we believe that the Arabs who want to reclaim Palestine represtent pure human evil, then aren't they justified in trying to destroy us just as we will inevitably try to destroy them?


Not as individuals, any more than the average German of 1941 represented evil. One is not born representing evil, one earns the distinction. And not lightly.


And let's go further still. You seem to think that the immigration of Zionists to Palestine prior to 1948 (which occurred to the objections of the native population) and the subsequent establishment of the State of Israel are both legitimate -- even if we might not approve of similar actions today -- because they all occurred according to the law as it existed at the time.

But I submit that no reasonable person of good will can believe that events that affect people are legitimized as long as they occurred according to the law as it existed at the time -- most of the Holocaust occurred according to the law as it existed in Nazi Germany.


Was that actually written into law? And are you saying that German law applied in, for instance, occupied Poland?

And I don't recall that Hitler was elected to a 12-year term. Must check my reference books.

And there is a difference between determining non-legitimacy post facto and what one decides to do about it.

For instance, I would assert that it is appropriate for an involuntary slave to murder his slaver. And in fact for anyone to murder a slaver.

The Emancipation Proclimation, and the constitutional amendments that followed, released those who were slaves in America from bondage (at least nominally).

Having determined that slaving was immoral, perhaps we should have then shot those who owned slaves, as slavers are clearly immoral. But we didn't.

I submit that this was the right thing to do, even if in actuality, the idea of shooting ex-slaveowners was never even thought of.

My point is that even in the face of past wrongfulness, when order is restored, we are often -- often served best by looking forward. Living well is the best revenge.

Is there some other reason that the immigrations of Zionists to Palestine and the subsequent establishment of the State of Israel should be accepted as entirely legitimate? Or do we (as I suspect) have to consider particular aspects of both events on their own merits, if we want to believe, as reasonable people of good will, that they are legitimate?


I have nothing further to add on the topic.

If Allah so wills, I will not post on political topics again until November.

[Huki]

On 2001-10-13 21:50, Laocoön wrote:

Hmm... that all really hurts when people are saying that the September 11 attacks are in response to the defeat of the Turks by a Polish army at Vienna in 1683, and not in response to US policy in Israel (which of course is ridiculous).


No, Laocoon, what is ridiculous is your mischaracterization of other peoples' arguments. Do you actually believe that Israel is the only issue with which the Arab world has a problem with the West? Do you believe that if the US stopped supporting Israel a year ago, we would be talking about Gary Condit today instead of Anthrax? (Please, no "The series of events would have been different" answers.)

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-14 01:51, E. Blackadder wrote:
[quote]
If Allah so wills, I will not post on political topics again until November.


I had been wondering about that, EB. I won't respond to your last post until you've taken your exams, so that you'll be able to refute immediately whatever lies I attempt to spread without jeopardizing your professional advancement.

I probably won't respond to Huki's post ever, having found him to be unworthy of my attention.

[Huki]

On 2001-10-14 08:38, Laocoön wrote:

I probably won't respond to Huki's post ever, having found him to be unworthy of my attention.


Oh, that really hurts, Lao. And I didn't even call you a racist.

[No'ocoal]

On 2001-10-14 08:54, Huki wrote:

On 2001-10-14 08:38, Laocoön wrote:

I probably won't respond to Huki's post ever, having found him to be unworthy of my attention.


Oh, that really hurts, Lao. And I didn't even call you a racist.


Huki, this is one of Laoco'on's favorite tactics when he knows he can not support his position.

[Hierophant]

Of course, there is a simple counterpoint to Lao's objection to profiling.

When no crime has been committed, law enforcement should not stop and question people based on the notion that their racial and ethnic characteristics indicate that they might commit a crime.

Conspiracy to commit murder or acts of terrorism are crimes themselves. We believe that such plans are being made at this time in this country; our evidence is the 9/11 attacks, and now the anthrax cases, as well as the linkage to Osama Bin Laden and the pattern of terrorism as an ongoing tactic.

[Oak Glaister]

On 2001-10-14 08:38, Laocoön wrote:
I probably won't respond to Huki's post ever, having found him to be unworthy of my attention.


That's interesting, since Huki raises some good questions. If I understand comments you have made in the past, you believe that our policy on Israel was the cause of the attacks, and therefore we should reconsider our support of Israel. Others have said no, we should not, because there are more reasons that they hate us besides Israel. Cutting out Israel will not make us any safer from terrorist attacks. Why is this a position unworthy of your attention?

[alex]

On 2001-10-12 21:14, Weatherman wrote:
Has terrorism EVER accomplished its goals? Could you even conceive of a time when it might?



When Menachim Begin bombed the king david hotel, it certainly demoralized the british, and helped push along british exit from palestine, and eventual establishment of Israel. That's one example of terrorism helping someone achieve their objective.

[alex]

I heard this weekend that bin laden's linkage of attacking american and the israeli palestinian issue is an afterthought, as in after 9/11? Any thoughts on this. Anywhere where I could find more info? I heard this from a lebanese jounalist on NPR. Also, I read in the New Yorker that the white house was gonna release a white paper linking bin laden the unpleasantness that occurred on 9/11, but did not do it, because, according to intelligence sources, they had no hard evidence! anyone hear anything about this?

[Hierophant]

I heard this weekend that "alex" is short for "Ali in Exile"? Any thoughts on this? Also, I heard alex is a known terrorist, but there is no hard evidence to support this. Anyone hear about this? Finally, I heard alex supports positive portrayals of Hitler at wax museums in New York City. Anyone see anything about that?

[Aaron Brachowitz]

On 2001-10-15 00:16, alex wrote:
I heard this weekend that bin laden's linkage of attacking american and the israeli palestinian issue is an afterthought, as in after 9/11? Any thoughts on this?

He probably heard about all the hand-wringing going on in the US about how we shouldn't have supported Israel because look what it brought us. Pointless hand-wringing, because we could hardly change our position now without granting legitimacy to terrorism.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-14 16:39, Oak Glaister wrote:
That's interesting, since Huki raises some good questions. If I understand comments you have made in the past, you believe that our policy on Israel was the cause of the attacks, and therefore we should reconsider our support of Israel. Others have said no, we should not, because there are more reasons that they hate us besides Israel. Cutting out Israel will not make us any safer from terrorist attacks. Why is this a position unworthy of your attention?


It's not the position that is unworthy of my attention; it's Huki.

Since you raise the matter, I will address it. Bin Laden's general complaint against the West and against the US in particular is that we meddle and dictate in Middle East affairs. It is undeniable that we do this. The three matters that bin Laden consistently points to (both before and after 9/11, alex) are (1) sanctions against Iraq, (2) troops in Saudi Arabia, and (3) support for Israel. The sanctions against Iraq are a recent phenomenon, having fluctuated in their scope quite a bit in the years since the Gulf War before settling on the fairly total ban that exists now. The troops in Saudi Arabia come from the Gulf War as well. Either of these may be seen (and probably are seen, by most Arabs) as things that maybe aren't right, but that were at least in response to a problem (Saddam Hussein) that was recognized by most Arabs.

Our support for Israel is another matter. It dates back to 1973 and it is completely anti-Arab: there is no problem common to the West and to the Arab world that is addressed by this policy. Also, it is the biggest gripe in all the Arab world. Even the pundits who claim that our Israel policy is not a cause for the attacks note that resentment over the Palestine situation is the dominant matter in most Arabs' perception of the west (though those pundits probably play that fact down a lot more post-9/11 than they did before).

And, as I have written before, we should not change our policies just as a response to terrorism, which would encourage terrorism. However, we also should not maintain bad policies merely to defy terrorists.

Withdrawing our blanket support for Israel would not make many of the people out there who are well on their way to terrorism change their minds about us, but it would tend to dry up the next generation of potential terrorists.

For the fans of racial and ethnic profiling of potential terrorists, would you also support requiring them to wear cloth patches on their clothes to help identify them?

Another example of terrorism that worked: the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut in 1982 got the US military out of Lebanon (although, because the targets were military, maybe this is better classified as a legitimate act of war rather than as terrorism).

On Sharon: Israeli troops are backing out of the West Bank. I suspect that someone in Washington has realized that for $4-6 billion a year, Israel had better say "How high?" whenever we say "Jump!"

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-10-15 11:06 ]</font>

[G. Ringo]

I do not find it acceptable to refer to Arabs as a race. The only purpose of mentioning "race" is to conjure up an image of race-based discrimination in the United States and some other countries, whose only purpose was to perpetuate a slave class. Whatever you think of Israeli policy toward Arabs, it is a much more complex issue. Nobody seeks to enslave Arabs.

It is also a distorted report on Israeli actions to refer to "refusing to let muslim men under a certain age visit mosques." Israel has never restricted access to hundreds of mosques all over the country. At certain times of insurrection, Israel has restricted access to the Temple Mount because it provides a vantage point for throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails into the Western Wall plaza. Because the Temple Mount contains an important mosque, to avoid the appearance of a religious war, Israel did not shut off the strategic area completely but only barred entry to men under 40. The entry restriction was not specifically against Muslims, and there were no Israeli guards at the entrance to the mosque itself.

Also, whatever you think of Menachem Begin's bombing of the King David Hotel, a guerrilla attack on the military headquarters of the British Mandate (with a warning) is not a terrorist act in the same sense as bombings of restaurants, malls, and office buildings.

And I did not say that I believe that Arabs have no right to self-determination. I said that I believe that they have no right to self-determination in the Land of Israel. I believe that they have a right to self-determination in Arab countries.

The United States does not support my religious beliefs. It supports the State of Israel, which is a de facto arrangement for peaceful coexistence of religious Jews, secularist Jews, and resident non-Jews. I believe that that arrangement is working well.

Jewish law has an objective definition of who is a Jew.

Although I do not know details on this subject, I have heard of payments to Arabs for property that ended up in the State of Israel in the 1948-1949 war.

[alex]

GG,

What is the definition of a Jew that jewish law has that manages to include all jews, but exclude all non jews?? And I think begin's act was terrorist, it killed a few dozen people, and it scared the british, which is often what terrorism is meant to do. It might not be as bad as killing 6000 people, but it's no better than blowing up a disco or sbarro. I just looked up race in the dictionary, and I think, according to the dictionary, you can say arabs are a race, jews too. big deal.

As far as the blocks on visiting mosques, I'd say that since that policy is aimed at arabs, and affects, that's right, arabs, it's a race based policy. What are the israelis scared of, anyway? they've been such gracious guests in palestine!


Laoc, do you think the few billion we give to our zionist militia each year really means that much?? I can't imagine a few billion being a drop in the bucket in today's world. Gov Pataki was just asking uncle sam for 50+ billion. I don't know if sharon wants anything more than being pm. I hope not, but you do have an interesting scenario. Maybe he's more than a grumpy old man.

[Oak Glaister]

On 2001-10-15 10:56, Laocoön wrote:
It's not the position that is unworthy of my attention; it's Huki.


What's your problem with Huki?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Oak Glaister on 2001-10-16 01:33 ]</font>

[Laocoön]

My problem with Huki is that he is so disingenuous. Rather than dispute something that I write, he disparages that I write as though whatever I say is fact; rather than clarifying his meaning, he disparages that I make assumptions about what his meaning is. His intent in engaging in discussions here seems to be to disparage people rather than to broaden understanding. I have no use for him.

[Oak Glaister]

At the risk of you deciding that you have no use for me, don't you do the same things you accuse Huki of?

[Laocoön]

No, in fact, I do not believe that I do.

[Rockhound]

It really is no use arguing with Lao. He has one thought: "US shouldn't support Israel". I'm not sure if his thinking is racist, or just narrow-mindedness, but as a result he cannot develop any other coherent thinking.

I also believe that the U.S. support for Israel has been misplaced. But unlike Lao, I don't believe we can turn back the clock to 1946, or 1939, or the 1600's and make everything the way we want it to be. Instead we have to deal with the realities of today. That reality is that we are at war with a group of people who have no concept of what is civilized. These people feel that killing innocent children is acceptable. These people feel that disrupting a society is acceptable. These people must be destroyed. It doesn't matter how we got to this point, that is where we are today. If I'm being attacked by a vicious dog, I'm not going to ponder the ill treatment that dog may or may not have had when it was a puppy--I'm going to put the dog down.

[Guerilla poster]

Of course, we should put the dog down. However, after that should we determine what made the dog mad and then take steps to prevent future dogs from going mad.

[G. Ringo]

A Jew is a person born to a Jewish mother or converted. There is a body of Jewish law defining what constitutes conversion. I cannot spell out a whole body of law in a post. Here is a brief summary. Conversion is a process performed before a court of three qualified Jews. It consists of (1) circumcision in the case of a male, (2) a declaration of acceptance of the commandments, (3)immersion, and (4), when the Temple is standing, offering sacrifices. Since any competent person can convert, I do not see how Jews can come under any definition of a race.

Do you see no distinction between scaring the British Mandatory authorities and scaring a resident civilian population?

Of course, restictions on movement during an insurrection of Arabs are aimed at Arabs and mainly affect them. It is, however, a distortion to refer to a restriction against "visiting mosques" when the restriction was only on access to one strategic location containing one mosque and the mosque was not specifically targeted.

[schaden]

A Jew is a person born to a Jewish mother is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Why do you think they made up that rule. As more and more Jews in America marry goys (approximately 75% of jews), there may be some other rules made up out of desperation. I see this rule being the last chance of keeping Judiasm alive in the US.

[Weatherman]

On 2001-10-16 18:49, schaden wrote:
A Jew is a person born to a Jewish mother is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.


You always know who your mother is. Before DNA testing, your father could be in doubt.

[G. Ringo]

Nobody made up a rule as to who is a Jew. The definition originated together with the Jewish people at Mount Sinai. It has been followed by all generations of Jews.

What does defining a Jew have to do with keeping Judaism alive? A definition is just that. Keeping Judaism alive has to do with Jewish education.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-15 22:55, alex wrote:

Laoc, do you think the few billion we give to our zionist militia each year really means that much?? I can't imagine a few billion being a drop in the bucket in today's world. Gov Pataki was just asking uncle sam for 50+ billion. I don't know if sharon wants anything more than being pm. I hope not, but you do have an interesting scenario. Maybe he's more than a grumpy old man.


Yes, our billions to Israel and our other support mean that much. Israel came close to losing the 1973 War. Without US aid and especially without Egypt being convinced to sign a peace treaty with Israel (with plenty of inducements from the US), Israel would probably have lost the next war with the Arabs. Aid from the US seems to be in the neighborhood of about 10% of the Israeli Government's budget in the last few years, which means it was a much higher percent in the earlier years of the arrangement because the payments have remained fairly level, dollar wise, since 1973. I'm guessing that maybe we effectively pay 20% of Israel's military budget now, and we probably paid almost all of it in the 70's.

Can you imagine what the US attitude would be toward a nation that supported one of our enemies to that degree?

[E. Blackadder]

On 2001-10-17 13:26, Laocoön wrote:
Can you imagine what the US attitude would be toward a nation that supported one of our enemies to that degree?


You don't have to imagine it. The US attitude toward the USSR was far from friendly, but we maintained diplomatic relations with them. To be sure, we didn't open diplomatic relations with the Peoples' Republic of China until Nixon, and we haven't been bothered to open diplomatic relations with Cuba. (apparently the Florida vote IS important, but that's another story)

Now the supporters of the taliban are said to be approximately: Iraq; Pakistan (until really really recently); and Saudi Arabia.

As for Iraq: We've been enforcing "no-fly" zone and an embargo. Neither has been that tight.

Pakistan -- a nominal ally against a USSR / India axis. Until recently. Now that India has discarded socialism, they are becoming our ally.

Saudi Arabia. We haven't gone to war with them. We buy their oil.

France. Who cares about France? :smile:

[Laocoön]

Let me rephrase: Can you imagine what the US attitude would be toward a nation that supported to that degree the occupation of part of our territory by an enemy power?

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-14 01:51, E. Blackadder wrote:

When there has been a crime committed, law enforcement can look for suspects based upon what they are believed to look like. When no crime has been committed, law enforcement should not stop and question people based on the notion that their racial and ethnic characteristics indicate that they might commit a crime.


I think your analysis ignores the issue of the magnitude of the potential crime. And the classification of certain acts as crimes and not as actions in furtherance of war.


No. If the magnitude of the potential crime is so great, then surely it would make sense for us to legally monitor the actions of those we suspect might commit the crime. If we are not willing to bear that expense, then the magnitude of the crime must not be very great.


No; neither. And if we changed the date to 1948 or 1967 and "Arabs" to "Israelis," "Islam" to "Judaism," and "Monaco" to "Jeruselum," that would not change my opinion. What about you?


How do we change the date?


What, you go to throw all of these hypotheticals at me, but I don't get to throw any at you?


Was that actually written into law? And are you saying that German law applied in, for instance, occupied Poland?


I think you get my point, regardless of what the facts are: some aspects of the Holocaust were law, such as the incarceration of German Jews. The point is that actions that were legal according to existing law are not necessarily legitimate.


And there is a difference between determining non-legitimacy post facto and what one decides to do about it.

For instance, I would assert that it is appropriate for an involuntary slave to murder his slaver. And in fact for anyone to murder a slaver.


...I note that it would have been a crime (murder) for a slave (or anyone else) in pre-Emancipation America to kill his slaver, but let's leave that as an aside.


The Emancipation Proclimation, and the constitutional amendments that followed, released those who were slaves in America from bondage (at least nominally).

Having determined that slaving was immoral, perhaps we should have then shot those who owned slaves, as slavers are clearly immoral. But we didn't.

I submit that this was the right thing to do, even if in actuality, the idea of shooting ex-slaveowners was never even thought of.


So if someone named, say, "Palestine," had been legally held as a slave, and then we decided that slavery was wrong and we abolished it, it would not be the right thing to murder Palestine's owner (let's call him "Israel")? I agree. But I do think that it would be right to deny Israel his legally acquired and owned property, Palestine.


My point is that even in the face of past wrongfulness, when order is restored, we are often -- often served best by looking forward. Living well is the best revenge.


I agree. However, I would hardly characterize the current situation regarding Palestine as indicating that "order is restored." Perhaps something should be done to address past wrongfulness so that order might truly be restored?

For the record, I think that the Palestinian and Arab efforts at emancipating Palestine have been misguided: I suspect that if the Palestinians had adopted the tactics of Gandhi, they would now have their own state that would consist of a majority of the area of Palestine, and the Israeli zealots who insist that God had given them all the land from the Negev to the Sea of Galilee, from the Med to the Jordan, would correctly be accorded pariah status.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-10-18 09:23 ]</font>

[Oak Glaister]

On 2001-10-16 12:16, Laocoön wrote:
No, in fact, I do not believe that I do.


Well, you do sometimes do some of the things you accuse Huki of. And you do make assumptions as to meaning rather than ask honest questions to get a better understanding of meaning. And I don't see a lot of broadening of understanding in your posts.

[Laocoön]

Well, now Israel has reoccupied the West Bank. The "reason" they give (the assassination of the evil Tourism Minister Ze'evi, whose nickname gives an indication of the extent to which Israel has fallen into cynical wickedness) was not predictible, but it was thoroughly predictible that some "reason" would be found for doing so.

The ethnic cleansing continues.