What the hell did I just see on CNN?

the media issue here is almost lost and were back on the old "We were here first line".
And TC -"anti Semitic" does NOT mean anti-Jewish or anti-Israeli. The Arabs are every bit as Semitic as the Israelis and given the admixture of Europea blood among modern Israelis, probably rather more so.
While you think in such media-hype, meaning-free, terms as "anti-Semitic" without a second's thought as to what it means beyond "Bad Bad Bad!", you are just one more dupe of the process that this thread set out, I presume, to discuss.
And such a lack of thought can only make one wonder as to the amount of thought that goes into the rest of the posting.

I don�t doubt that, if the Palestinians had a nation, a �two nation� approach might be a possibility. But they do not have a nation and it appears unlikely that they ever will have: a Palestine that was a nation would be in the United Nations and thereby gain a level of protection that Israel (and its puppets) would find intolerable.
Any form of answer outside a �two nation� approach would seem just as unlikely �on the evidence of 50-odd years of conflict.
Once, perhaps, but the efforts initially of Britain and then of the U.S.A. in support of Israel have made this impossible. America played its hand at the time of Suez and has in effect been stuck there ever since.
As I�ve always said - in the past, on balance, it wasn�t a bad strategy. When the USSR could arm and subsidise the Arab nations to a degree comparable with Israel and the West, there were reasons for the West to want a secure powerful ally in the region. I�m not sure that this is any longer the case. Any remaining threat to the West is terrorist, not military.
And some posters would do well to remember that Palestinians in Israel do NOT have full democratic rights, nor any prospect of gaining them. It�s a mess and there seems to be only three possibilities: the current US level of support and the killing goes on; greater US support and the Palestinians are effectively liquidated; no US support and Israel goes under.
What became Israel was taken (with Anglo-French connivance) from the Palestinians (Arabs) who were betrayed after 1918. What now is Israel has been taken piece by piece ever since. Israelis would presumably argue, one imagines, that they were not �taking�, but �re-taking�, �re-claiming�, �re-conquering�, �re-possessing� what was once theirs, as a gift from God. If any poster knows of a less ludicrous Israeli case, I�d love to see it.
Each side believes it has exclusive rights to this land � and therefore neither in truth has much room for the other. The �historical� argument is endless: �we were here first�: no doubt here are numerous Mexicans looking at California, New Mexico, Texas etc. and thinking the same thing, even as I type. And if there were any Canaanites and Amalekites and the rest left �they�d be saying, no doubt, that they were there before the Biblical Israelites.
The historical argument is always ultimately ludicrous because there�s no end to it.
And that's it: it will go on and on until one side or the other is fully dispossessed, if not annihilated.
And the interest remains the "spin" the Western media put on it all - and why it's that particular "spin".

Originally posted by spudkiller
Look structure, don't get sucked into them. Get a pest exterminator out right away and clear those varmints out of their house. If you let them breed they will infest the whole street ...

actually, the area where i live has alot of arabic people...on my street, there are two families i already know about, there could be more...and down the street, there is this other family related to the one on my street...i think they are nice...oh and my freind has an iraqi freind. hes cool too. maybe hes egyptian. but im just trying to be freinds with them...for reasons i will let you decide.

People, isreal enemies attack, get the shiznick kicked out of them, then whine when Isreal won't give the land they won back. Heck, surprise the bunch of towel heads and nuke them. Sure, all the glass factories will lose out, seeing as how the Middle East will be a giant glass plain, but they can get other jobs.

Go Isreal! They didn't strike first, but when everyone else butts out, they will strike last and finish it. Isreal has a larger army than Canada. They, a very small country, if they went against Canada, would beat them with both hands behind thier backs. Of course, we would butt in and go to the rescue of Canada, but the Isreal army would be able to get some aggression out since we won't let them defend themselves.

Well, GO ISREAL!!!! As soon as we butt out, you will rule the Middle East. Good luck, and we get cheap oil from you when you win?

Well, so many posts, but no good answers

1 ) There is only 1 democratia in this area. And it's Israel. All country arround Israel aren't democratic.

No answer !

2) Those country do not care with the Palestinians peoples, TC has right.
They are pro-palestinians only for their own purposes.

No answer !

3) That's why the former Jordania King fired almost all the Palestinians from his Kingdom. Don't tell me it's not true, I had a palestinian friend in my former job, and he was coming from Jordania. I can't remember how many times he asked me why we were supporting Arafat. He knows that Arafat is an Evil man who don't want peace. He knows that Palestinians & Jews will have peace ONLY when Arafat will be dead, or fired.

No answer !

4) Israel gaves to palestinian authority all what they wanted to the Oslo Agreement.
But Arafat refused. he didn't accept coz he knew it was over for him.

No answer !

5) Arafat isn't a democrat. This guy is the guy who did many terrorist attacks in 1970/1990.

Still no answer !

6) If a peace agreement ( a real one ) is done with the Israelians, he will loose his power. But he want to keep it, at any prices. He don't care about his own population. Arafat is a WarLord. And Warlords don't like peace. WarLords want the power !

1 more time, still no answer !

7 ) The best things for the both side, it's firing Arafat. Palestinians needs a real democratic government.

No answer !

8) In 1967, just after the " six days war ", Israel gaves back the Temple Mount to the Mosleems Authority. It was nice from them. They didn't have to do it, but they did it.

No answer !

9) Since 1948, Israel, this " little country with just 5 millions peoples " had to suffer many wars & attacks. Israel is the defender, do not forget it. And before Israel, palestine was just an dry desert. Who did everything ? The Israelians...

No answer !

10) Who can think that a 5 millions country want to do many wars with his numerous neighbors ? It's sound stupid, because it's stupid!

No answer !

11) Until the middle-east nations will not be democratics, we will not have peace. It's not possible. Dictatorships & democratia don't do a good mix !

No answer !

12) It's not Israel who attacked them.Looks what's happened before. Egypt, Jordania, Syria did a coalition, and started a war against Israel when it was Yom Kippour. For them, YK is Holly, like Ramadan for the Muslims. What will happened if Israel start a war against his neighbors when it's Ramadan ? You can be sure, we will heard all the nations shouting against Israel. Israel is alone and fight for staying alive, is it so hard to understand ?

No answer !

13) And for your tax dollars, some of you are upset, coz your dollars have to go to Israel. Me, I'm upset because my Euros Tax have to go in Palestine, to support their " Holly War ", their fuc=*] Djihad !!! Their terrorists acts against civililans.

Of course, no answer !

USA, GB, Israel, Palestine...aren't the problem. Arafat IS the problem.

unsubstantiated nonsense about Arafat's being solely responsible for the troubles?
I�m not too sure that the earlier post regarding Arafat�s responsibility for the conflict isn�t the curse of the pulpoid media again.
Muhammad Yassir Abdul-Ra'uf Qudwa Al-Hussaini, to give the admittedly villainous Yassir his full name, wasn�t even heard of until 1969 when he became the 3rd chairman of the PLO � I would remind readers that 2 of the 3 major Arab-Israeli wars had already been fought by then. He was then left in exile from 1969-1982 in the Lebanon and then in exile in Tunisia until 1994 which is when he fially got to gaza.
Israel�s own Ministry of foreign affairs www.israel-mfa.gov.il... never mentions Arafat in its official history of Arab-Israeli wars �and doesn�t mention the PLO until it gets to 1993! It was only then that he became prominent �well after the Intifadah began and was involved in Oslo, Washington, the Nobel Prize (ho ho!) etc.
We have recently seen him declared �irrelevant� by Sharon and the Israeli cabinet (last December), playing silly beggars with Koh-Lin, urged by State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher to take "strong, resolute and irreversible action" against terrorism, isolated in Ramallah utterly at the mercy of the Israelis, forbidden to go even to Bethlehem � but mysteriously unharmed.
Israel has repeatedly shown that when it comes to state-sponsored murderers, it�s in the Premier Division; it has very recently shown that it will kill civilians if it can get the man it wants.
Now, can someone please tell me how a man who wasn�t even known when the 3 major wars took place, who could have been killed but never was, who is �irrelevant�, can possibly be the cause of all the harm and bloodshed? Some, perhaps; but all?
Can someone explain why Israel has never acted against him personally? He�s 70-odd now, old age or the Grim Reaper will presumably claim him before too long - will his going bring peace? Who will replace him?
And the old curse of ATS -blather blather and never a fact or reference.

news.bbc.co.uk...

not to mention the parade in Gaza celebrating the attack and giving out sweets ... reported on the radio ...

arrested opposite the WTC by the FBI -video-taping and cheering "puzzling behaviour" as it was then labelled.
Have we all forgotten or is that just propaganda?
www.indymedia.org.il...

..falling for this "Hamas" line? Mossad pulls their strings!

Arafat isn't the only problem. It's the fact that insane @$$holes like Osama and Hamas or Jihad are around. Putting out shows with kids saying Jews evil and are willing to put bombs on and blow some Jews up. Or the radio shows interviewing kids saying that the Jews should be pushed into the seas.

BOOOOO! Palens should be wiped out along with the rest of the Towel heads over thier. None of them like us. Saudis support bombers, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, QUE, Oman, all of them hate us. SO bomb them,1 Give land to Isreal, and reap the profits of the oil. Who knows, Isreal might be thankful and sell oil at five bucks a fiftey five gallon drum.

Estragon for someone whos analytical abilities are unsupassed on this board I am more than amazed at your intelectual block in this area.

Its good to see someone with differing views supporting their topic but any defence of Arafat in this way is ludicrous.

To say that Mossad order their own people murdered for the propaganda value diminishes the high esteem by which I hold your opinions.

It is patently false.... and worse than that it is a blatent fabrication which would only fool the most fanatic of believers ...

I am not a "political" man, meaning I don't keep up with all this. One thing puzzles me; knowing about the Israeli's like I do, why is Arafat still in power? Why is he even still alive? You know that if Israel wanted him dead, he would already be so. IMHO, their keeping him around for a reason, maybe because whoever takes his place will be even worse...

I take your point Net-C; but you�ll recall that I had Arafat as �admittedly villainous� in the 3rd or 4th line. He�s no saint � I�m unconvinced his hands are any bloodier than Sharon�s.
But � as NavSpec suggested - the facts simply do not support the view that he is the source of all conflict, the fount of all evil. There were wars before him; I fear there will be killing after him.
Israel was founded amid the murders of innocents �largely Brits by then Jewish gangs: Irgun, Stern particularly: 56 years later, innocents (if there�s anyone left there who may still claim such a title) are still being slaughtered. The very language of conflict has lost meaning: Palestinians among whom terrorists live are no longer innocents � does not logic then demand that Israeli civilians among whom Israeli soldiers live are no longer �innocents�? A majority of any young Israeli �civilians� will be off-duty soldiers or reservists: are they �innocents�?
I submit that it is genuinely impossible to make sense of any of this along the �civilised� lines that Western leaders continue to claim that they are following.
The region worries me because, this is the only part of the world in which I could imagine the seeds of a final war being sown. If I, my family and friends, my culture and country are ever going to vanish in flames or plague �it will have started in Israel.
Now I�m not talking Gog and Gagog, the second coming, Nostradamus, Revelation or Isaiah. Simply that this region has been the world�s most potentially dangerous �hot-spot� for half a century and continues to be so. It has led to the West being ranged against Islam in a way that surpasses the time of the Crusades. Is there any other reason one can think of for the fact that America�s, Nato�s, enemies are Iraq, Iran, the Arabs, Afghanistan etc. There are no territorial, economic, historical reasons for any of this.
This is an area of no economic importance, a religion with fewer adherents than Sikhism, a country with a population less than that of a decent-sized capital city. Minute numbers of casualties compared to a dozen current African conflicts �yet this is where the West is on the line.
Israel already has the bombs, the chemicals and the bacteria: the Arabs are no doubt trying with all their might to get them too.
We are already at a sufficient historical distance from the Cold war to be able to say, with some justification, that it was never going to happen. Kennedy or Khruschev were always going to fold: Khruschev removed the rockets � Kennedy, less openly, removed the missiles from Turkey. Stalin at his maddest was never going to unleash the Tupolevs.
Somehow, the two sides �no matter how many skirmishes, wars, conflicts were sponsored in the second and third worlds - were never going to risk it all. Who can say the same about Arabs and Israelis? If the Israelis become weaker �the militant Arabs will annihilate them. While the Israelis are stronger, they have to fight perpetual war against enemies who make the kamikaze-pilots look like the pro-Life brigade. No one has anything else to lose, there �but the problem is not confined to that place.
Hence, though I deprecate the expression and content of some of the �kill the rugheads� postings, I have suggested that this is a conflict that admits to no resolution beyond the effective destruction of one side or the other. Since neither side attempts this, I then wonder if either side actually wants a resolution. Without US or Arab subsidies � the region would be a poor area of marginal agriculture �as it was, with peaceful co-existence between Jews and Palestinians, in the days of the Ottoman Empire. These obscure Near-eastern politicians, who dominate our press and our screens would be just insignificant regional figures. A recent survey showed (I have little faith in polls and surveys, of course) that young Americans could identify more Israeli political leaders than they could US political leaders! Hack-journalism, no doubt, but not wholly unbelievable.
Again � if we look dispassionately at World History and proceed inductively: what can we learn from �new countries�? Well, the new countries that still hold together are, effectively, the Americas, Oz and N.Z. Conquered by Europeans relatively recently, and conquered pretty ruthlessly. Not genocide (close at times e.g. Tasmania), but �ruthlessly� politically and culturally: there was never going to be an Inca state and a Spanish state, a Sioux state and a US state, a Maori State and a Brit state. Where the conquest was less ruthless: it eventually goes back to how it was, and the newcomers leave: Africa, India good examples: even the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Never, has a �new� country arisen on the territory of a �old� country with the result that two separate nations have come to co-exist in peace. �Why should we give up anything?�; �Why shouldn�t we take it all?� remain the only two multiple-choice options.
As for Israeli involvement or conspiracy in Hamas and these other groups whose names are constantly spouted by the media - although no one knows who they actually are � I suggest that there is influence. There must be at least attempted influence since every so often the Palestinians bump someone off as an Israeli traitor. We must also recall that, right or wrong, there are many who suspect Israeli and/or US complicity in 9-11. Furthermore, while it is no ground for logical argument, these incidents always seem to occur at rather �convenient� times, they are invariably surrounded by mystery �the bomber is blow to bits or was never even there. The places are always �soft� targets �poor areas, recently arrived Jews, outside the mainstream power bloc�s, areas with Arabs or tourists. Why does an organisation that � we are told � can level the WTC and almost get the Pentagon blow up student caf��s?
By �complicity�, I don�t necessarily mean that Israelis dress up as Arabs and plant the bombs. Just as I wouldn�t suggest that Americans infiltrated the Imperial Japanese Navy or painted Rising Sun�s on Curtis and Douglas fighter and bombers, and then bombed Pearl Harbor. What I suggest is that people have the knowledge to do MORE, but choose �for their own reasons �to do less: �accessories� as it were.
I find it fairly hard to believe that, on the bloody but excellent record of Israel security forces, a Palestinian leader can as much as f*rt, without Tel Aviv knowing. The complicity comes when no, or inappropriate, further action is taken.
Summing up, N-C, I�m saying that this is a conflict that defies all old generalisations and platitudes. In strategic, economic, cultural terms it ought to be about as important as the internal politics of the Sudan �yet it has dominated the Western media for almost forty years. Why?
It bids fair to be the longest ever continuous conflict (the 100 years War wasn�t continuous.) � Why? Almost no one ever gets hurt or killed (statistically) � Why?
I suggest that it is because the current state of affairs suits the principal players.

these incidents always seem to occur at rather �convenient� times, they are invariably surrounded by mystery �the bomber is blow to bits or was never even there. The places are always �soft� targets �poor areas, recently arrived Jews, outside the mainstream power bloc�s, areas with Arabs or tourists. Why does an organisation that � we are told � can level the WTC and almost get the Pentagon blow up student caf��s?

They happen all the time, and naturally they are going to happen when theres a foreign envoy or whatever going on. They want a big reaction. These militant groups do not want peace. I also believe Israel is sufficiently pissed off now not to want it either.

Of course they are soft targets, Israel has had to enforce insanely tight security around its entire nation, racial profiling to the max. They bomb whats easiest and will make the biggest statement. They cant hurt Israels military or political core through this, but they can sure as hell shake their social foundations. Terrorise them, if you will..

Where is this information about missing bombers coming from? I have not heard of anything along these lines. Weve never been told that the pentagon and WTC were attacks carried out by palestinian militant groups. I'm surprised you even used that as a point. Al-quaeda was a seperate entity, that thought bigger than hamas or the alaqsa brigades or any of our old favourites down there.

Which brings me to my last point... What makes you think nothing is known about these groups? They are not at all new groups. The majority have been around for years. It is hard for the Israelis to monitor these militant groups because they blend perfectly into the palestinian civilian population.


One last thing, I dunno who mentioned it. But why is everyone so upset at the lack of international pressure on Israel? I know I've asked this question before but does anyone honestly think the Israelis would hold back, even in the slightest, if the international community turned its back on the situation now? Do you think they could restrain themselves? Or even come close do doing so?

the fairly recent visit of Koh-Lin and teh spurning of GWB show exactly what israel thinks of International pressure. And "international" is an irrelevant word here -there's plenty of "international" condemnation- check out UN resolutions -just none from the USA and - to a lesser degree -the Western Europeans: upon whom else would electoral lobby pressure and "Holocaust guilt" work?

And on "complicity": On �complicity�, here�s a current-events link from a pretty reputable source regarding Roosevelt�s conduct just prior to WWII �in this case, it is alleged that Americans were denied the means to leave the Philippines.
The antepenultimate paragraph is rather interesting as �justification� since, of course, an attack was planned and the Filipinos were left to rot.
The story seems undeniable in its basics, whatever interpretation is put on it: so where would the �complicity� be?
It�s a thorny issue: all the actual dirty deeds were done by the Japanese �yet, was not the US government , in some sense, an accessory?
news.scotsman.com...
And in a more recent context, on �complicity� (it�s actually quoted); www.guardian.co.uk...

I suggest that these are worth careful reading in the light of an "conspiracy" angle - i.e. something a bit above: "They're to blame" -"No, they are!".

to introduce anything related to "conspiracy": try this (only for the literate).
Here�s a current story from the dreadful Ha�aretz (Pravda and Izvestia in one for Israel) www.haaretzdaily.com...
(if long link a problem � well worth doing manually)
This of course masquerades as criticism of Sharon and the Israeli �lite (it�s no such thing, you�ll see the pressure on the US towards the end) and it ends with the equally �weaselly�: �whichever way you look at it�, although it has suggested only ONE way to look at it � invisible villains are produced from nowhere.
And just as it seems that even the Israeli puppet-media are criticising policy: Hamas (despite the loss of a man claimed to be a leader) sets off a bomb. So you see: Sharon was wrong; but now he�s right.
It�s simple enough (bear in mind the only real audience for Ha�aretz outside Israel is North American Jewry): Jenin was obscured; but Gaza could not be. So, maybe Sharon really is a butcher? Maybe there could be peace? Maybe the US is guilty, too?
What could lead us NOT to come to these conclusions? Another terrorist bomb �quick! You see, the Palestinians are killers, anyway �what choice does Sharon have, or GWB have?
If posters can�t be bothered to read it, analyse it, reflect upon it, evaluate it, �not worth wasting time replying to it (as if that would stop the blather and cash for clicks contingent, Estragon!).
However,to any of a serious inclination, it IS an excellent case-study for students of propaganda for the unthinking.

Honestly, I dont think Sharon would bother. It doesn't look like the palestinians are too keen on peace anytime soon. They keep the bombings flowing by themselves.

Navescopes, the reason Arafat alive even though Isreal could kill him easy, is because if they killed him, the world would be yelling at them and the Palens would still bomb the civillians.

Bomb em'. Surprise the heck out of them and bomb them towel heads!

I would say that soft targets are the only ones that the bombers can reach. However there have been cases of bombers and gunmen dressed as military and killing in military compounds. Just because the bomber doesn't survive does not mean there there is a conspiracy afoot at all.

I knew israel when it was a peaceful country , well relativly peaceful anyway, it is a country I would like to live in, culturally, climatically and historically.

There is tons of potential in Israel for tourism, research, enjoyment of life, no way does this situation benefit both sides, children, the next generations of both sides grow up tramatised and dysfunctional, the infrastructure is destroyed the cultural and financial capital of the country is bankrupted....

In a conflict like this it is easy to find evidence to support whatever viewpoint you hold....

...that the israeils are evil, that the palestinains are evil, that both are pawns in a greater power struggle, either on a human level or supernatural level.

But personally I cannot believe that people would see this terrible destruction of a people by the bombers, the psychological assult on the p[opulation itself is tremendous, gone is the wonderful outdoor cafe life I remembered and the hectic crush or tourists and arabs in the old city.

It is a common benchmark that arabs are excellent liars, its part of their cultural background, its been amply reported, proven, and discussed both at a personal and political level.

To beleive that Mossad or Israel plays a part in their own destruction on such a scale, either activly or passivly, I find is the ultimate in arab propaganda.

To blame israel for the destruction of their own people would be the greatest lie you could produce. Then the bombers could work with impunity and all the blame gets heaped on the victims ....