Here we go again...

[bmulligan]

...I guess I'm particularly galled by Israel's actions because my government is supporting Israel with money and weapons. That makes me partly responsible for the horrible actions being done by Israel. In contrast I take no responsibility for actions taken by Hamas.


And of course the money we give to the palestinian authority doesn't end up in the hands of Hamas and their indoctrination schools nor used to buy bullets or TNT. I'm sure it's used only for building bridges.
[/quote]

[Jason McCullough]

Do we actually give any money at all to the PA?

[ydejin]

...I guess I'm particularly galled by Israel's actions because my government is supporting Israel with money and weapons. That makes me partly responsible for the horrible actions being done by Israel. In contrast I take no responsibility for actions taken by Hamas.


And of course the money we give to the palestinian authority doesn't end up in the hands of Hamas and their indoctrination schools nor used to buy bullets or TNT. I'm sure it's used only for building bridges.


Well, let's see here. I believe we only give one of the two sides F-16s and Apache Helicopters, because I'm pretty sure if we gave the Palestinians F-16s I would have heard about it. I think if the Palestinians had Apache attack helicopters, their target selection might be a little bit different. I'm pretty sure they would love to shoot a Hellfire missle up Sharon's ass next time he goes out for a drive.

Here (www.terrorismanswers.org/policy/foreignaid2.html) are the hard numbers from the "Council for Foreign Relations":


The top recipient is Israel, which gets about $2.1 billion per year in military aid—used mostly to purchase U.S.-made weapons—and $600 million per year in economic support.


Palestinians benefit from $70 million a year in U.S. aid through U.N. refugee assistance programs, as well as about $75 million administered to water, housing, employment, and democracy programs.

Gee, we give Israel $2.7 billion including $2.1 billion in military aid. We give the Palestinians $145 million in refugee assistance and water and housing assistance. Yeah, I'm really worried about that water and housing aid we're providing to the Palestians when we're providing over 18.5 times more money to Israel.

For the record, Jason is correct, we provide no direct aid to the Palestinian Authority.

[bmulligan]

of course, you must be right.
www.pna.gov.ps/subject_details2.asp?DocId=970

I'm sure none of our $200+ million would ever filter it's way into programs that teach hate or implement it.
http://www.zoa.org/pressrel/20030702a.htm

For the record, you you must be naive if you think all that money goes to purchasing food and band-aids.

[Jason McCullough]

We're *planning* on giving them money as part of the roadmap at some indeterminate future date - how dare they! You cannot even think of such a thing!

[Toddy]

I wonder. The British Empire was far more powerful, its reach was longer, and it was considerably crueler. There also wasn't CNN, etc., to film it all an outrage the world yet Britain still was beaten in this way. Britain also wasn't beholden to the rest of the world in quite the same way Israel actually is today. If Ghandi were a Palestinian he'd have the world stage. Would the world accept Israel gunning down or clubbing passive resistance? Unleashing the dogs or hoses or demonstrators who aren't throwing rocks or blowing themselves up?

This is one of the craziest things I've ever read. Uh, in this thread. The British Empire wasn't "beaten," neither by the Wolf Blitzer of the 19th century, nor by Bub's apparently hallucinogen-inspired idea about protesting Apus linking arms and singing "We shall not be overcome." Britain lost its hold on the world because of the one-two punch of the First and Second World Wars, and the crushing debt owed to the United States in the aftermath of defeating Hitler. Oh, and if Gandhi were a Palestinian, he'd have been shot dead long ago, anonymously, or locked in an Israeli prison without charges.


Most of the world actually abhors suicide bombers more than Israel's 1-ton bomb tactics. If you took the frightening lunacy of suicide bombing out of the equation... how would Israel's tactics look then? Who would dare support it?

Nothing has gotten the attention of the world more than the suicide bombings. It has shown the world the utter despair and desperation in the territories under Israel occupation. Take the bombings out of the equation, and a lot of people would go back to ignoring the entire situation. Like they did in the 1990s, before the second intifada started.

Also, I don't think people abhor the bombings more than the tactics of occupation. I'm not saying that I agree with this, but a lot of people identify with the Palestinians now, particularly when the media can put a face on a suicide bomber. Even though I'm always angered that someone could just walk onto a bus full of kids and blow it up, and spend a few stupid, pissed-off moments thinking that it might be a good idea to ethnically cleanse the entire West Bank and Gaza in order to exterminate these fucking monsters, hearing that the bomber was a 21-year-old girl, or a young husband with two kids at home, also makes me wonder at the horrific level of despair being inflicted on the perpetrators. I don't think we here in the West -- or even in a large chunk of Israel for that matter, as so much of Israeli society is insulated from the reality of life in the Palestinian towns and refugee camps -- can take such moral stands about the outrage of suicide bombings without acknowledging that the bombers have been driven to incredible extremes.

Unless you're a Fox News-educated idiot who thinks Arabs are Nazis in sheets, the suicide bombings have to make you look at both sides of the situation.

[TimElhajj]

Also, I don't think people abhor the bombings more than the tactics of occupation. I'm not saying that I agree with this, but a lot of people identify with the Palestinians now, particularly when the media can put a face on a suicide bomber. Even though I'm always angered that someone could just walk onto a bus full of kids and blow it up, and spend a few stupid, pissed-off moments thinking that it might be a good idea to ethnically cleanse the entire West Bank and Gaza in order to exterminate these fucking monsters, hearing that the bomber was a 21-year-old girl, or a young husband with two kids at home, also makes me wonder at the horrific level of despair being inflicted on the perpetrators. I don't think we here in the West -- or even in a large chunk of Israel for that matter, as so much of Israeli society is insulated from the reality of life in the Palestinian towns and refugee camps -- can take such moral stands about the outrage of suicide bombings without acknowledging that the bombers have been driven to incredible extremes.

Unless you're a Fox News-educated idiot who thinks Arabs are Nazis in sheets, the suicide bombings have to make you look at both sides of the situation.

Well said. This is about as close to my feelings as anything I've attempted to say, but laid out much more plainly.

[TimElhajj]

I hadn't ever heard that bit before. All I get from Google is screechy pro-Israel apologism, not sourced details that she was defending a terrorist stockpile.

This is all I am seeing, too. These are just so many rationalizations to ease the pain of a guilty conscious.

[TimElhajj]

While there are plenty of truly horrible acts on both sides, I guess I'm particularly galled by Israel's actions because my government is supporting Israel with money and weapons. That makes me partly responsible for the horrible actions being done by Israel. In contrast I take no responsibility for actions taken by Hamas.

Yes, this comes right to the heart of it. It's particularly frustrating if one is unwilling to give either side the moral high ground, but is forced to support this sort of oppression.

[jeffd]

Jason,

I don't know if you're doing it intentionally or not but one impression I'm getting from your posts about Palestinian resistance (particularly the sentiment that since attacks against military targets would be too costly / difficult / ineffective civilians are the only viable target) is that you've fallen into the same mentality of the extremists on both sides of the conflict: the concept of victory.

From a purely practical standpoing the Palestinians can never achieve victory. They're facing a far superior foe whom if it chose coulde wipe them from the earth. This is one of the problems in the Palestinian mentality - refusing to recognize this fact and deal with it.

This is one of the hard realizations that the Palestinians need to make in order for peace to happen. Their goals (the goals of Hamas, Arafat, and the exiles) are unreachable. They need to recognize that posession is 9/10 of the law and right now Israel posesses everything they want. Whatever the Palestinians eventually end up with has to be given to them by Israel.

I don't know about you but where I come from constant suicide bombings doesn't put me in a very giving mood.

JD

[TimElhajj]

On the overall topic here I haven't said anything b/c I think the situation doesn't have any answers.

[snip]


Good post, Dan. I think there is some value in just being able to articulate the nuance of the situation without attempting to choose a side, lay the weight of the blame, or award the moral high ground. No matter the side, you can't help but feel sorrow when you hear of the misery. I think the natural impulse is to decide "This side is right" and then just close your mind to future reports/sorrow.

[Toddy]

From a purely practical standpoing the Palestinians can never achieve victory. They're facing a far superior foe whom if it chose coulde wipe them from the earth. This is one of the problems in the Palestinian mentality - refusing to recognize this fact and deal with it.

This is one of the hard realizations that the Palestinians need to make in order for peace to happen. Their goals (the goals of Hamas, Arafat, and the exiles) are unreachable. They need to recognize that posession is 9/10 of the law and right now Israel posesses everything they want. Whatever the Palestinians eventually end up with has to be given to them by Israel.

You do realize, though, that if the Jews had accepted this "hard realization," the state of Israel would never have been founded. Things looked pretty damn bleak for them less than a century ago. And of course, Israel declared its nationhood in 1948 as a tiny island amidst a sea of hostile neighbors with vastly superior numbers and arms.

[TimElhajj]

I don't know about you but where I come from constant suicide bombings doesn't put me in a very giving mood.

Apparently where you come from, being on the receiving end of suicide bombings make you victorious. That is a strange place indeed.

[Gav]

You do realize, though, that if the Jews had accepted this "hard realization," the state of Israel would never have been founded. Things looked pretty damn bleak for them less than a century ago. And of course, Israel declared its nationhood in 1948 as a tiny island amidst a sea of hostile neighbors with vastly superior numbers and arms.

You're half-right, I think. The Jews went up against huge odds to make a state, and were successful, and that's a good model for the Palestinian struggle. OTOH, when they were given a deal which was much less than they wanted, they took it, thinking that half a loaf was better than none. The Palestinians aren't so good at this part.

Gav

[Toddy]

Uh, half-right? You don't dispute anything here, just put words in my mouth. I've always found the so-called Palestinian attempt at nation-building to be laughable, with all the mob-like corruption, strong-arm tactics, and regular press appearances by Arafat where he seems to froth at the mouth or scream at reporters who forget to call him "President." That's not to say that I find the Israelis any less brutal at heart, although they at least put a nice sheen on things to make their crimes more acceptable by the great unwashed.

One more thing -- the founders of Israel didn't take an awful deal that was much less than they wanted. They made a grab for a pretty substantial chunk of land, considering the Jewish population at the time, and always planned to take more if and when the opportunity arose, by whatever means necessary. The Palestinians are much more divided, have an incredibly corrupt and irresponsible leadership, but are really trying to build a state in the same manner. They just haven't been able to decide on a starting land agreement yet, because their enemies have F16s and nukes.

[XPav]

Proposal for the establishment of Ethniklashistan (www.theonion.com/onion3723/west_bank.html)

[Daniel Morris]

...and always planned to take more if and when the opportunity arose, by whatever means necessary.


Sinai would be Israel if that were true.

(For that matter, Cairo would be Israel if that were true.)

Southern Lebanon would be Israel if that were true.

Israel has repeatedly handed back over the land it has taken during time of war -- wisely handing back over Sinai as a gesture of peace with Egypt, and unwisely returning southern Lebanon to Hezbollah control. As for Syria, there could have been a Star of David fluttering over Damascus if the Israelis had been interested in one. Instead, they seized the few miles of the Golan Heights, and that only to prevent artillery fire from Syria in the future.

[Gav]

Uh, half-right? You don't dispute anything here, just put words in my mouth.

OK, it was late and I was tired.


One more thing -- the founders of Israel didn't take an awful deal that was much less than they wanted. They made a grab for a pretty substantial chunk of land, considering the Jewish population at the time, and always planned to take more if and when the opportunity arose, by whatever means necessary.

If you look at the outlines of the state in 1948, the borders are terrible. The founders wanted Jerusalem, as well. That's why no-one has ever seriously proposed going back to the 1948 borders--they're pretty much indefensible.

And maybe they planned to take more by some sneaky means or other, but I guess we'll never really know what would have happened if the Arabs hadn't attacked first.


The Palestinians are much more divided, have an incredibly corrupt and irresponsible leadership, but are really trying to build a state in the same manner. They just haven't been able to decide on a starting land agreement yet, because their enemies have F16s and nukes.
No, they haven't decided on a starting land agreement yet because Arafat's not really interested in having a government, and no-one else has the power to negotiate.

Let's suppose you're right above, that the Jews were planning on annexing all sorts of land after statehood--why don't the Palestinians take that route, then? Just get a state to start with, and then move on? But instead, Arafat insists on the right of return (which 70% of Palestinians don't even care about--they'll take money instead, according to Dr. Shikake's poll (and if it's not 70%, it's damn close--I'm too lazy to look it up)).

Gav[/i]

[bmulligan]

What, none of you Israel haters out there want to claim that Israel attacked first in the 6 Day War ? I thought you guys knew your revisionist history better than that!

[Brian Koontz]

Nothing has gotten the attention of the world more than the suicide bombings. It has shown the world the utter despair and desperation in the territories under Israel occupation.

LOL. I guess it also shows the ignorance of the Brett Todd.

Suicide bombings are not the result of despair or desperation. They are the result of the valuing of martyrdom. They are an ODE to martyrdom.

Suicide bombings are hardly a last resort. They are a desired method. Desired because they are effective (any general would be proud of a 25:1 kill ratio and it removes the possibility of capture and interrogation) and because they reference Christ.

Suicide bombings are culturally preferred to non-suicide bombings, which can also occur and with little more difficulty.

[Toddy]

Yeah, I heard on Nightline that those teen girls who kaboomed themselves last spring actually had "Go to Prom" tops on their to-do lists, but changed their minds when all the limos in Ramallah had already been spoken for. You are a genius, Koontz.

[Jason McCullough]

because they reference Christ.

My head hurts.

[Toddy]

Sinai would be Israel if that were true.

(For that matter, Cairo would be Israel if that were true.)

Are you just trolling now, Dan? For starters, damn near the entire world told Israel to get the hell out of the Sinai. Twice. They left only unwillingly, under great duress. Also, have you ever been to Egypt? It's quite a populous country. There's no way that even Israel's great military would be able to hold it.


Israel has repeatedly handed back over the land it has taken during time of war -- wisely handing back over Sinai as a gesture of peace with Egypt, and unwisely returning southern Lebanon to Hezbollah control. As for Syria, there could have been a Star of David fluttering over Damascus if the Israelis had been interested in one. Instead, they seized the few miles of the Golan Heights, and that only to prevent artillery fire from Syria in the future.

This is absurd. For starters, the Israelis have never given land back willingly--though I can't totally blame them for this, aside from the Palestinian seizure, since they largely hold land to secure comprehensive peace deals. I'm not thrilled about the reluctance to give back the entire Golan for a deal with Syria, though, as only an idiot could say that the region is necessary to the safety of nuclear-armed Israel.

Anyways, the Egyptian deal came only after a lot of international pressure and Sadat's decision to dump the Soviets for the Americans. Making peace with Israel was the price he had to pay Washington. Sadat and Carter are the ones most responsible for giving back the Sinai. Hell, Israel established settlements and many military bases there that were supposed to be permanent. Israel also spent over a decade refusing to even negotiate about returning all of the Sinai, insisting that deals could only be talked about if it was previously agreed upon that Israel would keep part of the region for security purposes. Great negotiating tactics? Maybe. Though there's plenty of evidence that peace could have been made with Egypt before the death of Nasser, and Sadat made serious overtures before and after 1973.

The IDF was in Lebanon for two decades and only left because the situation was causing all sorts of turmoil at home and abroad. As for this ridiculous assertion that the Israelis could have taken Damascus, uh-uh. If the Israelis had been overly aggressive in either 1967 or 1973, the Soviets would have gotten involved to support their allies in Damascus and Cairo. Israel didn't halt at the Golan Heights or in the Sinai out of the goodness of Moshe Dayan's heart. Israel halted because the Soviets would have swept down and pushed them back to Tel Aviv and perhaps kicked off World War III.

What's most ridiculous about all of this is that history indicates that Israel will almost certainly give back all of the West Bank and Gaza, eventually. It's the only way to secure peace, yet we hear the same old security excuse today that we heard in the 1970s.

[voltaic]

They just haven't been able to decide on a starting land agreement yet, because their enemies have F16s and nukes.
Not to derail the thread, but is Israel a declared nuk-u-lar power? Do they have weapons or just power plants? I haven't kept up. :(

[Jason McCullough]

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/


United States inspectors visited Dimona seven times during the 1960s, but they were unable to obtain an accurate picture of the activities carried out there, largely due to tight Israeli control over the timing and agenda of the visits. The Israelis went so far as to install false control room panels and to brick over elevators and hallways that accessed certain areas of the facility. The inspectors were able to report that there was no clear scientific research or civilian nuclear power program justifying such a large reactor - circumstantial evidence of the Israeli bomb program - but found no evidence of "weapons related activities" such as the existence of a plutonium reprocessing plant.


By the late 1990s the U.S. Intelligence Community estimated that Israel possessed between 75-130 weapons, based on production estimates. The stockpile would certainly include warheads for mobile Jericho-1 and Jericho-2 missiles, as well as bombs for Israeli aircraft, and may include other tactical nuclear weapons of various types. Some published estimates even claimed that Israel might have as many as 400 nuclear weapons by the late 1990s. We believe these numbers are exaggerated.

:D

[Jason McCullough]

Competely off topic now, but here's a really interesting bit:

"THE THIRD TEMPLE'S HOLY OF HOLIES:
ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army"


Israel went on full-scale nuclear alert again on the first day of Desert Storm, 18 January 1991. Seven SCUD missiles were fired against the cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa by Iraq (only two actually hit Tel Aviv and one hit Haifa). This alert lasted for the duration of the war, 43 days. Over the course of the war, Iraq launched around 40 missiles in 17 separate attacks at Israel. There was little loss of life: two killed directly, 11 indirectly, with many structures damaged and life disrupted.[98] Several supposedly landed near Dimona, one of them a close miss.[99] Threats of retaliation by the Shamir government if the Iraqis used chemical warheads were interpreted to mean that Israel intended to launch a nuclear strike if gas attacks occurred. One Israeli commentator recommended that Israel should signal Iraq that “any Iraqi action against Israeli civilian populations, with or without gas, may leave Iraq without Baghdad.”[100] Shortly before the end of the war the Israelis tested a “nuclear capable” missile which prompted the United States into intensifying its SCUD hunting in western Iraq to prevent any Israeli response.[101] The Israeli Air Force set up dummy SCUD sites in the Negev for pilots to practice on—they found it no easy task.[102] American government concessions to Israel for not attacking (in addition to Israeli Patriot missile batteries) were:

Allowing Israel to designate 100 targets inside Iraq for the coalition to destroy,
Satellite downlink to increase warning time on the SCUD attacks (present and future),
“Technical parity with Saudi jet fighters in perpetuity.”[103]

[Gav]

They just haven't been able to decide on a starting land agreement yet, because their enemies have F16s and nukes.
Not to derail the thread, but is Israel a declared nuk-u-lar power? Do they have weapons or just power plants? I haven't kept up. :(

Officially, Israel is not a nuclear power, but everyone knows (that should probably be "assumes") they have them. One of the Arab MPs tried to push through a bill to make it official a couple of years ago, but it was killed.

As for Brett's idea that Israel doesn't have to worry about attacks from the Golan, since they have nukes, that's just bizarre. Syria could fire rockets into Israel from the Golan, but Israel's not going to start a nuclear war over it, as the Syrians know, just as Hizbollah knows that its attacks aren't going to lead Israel to nuke Lebanon.

Gav

[Toddy]

Bizarre? So, the idea of a nuclear power being intimidated by a third-world neighbor with popguns on a big hill somehow makes sense to you? Come on, Gav. You know I wasn't saying that Israel would nuke Damascus for a minor border issue. But the threat is always there, and that deterrent alone means that Syria isn't going to okay any sort of military or terrorist action that might really piss off the Israelis.

[Gav]

Bizarre? So, the idea of a nuclear power being intimidated by a third-world neighbor with popguns on a big hill somehow makes sense to you? Come on, Gav. You know I wasn't saying that Israel would nuke Damascus for a minor border issue. But the threat is always there, and that deterrent alone means that Syria isn't going to okay any sort of military or terrorist action that might really piss off the Israelis.

It's pretty much common knowledge that Syria and Iran fund hizbollah, who have caused numerous Israeli casualties over the years, and have really pissed of Israel. Last I looked, both Syria and Iran are still standing.

Israel is probably not prepared to use nukes except in case of a major invasion, but that doesn't mean that they'd be delighted to have someone on the border firing rockets into Israeli territory.

For a comparison, the US has nukes, but that wasn't a deterrent for the 9/11 bombers, which was larger-scale than anything that's been done to Israel. Nukes aren't really much of a deterrent against small-scale actions, since everyone's afraid of the chaos that would result from using them.

Gav

[Toddy]

Border rockets=popguns. Sorry, but this sort of thing isn't a credible threat. The Crips are more of a threat to Los Angeles than Hezbollah is to northern Israel.

[Gav]

Border rockets=popguns. Sorry, but this sort of thing isn't a credible threat. The Crips are more of a threat to Los Angeles than Hezbollah is to northern Israel.

If border rockets=popguns, then the bullets the Israeli army fires=water balloons, and the big bomb dropped on an Sheik Yassin that everyone's so worked up about=a pea shooter.

But, dropping the sarcasm for a moment, what you seem to be saying (and, please correct me if I'm not understanding this) that the Syrians will fire rockets into Israel from the Golan (however insignificant said rockets might be), and that Israel should give the Golan back to them anyway?

If so, I just don't get it. Why on earth should Israel give back the Golan on those terms? What do they have to gain? If Syria wants it back so badly, they should grow up and sit down at the negotiating table (which Rabin was practically begging them to do--my wife and I made a special trip up to the Golan because we thought it was going to be given back imminently. And not just us--the newspapers at the time were full of speculation about how and when the handover would happen)

Gav

[Daniel Morris]

I expect better scholarship from Brett Todd, who, as he constantly reminds us, has traveled extensively in the region.

Before Israel controlled the Golan Heights, Syria used them as a platform for routine artillery attacks against Israeli towns in the Galilee. In fact, by the first week of June 1967, according to Michael Oren's outstanding history Six Days of War:


On the Golan Heights, some 50,000 Syrian soldiers with 260 tanks and as many field guns were now in position...

That ain't "pop-guns." Israel holds the Heights as a strategic buffer against exactly the kind of low-intensity artillery barrages that Syria showered on the Galilee for years prior to 1967. Because the Syrians know as well as the Israelis that nuclear reprisal is an unimaginable response to even a fairly lethal artillery barrage against, say, Kfar Szold or Tel Dan.

[Toddy]

For the love of whatever you pray to, how can you guys debate this? You both act like Israel would be under threat of imminent invasion if the Golan was returned to Syria, whole. Uh, no. The nuclear deterrent makes Israel the big kid on the block in the entire Middle East, no matter how you want to characterize the country as the guy who gets sand kicked in his face on the beach. Israel cannot be invaded or even seriously attacked by any of its hostile neighbors. Period.

And, Dan, as much as I may be a windbag over my travels, I don't have to leave my house to realize that this isn't 1967. The Israelis have amassed an incredible military over the past 30 years since the Americans began ratcheting up aid. Back then, the Syrians actually posed a credible threat, or at least seemed to pose a credible threat. Now? Forget about it. They lob any shells from a given-back Golan, and Israel would have the F16s in the air within minutes to demolish the gun emplacements and maybe drop a few retaliatory bombs on whatever military bases might be close by.

[Gav]

You both act like Israel would be under threat of imminent invasion if the Golan was returned to Syria, whole.

I said above that I don't think that. Doesn't mean that Israel wants border towns under constant threat of shelling.


And, Dan, as much as I may be a windbag over my travels, I don't have to leave my house to realize that this isn't 1967. The Israelis have amassed an incredible military over the past 30 years since the Americans began ratcheting up aid. Back then, the Syrians actually posed a credible threat, or at least seemed to pose a credible threat. Now? Forget about it. They lob any shells from a given-back Golan, and Israel would have the F16s in the air within minutes to demolish the gun emplacements and maybe drop a few retaliatory bombs on whatever military bases might be close by.
You've gotta know that's not true. If that were true, Hizbullah would never do cross-border attacks.

I'll ask you again--if Syria won't agree to even discuss a peace treaty (and what have they got to lose, if, as you insist, they'd never attack anyway), how can an Israeli PM in good conscience give them the Golan? For that matter, why isn't there any pressure on Syria? (I could use this opportunity to derail the discussion into a question of why Syria(!) gets a seat on the Security council, but Israel can't, but I just can't be bothered)

Gav

[TimElhajj]

Gav, I don't think it's possible to derail this thread after the previous 10 pages.