Iraqi Invasion Implications

[Ty Webb]

For me, it comes down to basics:

The Israelis, given their overwhelming strength and nuclear capability, could rule the Middle East. They don't want to- all they want is to be left in peace in their own country. I shudder to think what would happen if it were the Arabs with the nuclear capability . .. .

The Palestinians want a country. They need one, and they will get one, but they will not get it by bombing Israeli women and children. Unfortunately, their leaders and supposed "holy men" have been inciting them for years to kill Israelis, and they have not, as a people, rejected this insane babble.

Three years ago, before the suicide bombings, the Israelis offered them 97% of the land they wanted. Sadly, Arafat, the jackass, turned it down and walked away and started the Intifada, which has resulted in the deaths of several thousand of his own people, and hundreds of Israelis.

Because of these past two years of terrorism, the Palestinians will never have a deal offered to them as good as what what was offered them before they began the Intifada, because the Israelis will now need more of a buffer from these murderous idiots.

The Palestinian people need to tell their leaders that they do not accept the terror and bloodshed, and they must insist on a peaceful resolution. That is the only way they will get their country. Unfortunately, they are either unwilling or unable to do so.

By the way, don't underestimate the benefit of the Israelis in the Middle East; if it weren't for them, Iraq would have nuclear weapons. In 1981, our friends, the French (hmmph!) were building a nuclear reactor for the Iraqis.

The Israelis flew in and bombed the reactor project to prevent the Iraqis from obtaining nuclear weapons. The rest of the world condemned the Israelis for it (no one louder than the French) . . . . but if they hadn't done it- the Gulf War and the world today would be a very different place.

Anyway, lively, interesting debate . . . .

 

[TurboS7]

Could we move 200,000 troop to Kuwait in one week if we activated all the airplanes just sitting at VCV and activation the complete CRAFT fleet.??????

 

[desert pilot]

The iraqi army is a very weak army,you do not need 200,000 troops to defeat them,their army has been overrated during the gulf war and now,the # of soldiers means nothing,give them a chance to take their shoes off and surrender and they will do it.Make sure that you stop the support from the other muslim countries and to name one-jordan with the double faced royals that try to appear as modern peacemakers while pumping supplies to iraq and other bad guys,of course the saudis need a second look.

 

[TWA Dude]

Re: Diatribe Part 2

Surplus1:

First, thanks for the historical recap. I have indeed studied Middle Eastern history quite extensively but I lack your patience to write so extensively. Your opinion is indeed fairly unbiased so please don't take any of my response as hostile as I don't mean it in that way.

Strangely, the Indians fought for their land but, were ultimately butchered and defeated by the military and technological superiority of the invaders. What's so different about Palestine?

When the Zionists first started arriving they purchased the land from the Ottoman/Syrian owners fairly. It wasn't until the War of Independence that land was acquired any other way. Needless to say that war was unwanted and not started by the Zionists.

If the Jews had their way, they might well make Indians of the Palestinians and put them on reservations. They've sure been trying.

The Arabs of Israel were under martial law for many years. I don't recall exactly but it might have been into the Seventies. They were viewed as hostiles. I'm not going to make any broad generalization like "Israel has the right to defend itself any way she sees fit" but I will say that to date no country has intentionally taken a course of action that they knew would destroy themselves. Why should Israel?

However, I challenge your idea that they have maintained their "culture" and a "shared desired to return to their homeland".

The prayers of Jewish liturgy make constant mention of a return to Zion.

Perhaps I am wrong, but the truth is I am unable to detect any difference in the "culture" of an American who happens to profess the Jewish religion and another American who doesn't. Ninety-nine out of one hundred times, I can't tell that a person is "Jewish", unless he chooses to tell me.

The Diaspora is two thousand years old. With all the intermarrying and conversions it's no wonder all Jews don't appear Middle Eastern any longer.

Of course there are the exceptions of what I would call the Jewish extremists, but that holds true of other religious fanatics as well.

How exactly do you spot a Jewish "extremest"? Because his head is covered? Because he wears the black garb and top hat? I assure you that the true "extremests" wear many different hats and are not easily spotted. Many of the "black-hatters" are so religious that they don't even recognize the State of Israel because the Messiah hasn't come to oversee its creation.

Yes, the Arabs declared war because they never accepted the European/American imposed UN Partition Plan. While you say that plan "gave" land to both Arabs and Jews (which is technically correct), whose land did it give to the Jews? Did the U, N. own land in the region that it could "give to the Jews" or did it simply take this land from Arabs?

Good question. How does one "own" ANY land on this planet? One buys it from the government. How did the government obtain that land? By WAR!

Since Biblical times the land on both sides of the Jordan River (Palestine) has changed hands and been parcelled out numerous times. Palestine was part of the Syrian district of the Ottoman Empire headquartered in Damascus. England conquered that land and split it with France. Of course the only reason England had any interest in the Middle East was oil and that remains the case today. So to answer your question, England gave its own land to the Jews and Arabs.

Keep in mind that after 1949 Jordan controlled what's known as the West Bank yet the U.N. did NOT recognize it's soverignity. So in June 1967 the West Bank was already disputed territory and hence Israel didn't have any more or less right to it than Jorday. It's still disputed territory only because with the U.N. some countries aren't allowed to expend using military means. (Don't forget that Syria has conquered Lebanon thus ending their civil war and that the U.N. allowed this because Syria send a few thousand troops to the Gulf War.)

The Arabs indeed lost the war. We often subscribe to the concept "to the victor go the spoils", but I have to ask: what made it possible for the Israelis to win the war(s)?

Lots of reasons but sympathy after the Holocaust played no small roll. Of course the Holocaust wasn't the Arab's fault, though they did unabashedly side with Germany during WWII. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem met with Hitler several times. So I won't claim that Israel won the war "fair and square" because "fair" has nothing to do with war.

Reportedly, Israel has nuclear capability. If this is true (and I believe that it is), how did Israel accomplish this? Was it developed internally by Israeli scientists with no assistance from the USA or other western nations with nuclear capability?

I don't know and what does it matter? I'm sure they begged, borrowed, stole, and did it on their own just the same. The Arabs have Russia to help them out as much as they like.

Would the Israeli's use their nuclear power if faced with a losing situation that they could not otherwise win?

I say definitely maybe. Same goes for any nuclear power. Just don't forget that Israel isn't governed by a maniacal dictator (despite how you may feel about Sharon).

When the Egyptians attacked Israel in the 70's, the Israeli air force was devastated in the early days of the conflict. Without its vastly superior air force, many would argue that Israel is not defensible. While I will not be the first to acknowledge the exceptional skill of Israeli pilots (often exceeding ours), how did the Israeli air force recover and go on to win the war? Did they do this on their own or was it the result of an extraordinary replacement effort provided by the United States?

Of course the U.S. resupplied Israel. And of course the reason the Egyptians were able to "devistate" the Israeli Air Force was because they had Russian SAMs and Russian AIRPLANES and even some Russian PILOTS. The Yom Kippur Was was a microcosm for a U.S.-Soviet war! As they say in Hebrew, balagan!, what a mess!

I'll grant you that the Jordanians, more than 60% of whom are really Palestinians, (don't forget that "Jordan" is a sub-division of Palestine and a creation of the British, including it's "King" - father I believe of the present king.), defiled many Jewish religious sites.

First of all, who are the "Palestinians"? The denizens of Palestine? That make Jews Palestinians as well. In fact, before 1948 the Jews were in fact referred to as "Palestinians" by the British. The Arabs were refered to as "Arabs". The PLO has done a masterful propaganda job of making the world believe that there is an ethnicity called "Palestinian". Arafat was born in Egypt.

I notice you say that Irgun terrorism what not "government-sponsored". Is that because the Israeli's had no recognized government at the time? Yes, I've heard that the Brits "ignored" Began's "warning", What if they did? I hope you are not implying that acts of terrorism are OK, if adequate "warning" is given.

Yes, Israel had a recognized goverment before 1948, called the Jewish Agency. It was headed by David ben Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister. And no, I'm not saying any form of terrorism is okay. The targeting of civilians is never okay. The Irgun had little popular support and zero governmental support.

My point was simple really. When the Jews saw fit to engage in terrorism to accomplish the exodus of the British and the establishment of the Israeli State, they did it.

No, some Jews did. Examples of Jewish terrorism exist but are extremely rare.

I think he {Sharon} can match Arafat for atrocities (although different in format) any day of the week.

Whoa, nelly! Sharon is defending his country from attackers. Arafat has targeted women, children and other non-combatants. Sharon is a ruthless military man, to be sure, but I claim for him the moral high ground.

When Hitler was exterminating the Jews in Europe, we didn't call that terrorism either.

Hitler already ruled the country. Terrorists have a territorial goal they've yet to attain.

Today the Germans are "allies" of the Israelis.

"Politics makes for strange bedfellows."

I guess I don't subscribe to the Biblical designation of the Jews as God's chosen people. My God loves ALL people, Jews or not.

It's very misunderstood what's meant by the expression "Chosen People". God chose the Jews to be the first monothiests from amongst the pagans. God chose the Jews to set the example for others to follow. There are NO priviledges implied nor any greater love. People still appliy a double-standard to the Jews and to Israel and that says a lot about what we expect in terms of Arab behavior.

gotta go. Peace.

 

[Starsailor]

Definition of history

I believe that the 'definition' of history offered by surplus1 a few long posts back is by Ambrose Bierce, from The Devil's Dictionary. I'd have to mine my boxes of books to confirm that. This is an excellent thread. Just because we're pilots and/or this is an aviation forum doesn't mean that we don't think about other things and enjoy arguing/debating about same.

Starsailor

 

[Salty Dog]

TWA Dude,

You lied. You obviously have the patience to type like a mo fo!

All very interesting, however.

 

[peepsmover]

Extremists on Both Sides

It is easy to go circular in reasoning about the violence on either side yielding nothing but more violence. Israel has its faults in the sense that they are building and have built settlements (with our US tax dollars issued via Billion dollar "loans" that everyone knows they will never pay) on the Palestinian side, the Israeli extremists did this a bare faced land grab effort; and as much as US policy makers protested Israel ignored---but we kept "loaning" them the money without conditions.

The extremists on Arafat's side seek the utter destruction of the Zion state, and Arafat has refused to control them. Arafat knows that attacks will be met with reprisals. I mean this is Sharon, he didn't have a war time draft college deferment to Oxford, he is the biggest ass kicker in that area since the Kippur war, he led bold tank strikes deep into Egypt, why is he going to roll over and let some unstoppable bomber element force him into "peace"? Seven dead Israelis here, ten dead there, Sharon has probably seen more dead and wounded in one day than most, in short he will not be swayed.

To be fair to US taxpayers, the US has funded the development of Palestinian security forces, but obviously without much success. Arafat allows the attacks to happen, Israel responds, and so pundits wag their tongues and Europeans cluck their tongues as cameras roll on how dire the living conditions are for the Palestinians. Which is nothing to take lightly, it is their collective misery that provides easy recruits for bombing missions.

So there you are. One day, terrorists explode a bomb in an Israeli nightclub, then Israel drops a bomb on the head of Hamas, knowing full well that innocent civilians are going to die. Tit for tat. For some reason Arafat actually thinks this bad publicity works, certainly it is horrific, but the clear message Israel is sending is that we will kill your innocent civilians too.

The attack on the Hamas leader, yields an impressive display of the level of penetration the Israeli intelligence has amongst the Palestinians. Shacking the leader of Hamas? We can't even find the top 10 gomers of Al Qayeda. Israel knew the outcry would have been worse had the Hamas leader not been there, so with 100 percent targeting certainty the bomb was dropped. Still, for me the attack yields a compelling question. Was the Palestinian who provided target information, risking his life because he needed the money, (where is he going to spend it? Hey guys like my new car?) or was it because he knew that extremists like Hamas are the obstacles to real peace? Did he then rationalize that the inevitable civilian casualties were sacrifices for peace? Or worse, perhaps he just got a free ticket out of that mess for him and his family.

 

[prodigal]

Great Thread

surplus1 . . . very thoughtful post and in some degree of principle I agree with you about interventionism because I revere our Constitution and the founding fathers thoughts on nationhood, but the world is unforseeably different than the one in which they lived.
However, I believe a lot of what you wrote is based on faulty premise and TWA dude has done a good job of adressing that point by point. I would just add a couple more . . .
The Native Americans were indeed slaughtered and displaced by the white Europeans who wanted their land and the riches associated with it. Probably the most shameful chapter in US history (btw I am a good part Indian). But there is no analogy to the Jews return to Palestine/Israel. You see, the Europeans were not returning to their ancestral homeland; therefore, it cannot be said that they had even the smallest legitimate claim to any part of the land of the new world. The Jews definitely have that historical claim.
Which segues to my other point. . . yes indeed, to the victor go the spoils. You don't need to go beyond our own borders to bear that out. Just ask any Native American or Southerner if that isn't so. Throughout all of human history populations have migrated all over the globe and mixed, mingled and conquered. One can argue the "right-ness" of that reality, but it won't change historical reality one whit.
Arab-rat and the "Palestinians" pooped in their own mess kit by rejecting a Palestinian state and now continue to do far more harm to their own purported cause by these acts of terrorism against Israel. I say "purported" cause, because it is now clear that their real cause is not a Palestinian state but rather the elimination of Israel, and that simply will never happen. They need to wake up and face reality.
And as I mentioned in my earlier post this conflict is about much more than just Israel vs. the "Palestinians." This is a war of worlds and cultures, between the Arabs and the West. The Arabs would like nothing more than to eliminate this island of western thought and culture from their midst and are fully manipulating the "Palestinians" to this end. The Arabs are not touchy-feely, kumbaya kind of people and clearly do not respond at all to civilized diplomatic efforts. They recognize one thing, force. There will never be a lasting settlement until one side or the other is completely and utterly defeated militarily and has no other choice but to give in. This is how we defeated Germany and Japan. Who would seriously argue that we should have negotiated settlements with the Axis powers?
It is indisputable that Israel is there to stay, and given that reality I believe the most humane thing to do is to allow Israel to unleash her dogs of war and get this thing over with decisively and as quickly as possible and show the Arabs, and I mean the ones in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, etc. who are pulling the strings (and let's not forget our good friends the Iranians) that Israel will not be destroyed nor coerced by terrorism. I belive that Israel has the ability to do this on her own, but should the need arise we should back her 100%. The fight Israel is in and our War on Terrorism is one and the same. We are allies. The Europeans appeased Hitler and the result is well known. Let us not repeat that mistake.

 

[surplus1]

Part 1 of 3 (Intended to Answer All of You)

Surplus1:
First, thanks for the historical recap. I have indeed studied Middle Eastern history quite extensively but I lack your patience to write so extensively. Your opinion is indeed fairly unbiased so please don't take any of my response as hostile as I don't mean it in that way.

Not to worry. I don't take anything you say as "hostile" or personally and I trust you don't feel that way about my remarks. We both know that you and I can't solve this " problem". Our discussion is academic. I too have done a little studying of Middle Eastern history, in particular this conflict. I have also traveled in the region.

From what you have written it is obvious that you also have an understanding of the region and its history. That is why I chose your post as the one to which I could respond. I have trouble communicating with people who repeat the partisan rhetoric of Fox News or the railings of any other mob motivator with little or no knowledge of the subject matter. Your post didn't fall into that category.

Patience doesn't cause me to write so much. Rather it’s a passion against injustice. I don't like to see the already down trodden oppressed even further and I am also increasingly distressed by the trend in American media to present an unbalanced and often politically slanted perspective on world events. To be news, a report must be factual, accurate and honest. I find that our TV journalists, with rare exception, do not meet that standard. Fortunately, technology allows one to look elsewhere for information and form educated independent opinion. Whatever the source, I find brainwashing objectionable.

I am personally unbiased. I'm neither pro Palestinian nor pro Israeli. I'm trying to analyze available information and historical record to get an accurate body of knowledge. The entire situation is tragic and thousands of people from both sides of the conflict have suffered immeasurably. It is the killing to which I really object. It matters little to me who commits atrocities and I particularly abhor human sacrifice in the name of politics or religion. War is the scourge of mankind and it seems that no matter how "civilized" we allege to have become, we are unable to rise to the level that avoids wholesale massacre of innocents in the effort to achieve highly questionable political, economic or religious objectives.

I do not covet my neighbor's goods nor his wife and I have no right, God-given or man-given, to take another man's life other than in direct defense of my own or that of another human. Under very limited circumstance, I can see some military action as justifiable but to me, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not one of those circumstances.

When the Zionists first started arriving they purchased the land from the Ottoman/Syrian owners fairly.

The Zionists did buy some land, but in fact very little. To imply that anywhere near a majority of what the Israelis hold or occupy was acquired legitimately is less than accurate. Military force and colonialist like expansion would be far more accurate.

"The UN partition plan allotted the Jews (an overwhelming majority of whom were recent immigrants) 55% of Palestine, despite the fact that they made up only one third of the population and owned only 6% of the land." Remember that this was many years after the creation of the British Mandatory. The UN partition was voted in 1947. That is what created the state of Israel, not the Mandatory.

According to the now conservative Israeli historian Benny Morris, the 1948 war, launched by the Arabs, was the "almost inevitable result" of a Zionist ideology that tried to create a non-Arab state on a land inhabited overwhelmingly by Arabs. Nearly 800,000 Palestinians were forced to leave their homes in the course of the 1948 war. Palestinians were massacred by Israeli forces in 500 villages, of which 385 were completely razed to the ground. If one follows the current activities, the Israeli policy of destroying Palestinian homes has not changed.

"Years later, Israeli general and politician Yitzhak Rabin wrote in his memoirs about receiving an order from the highest echelons as a brigade commander in 1948 to expel the 50,000 Palestinians of Ramle and Lod from their homes. He calls it the hardest thing he has ever had to do in his life. Israel's military censor prevented that part from being published, explaining to Rabin that the state did not need one of its greatest generals writing about an organized ethnic cleansing of Palestinian refugees."

What I would define as "normal" immigration causes some resentment but doesn't result in carnage. The Exodus of Jews from Europe to Palestine was hardly "normal". The whole scheme was created by powerful and influential Zionists and their political allies in European governments none of whom gave the Arabs who lived there since the seventh century, A. D., as much as a second thought.

From my point of view, a return of the Jews to Zion may have eventually occurred naturally but I doubt it. The fact is that this mass immigration and the eventual creation of the Israeli State in Palestine were not an act that simply happened. It was forced by military and political power of Europeans with the support of the United States and even the Soviet Union, and championed by the Zionist movement. "There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." - Moshe Dyan.

If Canadians of French ancestry eventually separate Quebec from the Dominion of Canada by the ballot (unlikely), it will not cause a civil war in Canada. However, if the government of France, sanctioned by the UN, were to invent the country of Quebec, impose it on the peoples of that region, and 5 million French immigrants move there forcing the "Anglos" from their homes by the hundreds of thousands and demolishing their buildings in the process, I doubt seriously that you would have a "peaceful solution" or end. There would be civil war in Canada, just as there is in Palestine.

France occupied Vietnam and made it a colony. The Vietnamese fought to remove them and ultimately succeeded. We then fought for ten years, needlessly slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their people and thousands of our own attempting to "invent" a country called South Vietnam. Remarkably, in spite of our vastly superior military power, we were unable to do it. Yes, the Vietnamese "got in bed with the devils" to help prevent it, whereupon we declared patriots to be "communists". Before our invasion we ourselves called them nationalists fighting against colonial France. Realistically, faced with the military might of the US, what choice did they have? To accept the loss of half their country because the Western powers wanted to create a puppet state within it?

Israel is somewhat different, in that the Jews are there because they want to be, but the fact is that the British never had any legitimate claim to that area, and had their "reasons" for wanting to create a state that would be their bastion of hegemony in the Middle East and guarantee their access to India, which at the time (1922) was a part of their colonial empire. British colonialism actually led to Israeli colonialism.

The right to self-determination is inherent in the American political system. We have come to recognize that the success of our Republic depends upon it and we staunchly defend and promote the idea. Regrettably, we do not practice the idea outside of our own country. Here at home this valid concept is de riguer. Abroad, our foreign policy follows the protocol that WE are somehow more suited to determine for others how they should live. We use our economic and military power to impose our ideas on others, against their will, in defense of what we call our "interests". I can't subscribe to that when we do. You can well imagine I have no support for the adventures of the so-called British Empire.

We inherited this idea of empire from our European ancestors who did it for centuries all over the world. We don't call it by the same name, but the end result is little different. The Europeans were hated by the peoples they "colonized" and eventually lost their power. The pursuit of the same goals, whether by economic power or military force, may well cause similar demise of the "American Empire". I would sooner see us use our money and power for the betterment of mankind, than for the exploitation of the weak.

While we don't as a rule physically occupy and colonize other countries any longer, we have merely shifted our method to the equivalent of economic colonization in the process of which we actively support numerous dictatorial states/regimes with vast amounts of military aid, that they may do our bidding, whenever it suits our economic or political purpose. If we come to be as hated as the British, is it any surprise?

I guess I'm one of those "liberals" who wants to dig wells for people that need water, provide doctors and medicine for the sick, build schools to educate children and show hungry people how to grow their own food, rather than sending them corn in time of famine. I don't want to supply helicopter gunships to maintain dictatorships, simply because their corrupt leaders support us in the UN, allow us to exploit their natural resources or call themselves our allies when we wish to make "war for gold" on those who don't. If I knew how to do this, I might briefly become President but I undoubtedly wouldn't last for more than one term.



Continue to part 2

 

[surplus1]

Part 2 of 3 - TWA Dude

Consider this. Is our current takeover in Afghanistan motivated exclusively by our desire to rout the terrorists that attacked us? Or is it possible that we use that opportunity to achieve long sought goals of which most Americans are blindly unaware? I'm not certain, but I am extremely suspicious. We shall see how long it takes to build that pipeline across Afghanistan that gives us access to the black gold in the north.

Is our desire to take-out the despot that currently rules Iraq truly motivated by the fear that his "weapons of mass destruction" will ultimately destroy the United States? Strangely, we did not develop a "plan" to remove Nikita Kruschev by force, notwithstanding that the Soviet Union was indeed a very real threat to our national security. Neither did we take-out Saddam when we had the chance and were already at war with him. Please don't tell me that we fought that war for the freedom of Kuwait.

Many other nations over time have been viewed for a variety of reasons as a "threat to the United States". We have not in the past bombed their countries or assassinated their leaders or even threatened to do so. Why now are we brandishing our military power against this particular enemy? Is it because we are the "world's only super power" and we can?

These aren't "popular" questions and I know that. I'll soon be branded as a left wing liberal. Popular or not, these questions need to be asked and our government needs to provide answers to the American people before we launch a war on another country that has not attacked us. To date, the administration of Mr. Bush has not answered this citizen's questions. Has he answered yours? In my humble opinion, the American people have or should have outgrown the idea of "My country, right or wrong." I don't see myself as the political tool of a small group of oil barons and do not want the people of my country to become such a tool. I especially don't want to go to war because Bush, Cheney and Rice, think it’s a good idea. I'd rather devote my energies to restoring the Pledge of Allegiance, prayer in our schools, life for the unborn and the popularity of apple pie.

If this nation is to remain the great nation that it has become, we cannot ignore the principles that got us here. We must practice what we preach. Not when it is convenient, but all of the time. Perhaps that is simplistic, but I actually believe that "all men are created equal". That tenet is not limited to "men" that live or were born in the United States. It even includes Arabs, provided they don't hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings in our country. Those criminals ought to be apprehended along with their co-conspirators and punished for their crimes, but war on Iraq doesn't seem to fit that criterion.

Applying all of that altruism to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not easy, but if the United States is to mediate this dispute successfully, it may not choose sides. I fear that our government has, despite its denials. We must be unbiased and impartial or we will fail. We cannot dictate a settlement nor can we facilitate a settlement if we clearly favor one side of the conflict over the other. A broker of peace that is prejudiced will not achieve peace.

If the objective is in fact peace, both the Jews and the Arabs must make concessions. Neither one can have it his way in the entirety. The Jews cannot unilaterally determine what part of the territory is "theirs" by virtue of their "sacred right" or the opinions of Sharon. The Palestinians can't have all the land and remove Israel by any decree from Allah or Arafat either. Each of the two must have a "country" that he can call his own and they must agree as to where it will be. There is no other way to settle this.

The truth is that neither the Jewish "God" nor the Islamic "Allah" has decreed anything about who owns or should own any piece of land in the Middle East. This disaster is totally man made. Neither God nor Allah is going to appear from wherever He may be to settle this dispute. Man created it and man must resolve it.

"Jews came and took, by means of uprooting and expulsion, a land that was Arab. We wanted to be a colonialist occupier, and yet to come across as moral at the same time." - Israeli historian Ilan Pappe (a Jew).

One group deciding that Arafat is a terrorist and another deciding that Sharon is a butcher will not achieve peace. Both may be right or both may be wrong or, one may be right and the other wrong. It really makes no difference. The accusations will not achieve a solution and should be abandoned. The fact that WE like the way Sharon was chosen and don't like the way Arafat was chosen does not mean that Arafat is not the accepted leader of the Palestinian people.

You and others have claimed that Mr. Arafat should have accepted the offer of settlement made by Barak at Camp David. Well based on what I know about that "offer" and the history of this whole debacle, I probably would not have accepted either had I been the leader of the Palestinian peoples. Just look at the history of the Israelis and what they have done since they began the immigration to Palestine after the Balfour declaration and particularly after the creation of the Israeli State in 1948.

For twenty years, the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza protested peacefully against Israeli rule. During this latent period the only "terrorism" against Israel came from militants in Jordan and Lebanon. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat signed an agreement with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in 1979. That agreement called for Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza.. Interestingly, Israel never kept that part of the agreement. Instead, Prime Minister Begin chose to embark on a program of increasing Jewish settlements on Palestinian land in the occupied territories.

Then came the now infamous Oslo Accords. In this "agreement", accepted by Arafat and the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian people, the Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist on 78% of historic Palestine. That's 23% more than the U. N. gave Israel. Ariel Sharon, current Prime Minister of Israel, denounced the agreement from its inception and Israel has never complied with it.

The so-called "visionary peace maker", Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, increased settlements more than any other Israeli prime minister. This is the same man that made the "offer at Camp David" that so many declare Arafat should have accepted. What no one seems to remember or repeat in public, is that this Israeli proposal called for 80% of the Jewish settlers remain in Palestinian territory. Mr. Barak insisted on this provision at Camp David and Arafat refused.

Given Israel's frequent reneging on agreements and continued settlement of Palestinian lands, backed by its military power, I am reminded of the dozens of treaties signed with the American Indians, all of which were broken. As I recall, the ultimately rebelled and fought to the bitter end. The Israelis appear bent on removing the Palestinians from Palestine, one way or another. Once cleansed, the Jewish state will have no more Arabs to deal with, at least no Arabs that call themselves Palestinians.

"The current Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is the second longest military occupation in modern times (second only to Japan's occupation of Korea) and it has meant that three generations of Palestinians have been raised under Israeli military rule. The Israeli annexation of large parts of the occupied territories and the systematic expansion of settlements are war crimes under the fourth Geneva Convention. Israel has had thirty-four years to give Palestinians their rights, to allow them participation in the democratic process, to improve their miserable conditions." - M. Bydon - DFP (emphasis supplied).

It is argued that Arafat must "stop the terrorists". Just how is Arafat supposed to do that? Maybe he doesn't want to, but if he did, just how would he do it? Does he really have a magic wand that he can wave at will? The answer is NO and everyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that. Arafat alone does not have the power to do that and neither will any "replacement". Especially one "acceptable" to Sharon.

Likewise, Mr. Sharon's, helicopter assaults, tank blasts, F-16 bomb drops and bulldozer demolitions, individually or collectively, no matter how long they are carried out, are not going to stop the suicide bombings. Nothing short of a negotiated settlement that the peoples (not just the leaders) of both sides truly accept will do that.

Israel has the military power to occupy all of Palestine at any time and to keep it occupied for however long it wants to. No country in the region can dislodge the Israelis militarily. At least not as long as Israel enjoys unlimited military and financial support from the United States. They've already tried repeatedly and failed.. Now, will that stop the "terrorist" attacks? NO, it will not.

These people are fighting for what they see as their freedom (both sides). The fact that WE find their strategy disgusting and contrary to OUR beliefs is truly irrelevant. They will use whatever means they have at their disposal, whether or not we approve or think that one method of killing is more "civilized" than another. Once the enemy is dead, does it really matter if he was killed by a suicide bomber or a rocket fired by a helicopter? It sure doesn't matter to the dead person, whether he/she is a civilian, a soldier, a man, a woman, an adult, a child, a Jew or an Arab. How does the life of an Arab child become less valuable than the life of a Jewish child?

Please go to Part 3