Why Bush's Israeli Policy Won't Work





Ms. Klinghoffer is senior associate scholar at the Political Science department at Rutgers University, Camden, and the author of Vietnam, Jews and the Middle East.

"Israel should freeze settlement construction, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people and not prejudice final negotiations with the placement of walls and fences," President Bush said in his otherwise defiant speech in Whitehall. With this sentence George W. Bush reassured his audience that American presidents may come and go but the competition to appease the Arabs with Israeli currency remains in tact. Bush speaking at a recent event in LondonDuring the Cold War the main competitors were the US and the USSR. Today they are the US and the EU and a media which has come to view itself as the “second superpower.” This means that rather than improve her strategic position, Israeli concessions merely invite demands for additional concessions. The US tries to pacify the Arabs by blocking Israeli efforts to improve her strategic position and that leads her competitors to advocate steps which would worsen it. It was the failure to understand this dynamic which led Prime Minister Barak to try to improve Israeli world standing by exiting Lebanon and offering a generous settlement to the Palestinians. His gestures resulted in a bloody Intifada and a startling new wave of Arab and European anti-Semitism.

This was not the first time that Israeli attempts to achieve some peace and quite were rebuffed. A short examination of the Kennedy administration’s policy towards Israel is most instructive since in 1960 Israel had no settlements, territories, outpost or checkpoints. It was simply a small socialist state created by the UN whose neighbors had refused to accept that decision and openly threatened to annihilate her the moment they acquired the capacity to do so. They were led by the fiery Gammal Abd’l Nasser who was emboldened by the joint American-Soviet determination to save him from the strategic consequence of his mistakes during the 1956 Suez War. Suez not only undermined Washington’s relations with its principle allies but radicalized the Middle East. The Iraqi monarchy was overthrown and Lebanon and Jordan teetered. Eisenhower ended up having to send troops to Lebanon in 1958. His Middle East policy was in shambles.

If Eisenhower’s bitter Middle Eastern experience did not suffice to get John Kennedy to alter the American Middle East policy, his party affiliation should have. Kennedy was a Democrat with a significant Jewish constituency. The Democratic Middle Eastern plank called for peace talks, an end to the (illegal) Arab economic boycott of Israel, “independence for all states” (including Israel), unrestricted use of the Suez Canal by all nations (the restrictions were illegal under international law and Israel was permitted to use them in the early fifties) and “resettlement of the Arab refugees in lands where there is room and opportunity for them (i.e., not in Israel).” It should be noted that millions of refugees in both Europe and Asia were settled in new lands after W.W. II. The Arab insistence of the repatriation of the Palestinian refugees in Israel proper (the West Bank was under Jordanian control and Gaza under Egyptian control) was extraordinary especially in light of the large number of refugees from Arab lands Israel was busy settling. Still, Israel was open to negotiation on that matter provided it is done in the context of peace negotiations which would necessarily include Arab recognition of its right to exist. The appeasers demanded that Israel repatriate the refugees simply as a gesture of good will.

Before he could make a credible run for president, Kennedy felt the need to reassure an important democratic constituency that was nervous about his father’s dubious pre-W.W.II. record of Nazi appeasement. So, he met with a group of Jewish leaders and upon hearing their concern about Israel’s wish for progress toward peace, he issued a statement promising “to waste no time” before using his authority “to call into conference the leaders of Israel and the Arab states to consider privately their common problems.” In a speech to the American Zionist Congress he even promised to convene a regional peace conference, and move toward mutually beneficial economic development. “The Middle East needs water, not war; tractors, not tanks – bread, not bombs”. Israel was cautiously delighted but, then as now, the Arab leadership considered any inclusion of Israel in the Middle East to be hate speech. Then, as now, economic development was the last priority of Arab tyrants.

“Time will judge between us and Mr. Kennedy,” wrote the Egyptian paper Al Jumhuriyya. But to Gammal Abd’l Nasser’s delight, soon after taking office, Kennedy immediately sent him a flattering personal letter. Nasser responded by asking the American president to set aside his campaign promises and put the Arab-Israeli conflict “in the refrigerator.” Nasser’s dream was to unite the Arab world under his leadership and having Israel as an enemy was useful for his purpose. In any case, despite the generous inflow of Soviet arms, his army was not yet ready. For Israel, this meant an unwanted, expensive arms race.

Kennedy immediately acquiesced. “Early in the Kennedy administration,” writes Dean Rusk, “the President and I decided we should not go into the region with some sort of an American ‘peace plan’ and try to sell it to both sides.” But Nasser wanted and got more. In December 1961 a group of African countries sponsored a UN resolution calling for direct peace talks between Arab states and Israel under UN auspices. It was called the Brazzaville resolution. The US not only failed to support the resolution but demanded that ISRAEL help undermine it. David Ben Gurion (whom Kennedy met in New York instead of Washington to spare Arab feelings) insisted that the UN should hear it. Myer Feldman succeeded in receiving from Golda Meir “a firm, secret commitment” not to push the resolution. Who was Myer Feldman? He was Kennedy’s Jewish liaison, the man Kennedy used to reassure American Jews that he was looking out for Israel while pressuring Israel do accede to American policy needs including cutting a deal to repatriate Arab refugees without Arab acceptance of Israel’s right to exist. Oh, yes. The United States was busy trying to sell an American plan to both sides; it was only the “peace plan” that was put “on ice.” What did Myer Feldman get for Israel? Defensive Hawk missiles. It was to be to be the beginning of a tradition. Israel could count on the US to provide her with the arms to defend herself if not to achieve peace.

What did Kennedy get for this betrayal of his promises and ideals? Not a thing. On July 10, 1961 Kennedy sent a note to Bundy demanding to know whose idea it was for him to send letters to the Middle Eastern Arab leaders. “The reaction was so sour I would like to know whose idea it was, what they hoped to accomplish and what they think we have now accomplished”. It prevented us from looking “hopelessly pro-Israel” was Dean Rusk’s answer. Perhaps so, but the result of the appeasement was increased Egyptian adventurism. Nasser sent troops to Yemen to help the revolutionary side and plotted to overthrow the Saudi monarchy. In 1963 it was Kennedy’s turn to send troops to the Middle East. This time it was called “operation Hard Surface” and its purpose was to protect the Saudi regime from Nasser. The mission was kept secret from the American people but not from the Arab people. The Egyptian media focused attention on the “entry of Jewish American soldiers” also known as the “enemies of God” into Islam’s holy land. This, like all other Egyptian anti-American vitriol, was ignored. Yes, Osama Bin Laden had a predecessor.

Aid to Egypt continued flowing and Kennedy never broke his promise to keep the Arab – Israeli conflict “in the refrigerator.”

The only difference between Bush’s demand that Israel not “prejudice” peace and Kennedy’s demand that it agree to keep the conflict “on ice” is in the word peace. The first president to use the word peace was Lyndon Johnson after the 1967 war. Kennedy told the Zionists of America that only “time will tell whether Israel will continue to exist.” But Johnson, too, insisted that Israel not “prejudice” the peace by creating a Palestinian entity in the West Bank and Gaza. During the 1973 war Israel was not permitted to “prejudice” the peace by withdrawing to the Sinai passes. Any Israeli attempt to change the status quo meets impeccable American opposition. The result is continued conflict and increased resentment of the people who suffer from the conflict. George W. Bush seems finally ready to end the American support for Middle Eastern tyrants. Isn’t it time he also end the failed freeze policy? After all, nothing will motivate the Palestinians to cut a peace deal with Israel more than the fear that the fence will end up representing the final borders between Israel and Palestine.


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Garry Perkins - 12/1/2003

If Jews are the reason for global terrorism, then the solution to ending global terrorism would be to get rid of the Jews.

This sounds familiar.


C.R.W. - 12/1/2003



Predicated entirely on whether or not it will meet the approval of Osama bin Laden?!?!?!?!?!?!

Who the hell thinks up this sort of crap?


David - 12/1/2003


Sharon’s aggression against the Palestinians is far more than has been the case in the past. He acts with Bush’s permission.

Wait, all I hear these days is how Bush is a puppet of Sharon, and of "the joooos", and "the zionists." PLEASE, make up your mind. Who's the REAL puppet?????

The Arab world is well aware that Israel’s economy depends on an ongoing injection of US aid.

I wouldn't take what the Arab world is "aware" of too seriously if I were you.

The Arab world is aware of many such fantasies, including the belief that Egypt defeated Israel in the Yom Kippur war, fantasies like the Elders of the Protocols of Zion, fantasies like the belief that Joooos were remotely controlling those airliners on 9/11, etc. etc.

But in response to the general thesis of your post, who cares what Al-Qaeda thinks about U.S. foreign policy. It's a non-issue.


David - 12/1/2003


Pack your bags and go to your war criminal heroes in their miserable desert already.

When you finally get the balls to blow up some jewish children in a yellow colored school bus, instead of simply justifying it when your arab buddies do it, then I'll settle down in a nice little villa overlooking the Dead Sea. Is that a deal?

You don't need to be Jewish, "David", to fight and die for ugly concrete settlements on the West Bank, which is not part of Israel according to any major atlas published in the United States of America.

Ugly? Some people call that home. Of course, the atlases published by your arab buddies don't even show a country called Israel, so there you go. It's all just "Palestine", from the Jordan to the sea.


Goliath - 11/30/2003


You don't need to be Jewish, "David", to fight and die for ugly concrete settlements on the West Bank, which is not part of Israel according to any major atlas published in the United States of America. Pack your bags and go to your war criminal heroes in their miserable desert already.


C.R.W. - 11/30/2003


Great excerpt from Mark Steyn on the never-ending apparition of the perpetual Jewish conspiracy.



What to talk about? All-purpose answer: Jews. It always is. According to an EU poll last week, 59% of Europeans think Israel is the biggest threat to world peace. If that 59% sounds kinda low, don’t forget it’s an average. 69% of Austrians and 74% of the Dutch think Israel is the world’s greatest menace. Not bad for a country that at its narrowest point is barely wider than my rural township in New Hampshire. The Europeans are only a step away from that substantial chunk of the Arab world which manages simultaneously to rejoice in the slaughter of 9/11 and blame the Jews for it. Now that increased vigilance by America, Britain and others has made it harder for terrorists to gain access to their most sought-after targets and al-Qaeda has been reduced to massacring fellow Muslims in Saudi Arabia, it’s surely only a matter of time before that, too, is pinned on the Jews.

Which brings us to Dr Mahathir. He’d knocked out a no-punches-pulled tell-it-like-is analysis of the Muslim world’s comprehensive failure on every front – military, scientific, commercial, etc. But, aware that playing the Islamic summit circuit is like playing the Catskills, he knew he had to sing a few old favourites to keep the crowd on side. So he blamed the aforementioned Islamic failures on those sinister Jews. “The Jews rule this world by proxy… They survived 2000 years of pogroms not by hitting back, but by thinking. They invented and successfully promoted Socialism, Communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries and they, this tiny community, have become a world power.”

That’s the great thing about the International Jewish Conspiracy: no Jews need be involved. One day, there will be only one Jew left on the whole planet. He’ll be a Dean supporter who mangled his chad and accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan. But he’ll still be controlling the Bush Administration. He’ll be a non-observant, self-loathing Jew who doesn’t find Jackie Mason funny. He’ll be the principal fundraiser for Islamic Jihad. But everything will still be his fault.

That’s how devious they are. “We cannot fight them through brawn alone,” Dr Mahathir told his audience. “We must use our brains also.” In fact, Dr Mahathir’s comrades don’t use “brawn” either, unless by “brawn” you mean a West Bank schoolgirl with a Tel Aviv bus ticket.


Steve Brody - 11/30/2003


“Bush's statement to America that his Administration had done nothing to provoke Sept 11 was a lie -- and that's the main point you keep ducking.”

Don, the issue that you keep ducking is that you had to ALTER Bush’s quote in order to arrive at your tortured conclusion that he lied. YOU changed Bush’s quote and then point to the alteration YOU made and call it a lie.

Objective people would read Bush’s UNADULTERATED words and conclude that he was speaking for America when he said, “ We did nothing to deserve this”. A sentiment the vast majority of America agrees with.

I can’t make it any plainer than that.

Besides, you've not come close to making a case that 9/11 had anything to do with anything Bush did.

Furthermore, when you get into the whole area of “deserve” you’re dealing with opinion. Bush (and the vast majority of Americans) believes we didn’t “deserve” 9/11. Since you continue to insist that it was a lie to say we didn’t “deserve” 9/11, you obviously believe we did “deserve” it. I disagree. That doesn’t make me a liar.

If you want to believe we "deserved it", that's your right, but don't call people who don't, "liars".

“As I showed, in several 1998 interviews with US TV networks, Bin Ladin repeatedly cited US government support of Israeli aggression as one of three reasons for Jihad.”

Don, this may come as a shock to you. Mass murderers often lie about their motives. UBL provided no significant support to the Palestinians until recently. I believe his actions, or more precisely his inaction, speaks louder than his words. If he really supported the Palestinians, he would have done something about it before now. What is clear is that UBL is recruiting. He knows that clinging to the Israel-Palistinian situation, like a parasite, will serve his recruiting aims and enhance his stature.

Incidentally, Don, when Al Qaeda kills innocent Philippinos, Australians and Indonesians, does it do so to protest the support that those countries give to Israel? Is that what their threat to assassinate the Philippine President was in response to? All the support that the Philippines gives to Israel?

“It's true that the Clinton administration continued to give Israel $Billions in aid and sold Israel the first installment of F16s.”

At last, the truth. You’re right, Clinton and every other US President has supported Israel, and with the overwhelming support of the American people. But in your model of the Universe, it is Bush, who was in office for less than eight months, who “provoked” 9/11.

Don, this is more evidence of this pathological need to blame Bush for 9/11. The reality is that the people responsible for 9/11 go by the name Al Qaeda. And you’re right about one other thing. A “ shit storm” has descended on them and it was about time.

“But Clinton also pressured Israel to make peace with the Palestinians.”

Clinton did broker a peace deal. Ehud Barak offered Arafat 95% of the West Bank, all of Gaza. All the isolated settlements out and land from Israel as compensation for the contiguous settlements. Arafat turned the deal down and Clinton blamed Arafat for the breakdown. That happened in July, 2000. Sharon’s visit to the Temple mount had nothing to do with Arafat’s refusal on the peace agreement, because it occurred two months after Arafat walked out on the talks.

“Bush, however, made several major changes after taking office:
a) He told American citizens that we had no obligation to aid the Palestinians.”

First, Don, I would like to know your authority for this assertion. As we both know, you have a penchant for altering Bush’s quotes to change the plain meaning of his words. Further, this criticism of Bush is way off the mark. Bush actually is the first President to give aid directly to the Palestinian Authority. So if your point is that Bush was going to end aid to the Palestinians, your 180 degrees off. He increased it.

“ The point behind Sept 11 was that if the US gives Israel massive arms shipments then it will be held responsible for Sharon’s actions.”

You’re evidence for this is weak. Your entire case rests on the unsupported and self-serving statement of a mass murderer.

A much more compelling case can be made that UBL attacked The US because he seeks to make the Middle East a “wahabist paradise” like he helped the Taliban create in Afghanistan. He knows that will never happen unless he can drive us out of the Middle East. He believed that based upon our history of weak response to AQ attacks in the 90’s we would withdraw. He was wrong.

“President Bush and the US supporters of Likud have gone to great lengths to conceal this issue from American citizens –hence, the baffling and unconvincing explanations for why the attack occurred.”

Conceal? Because the NYT failed to print your theories? Come on, Don. Your theories are so full of holes it would be surprising if the Times had printed them. What’s more likely, Don; a “Jewish conspiracy” exists to silence and conceal the theories of Don Williams from the American public OR Don William’s theories are weak and unsupported? Listen to yourself, Don.

“ Sharon should have been punished strongly for sabotaging US attempts to make peace.”

It was Arafat that sabotaged the peace efforts and Clinton has said so.

“Sharon’s aggression against the Palestinians is far more than has been the case in the past.”

Nonsense. Sharon’s actions have been in response to unprecedented Palestinian homicide bombing and the murder of hundreds of Israeli’s.

“Bush has shown that he will willing sacrifice Palestinians for the sake of Likudite campaign donations ---especially if doing so will weaken the Democrats and allow the Republicans to stay in power.”

More unsupported anti-Bush rhetoric. And the NYT’s wouldn’t print it? Amazing.

“It’s true that Al Qaeda had made initial preparations for a Sept 11 type strike prior to Bush taking office… But there is a big difference between developing a capability versus using it.”

Don, if you believe that UBL wouldn’t have carried through with the 9/11 attacks if Bush had cancelled the Clinton F-16 sale, come right out in say it. If that is your position, I think that is a preposterous assumption on your part. I challenge you to provide any evidence to support it.

“A more indepth look at the systematic deception of America is presented here by Professor…”

I read it. Even less impressive than your own analysis. And you know how I feel about your analysis.


dave 3 - 11/30/2003

Don also thinks Jews own and dictate the media, use their money to control the government, and are uniquely responsible for the problems of the United States. In this his views are remarkably similar to David Duke.

But he isn't anti-Semitic...just anti-Zionist.


Radical Equivocator - 11/30/2003

Assuming your loyalty is to the U.S.


Steve BRody - 11/30/2003


You know, Richard, you and Sally are both fond of telling people that don't agree with your uninformed analysis to " move to the West Bank".

Why don't you knock that off. It just makes you look puerile and silly.


Cram - 11/30/2003

Don,
Although this poast was addressing Brody, I thought I would respond to your response to him.

1) Bush "told American citizens that we had no obligation to aid the Palestinians. What was deceitful about his position was that he deliberately ignored the fact that the US government had made Israel into the Middle East’s major military power."

How was this decietful? America is under no obligation to see that the enemy of our ally is as well armed as our ally.

2) "The point behind Sept 11 was that if the US gives Israel massive arms shipments then it will be held responsible for Sharon’s actions."

I think others on this site have conclusively demonstrated that Bin Laden's decision to attack America had little to do with the sale and to the extent that it played a role at all, it was only a minor one.

3) "Sharon should have been punished strongly for sabotaging US attempts to make peace."

And how did he do that exactly? It was Barak who negociated peace with Arafat and Arafat who walked out of the negociations and began planning the 2nd intefadah. What did Sharon have to do with that (and don't give the "temple mount" excuse, since it has been shown that the intifadah was planned well before that).

4) Sharon "acts with Bush’s permission."

What a foolish thing to say of a sovereign leader. Sharon takes Bush's suggestions and tried not to anger the US, but o say that he specifically asks permission before taking any kind of action is absurd.

5) "the plan for September 11 was not completed until July 2001... This was after Bush approved the F16 sale."

This proves nothing. The plan was STARTED before, the fact that it ended with the sale means little.

6) "I emailed the New York Times at that time with much the same information as I’ve presented here and they ignored it –so I assume their deception of America is deliberate."

If I may present an alternative hypothesis, the NYTimes may have thought as I do, that your theory lacks any real substance but is merely a way to try and indirectly blame Israel for 9/11.

As for your article on Israel and 9/11, The author is Professor of Sociology, not Political Science or International Relations. Like Noam Chomsky, his area os tudy is completely unrelated to the Middle East and is no more qualified to speak on the subject than any college professor. I could list several who believe the opposite.


David - 11/30/2003


If so, you may have noticed that Sharon's wall is NOT on Israel's border but well outside it.

First, the issue of your so-called "border." My dear man, where is "Israel's border"? Can you find it?

There is no established border, and your ignorance of this simple fact explains your unfaltering apoplexy. The entire purpose of the peace plans over the years has been for the purpose of establishing a border. duh.

Have you ever heard of the term "Green Line"? Probably not. That is not a border, but a cease fire line since Israel's War of Independence. The palestinians have never recognized that line as a "border" (nor any other Arab states) because they don't even recognize Israel as a state. And neither has Israel called it a "border", nor does any U.N. resolution (not even Res. 242). So what gives you the impression that Israel is obligated by that line?

And let's not forget that both the Green Line and the current borders encapsulating the west bank and Gaza were established in Israel's defensive wars against invading Arab armies, and are therefore spoils of those wars. Did they think they could launch such invasions without a risk of loss?

Second, your wall. I've seen two maps of the wall, one by Reuters and one by a palestinian source. They couldn't have been more different. Obviously, one of them was fraudulent. Obviously, we know which one you've been looking at.

The wall does NOT exactly follow the Green Line, you're correct. But generally it does. In those parts, it juts into the west bank to include established Jewish communities. If the palestinians chose to walk out of Oslo, did they think they could do so without a risk?

But speaking of Oslo, the proposed boundaries would NOT have followed the Green Line either. Although generally they would have. So what's the controversy? None.

The real controversy is the wall itself, not it's boundary. It is controversial because of the fact that it ensures a two-state solution, something the Arabs do NOT want. They would prefer to wear Israel down in a war of attrition, break Israel's will, and force them to dissolve the Jewish state and agree to a binational state. THAT'S why the wall is controversial. The wall ensures a two-state solution.

Putting "aggression" in quotes to pretend that Sally used that term in her comment does not make your deliberate misattribution less bogus.

Now to your other silly comments. I have not "misattributed" Sally's comments. Sally said "Bombing Palestinian refugee camps" by Israelis. Does that qualify as "agression"? Of course it does.

Any more "missatributions" on my part you wish to "expose"?

Have you now finally relocated to the West Bank where you belong, Likudnik David ?

I'm American, and not even a jew. Were you of the opinion that only jewish "likudniks" support Israel? You need to get out more, too much Indymedia for you.

Now, like the terror symp that you are, run along now. There must be an egged bus full of Israeli children that requires your attention.


Don Williams - 11/30/2003

nt


Don Williams - 11/30/2003

To address Brody's points:

1) Brody states: "Don, as much as this obviously tortures you, Bush is the President of the US and
as such speaks for the people of the US. "
To ..er.. paraphrase Newt Gingrich, your President is not all that important to me. Bush's statement to America that his Administration had done nothing to provoke Sept 11 was a lie -- and that's the main point you keep ducking.

2) As I showed, in several 1998 interviews with US TV networks, Bin Ladin repeatedly cited US government support of Israeli aggression as one of three reasons for Jihad. It's true that the Clinton administration continued to give Israel $Billions in aid and sold Israel the first installment of F16s. But Clinton also pressured Israel to make peace with the Palestinians.

Bush, however, made several major changes after taking office:
a) He told American citizens that we had no obligation to aid the Palestinians. What was deceitful about his position was that he deliberately ignored the fact that the US government had made Israel into the Middle East’s major military power -- via $91 Billion in aid, military protection, UN vetos, and major Arms transfers including the largest collection of F16 fighters outside of the US Air Force. The point behind Sept 11 was that if the US gives Israel massive arms shipments then it will be held responsible for Sharon’s actions. President Bush and the US supporters of Likud have gone to great lengths to conceal this issue from American citizens –hence, the baffling and unconvincing explanations for why the attack occurred.
b) Sharon should have been punished strongly for sabotaging US attempts to make peace. Instead, Bush went out of his way to curry favor with Sharon. Thus emboldened, Sharon began attacking the Palestinians with F16s—something that had not been done before.
c) Bush then squashed the State Department’s protest and sold Sharon 52 more F16s in June 2001. The Arab world is well aware that Israel’s economy depends on an ongoing injection of US aid – and that any US President could halt Sharon’s aggression instantly.
Bottom line: Sharon’s aggression against the Palestinians is far more than has been the case in the past.
He acts with Bush’s permission. Bush has shown that he will willing sacrifice Palestinians for the sake of
Likudite campaign donations ---especially if doing so will weaken the Democrats and allow the Republicans to stay in power.

3) It’s true that Al Qaeda had made initial preparations for a Sept 11 type strike prior to Bush taking office.
The mastermind of Sept 11 , Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, in fact had planned as early as 1996 to blow up several US airliners over the Pacific –but that plot was foiledwhen a fire broke out in Mohammed’s apartment (probably due to bombmaking materials) and authorities discovered his laptop computer.

Interesting enough, Mohammed’s computer contained a letter in which he justified the 1995 attack plan as being “"in response to the financial, political and military assistance given to the Jewish state in the occupied land of Palestine by the American government."
See http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/03/01/pakistan.arrests/ .


4) But there is a big difference between developing a capability versus using it. There’s a big difference between trying to influence the US government via pinprick attacks abroad versus launching an attack on the US homeland certain to trigger a devastating response. According to this article, the the interrogations of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his associate indicated that the plan for September 11 was not completed until July 2001. See http://uk.news.yahoo.com/031026/325/ec6po.html . This was after Bush approved the F16 sale.

5) As I’ve noted, Bin Ladin cited US support for Israel as a reason for Jihad as early as 1998. So why did the New York Times put out an article in September 23, 2001 claiming US support for Israel was not
a motivation? See Serge Schmemann’s “Israel as Flashpoint, not Cause” at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40E1FFD3D5E0C708EDDA00894D9404482
By the way, I emailed the New York Times at that time with much the same information as I’ve presented here and they ignored it –so I assume their deception of America is deliberate. I recall Bill Kristol
(neocon editor of Weekly Standard) and Tom Friedman of the New York Times going on “This Week”
(NBC Sunday Morning talk show) and attacking people who raised the same concern.

A more indepth look at the systematic deception of America is presented here by Professor
Said Amir Arjomand of State University of New York at Stony Brook:
http://www.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/arjomand_text_only.htm


Richard Kurdlion - 11/30/2003


While I agree with the thrust of your many points, you make some sloppy assumptions about the Bush administration's motives (e.g re "Christian Right").

Policy consistency is hardly a hallmark of this presidency.
If it were, they would not be "doing nation building", would be heavily focused on Star Wars defense systems, and would be ignoring the Mideast (as was the case when they took office), instead, i.e., of stumbling all over themselves in their inept and failed attempts to get real "movement" on their "road map".

I do not defend Williams’s muddled neo-conspiracy theorizing and blanket generalizations, but he is basically on target in labeling Klinghoffer's pitiful Likud propaganda (an incessant feature at HNN) a "crock". And the purpose of her propaganda is not to remind extreme religious conservatives that the Democratic Party is not their party.


Richard Kurdlion - 11/30/2003


Have you now finally relocated to the West Bank where you belong, Likudnik David ?

If so, you may have noticed that Sharon's wall is NOT on Israel's border but well outside it. Find and cite a map, if you can, where the border between Israel and the West Bank coincides with Sharon's wall, or find a less ridiculous pro-Sharon lie, please.

Putting "aggression" in quotes to pretend that Sally used that term in her comment does not make your deliberate misattribution less bogus.


dave 3 - 11/30/2003

"I think Sept 11 was motivated by several events occurring over the past decades but I think the straw that broke the camel's back -- that triggered the execute command even in the face of devastating US response -- was the June 2001 sale."

Then you better ignore the following. (Unless the Jew run AP is simply spreading pro-Jew propaganda.)


9/11 Leader Says Plot Began in 1996
(AP) - Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, told U.S. officials the plot was five years in the making and that a wave of suicide attacks was supposed to follow, say interrogation reports reviewed by The Associated Press. Mohammed said the plan, first developed in 1996, called for hijacking five planes on each American coast, but was changed several times as al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden sought to improve the chances that the attacks could be pulled off simultaneously.


David - 11/30/2003


"The Arabs seem basically to want the US to leave the Middle East alone."

They do? Which ones? Baathists? Al-Quaida? Hamas? Hizbollah? How about the Taliban and Iran? They're not arabs, but they too want us out of the middle east. Are these the people you claim to speak for? If so, then you are indeed a terror whore, and we have probable cause on you as far as I'm concerned.

"Sharon/Likud", blah blah blah, F-16s, blah, blah blah, 3 billion to Israel, blah blah blah."

Well, given your expressed sympathies (see my comments above), it doesn't surprise me that "Sharon" is upsetting to you, and that Israel is well armed. That it causes you, and your fellow travelling sponsors of terror, to seethe this way must mean we're doing something right.


C.R.W. - 11/29/2003

Cram's right. Donnie boy would never think to ask to withdraw U.S. financial support of the Egyptian autocracy or become independent of the oil supplied by the Saudi theocracy, two of the Arab states most complicit in fomenting radical Islamic fundamentalism and hatred of the West and the Jews. Apart from that whole economic assistance and trade thing, the jihadist sentiment is one aspect about which they'd like to be left "alone." I guess Don thinks they're justified in wanting it both ways.

On the other hand, Israel is one of three countries to consistently repay its loans from the U.S. on time, and gives its Arab citizens more political rights than they would have in any other Arab country.

I can only conclude that Don thinks that indigenous government repression of Arabs and incitement of a life devoid of anything other than a love of killing Westerners is what's in the best interests of America.


Prometheus - 11/29/2003

I bet Arafat is just as enthusiastic as you about being alienated by the U.S. - NOT

LOL!


Cram - 11/29/2003

Don,
You say :
"I find it curious that Bush supporters duck and evade the clear statements by Bin Ladin that I presented here and drag in
ignorant bystanders to explain Bin Ladin's motivations."

First, what makes you think I am a Bush supporter?
Second, your case is that our aid to Israel caused 9/11, and your evidence is that Bin Laden used it as one of three reasons he committed 9/11.

My argument (and others) is that Bin Laden was simply using the Palestinian cause to garner support but that it played no significant role in his hatred towards the US. Yet you dismiss US officials, the leader of the movement whom Bin Laden claimed to be acting for, and one of the most powerful leaders in the Islamic world as being "ignorant bystanders."

Do you not accept the possibility that maybe the world is telling the truth and Bin Laden is lying? Can you not accept the possibility that Bin Laden, being from Saudi Arabia, was mare more concerned with what he constantly spoke out against: troop presense in the holy cities, rather then use 9/11 to blame Israel some something?


Cram - 11/29/2003

1) "The Arabs seem basically to want the US to leave the Middle East alone."

I have never heard any Arab leader ask the US to stop giving THEM money. Have you?

2) "He should not let Bin Ladin dictate our policy , but he --and my critics -- should not be whores for Israel --especially when the cost to the average American in blood and money has been demonstrated."

In fact, what you are suggesting is being whores to terrorists, allowing them to threaten us into changing our foreign policy.


Don Williams - 11/29/2003

Arafat's criticism of Bin Ladin is girlish, spiteful jealousy. Arafat doesn't want to admit that (a) Anyone can aid the Palestinian cause except Arafat (b) that Bin Ladin acts without consulting Arafat (c) that Bin Ladin has made a significant strike against the US --mighty patron of Israel -- while Arafat has been Israel's bitch for decades (c) Arafat doesn't want the shitstorm which hit Al Qaeda to descend upon Palestine --Arafat would disavow his own mother if it was useful or he was cornered

Mubaryk gets $3 billion/year from the US -- he will say whatever Bush tells him to say. It is curious to list him as defining what aids Palestine --given that Egypt is the most powerful Arab military power and Mubaryk abandoned the Palestinians long ago in exchange for the yearly $3 billion bride from the US government

Neither Arafat nor Mubaryk had any connections in Al Qaeda, any consultation or influence with Al Qaeda, or any influence with Al Qaeda. Indeed, Mubaryk may be attacked by Al Qaeda in the future -- certainly the Egyptian members of Al Qaeda want Mubaryk's head.

So I find it curious that Bush supporters duck and evade the clear statements by Bin Ladin that I presented here and drag in
ignorant bystanders to explain Bin Ladin's motivations. Bush and the Likudites did the same in the US news media in the weeks after Sept 11 -- part of their lying attempt to mislead US citizens over what triggered Sept 11.


Don Williams - 11/29/2003

The Arabs seem basically to want the US to leave the Middle East alone. The supporters of Sharon/Likud , by contrast, want us to give Israel $3 billion/year in aid, overlook Israel's construction of 400+ nuclear warheads, give Israel the largest F16 airforce outside the USAF, give Israel Apache helicopters, and drag us into a costly and destructive war with 1 billion Muslims when there is no reason at all for us to do so.

I think the President should act in the best interest of America. He should not let Bin Ladin dictate our policy , but he --and my critics -- should not be whores for Israel --especially when the cost to the average American in blood and money has been demonstrated.


Steve Brody - 11/29/2003


“Bush continually tries to justify his corrupt actions by dragging the American people in as accomplices. But he is entitled to speak only for himself and his underlings. Hence, when he says, "We did nothing to deserve this”, the meaning is that his administration did nothing to provoke the Sept 11 attacks --a claim manifestly false as I have shown.”

Don, as much as this obviously tortures you, Bush is the President of the US and as such speaks for the people of the US. That you had to add your own parenthetical “his administration” to Bush’s remarks shows the lengths that you will go to try and make Bush out to be a liar. What is clear to objective people is that without your dishonest alteration of Bush’s statement, he was speaking for America when he said, “we did nothing to deserve this.”

But in reality, nothing that you’ve posited in any of your posts shows that the 9/11 attacks were in any way related to anything Bush has done. So actually, even with your alteration of Bush’s words, the statement would be true.

Why do I say this?

Don, it is your thesis that the sale of the F16’s in June of 2001 was the cause of the 9/11 attacks because it was the “straw that broke the camels back”, as you put it. And further, because the sale occurred during the Bush Administration, he provoked the 9/11 attacks.

But, Don, this can’t be so. Anyone with even a casual knowledge of the 9/11 attacks knows that the preparations and planning began almost two years before 9/11/2001. In fact, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, first discussed the plan with UBL in 1996. This predates Bush’s candidacy, let alone his Presidency. It is therefore clear that whatever ”provocation” for 9/11 occurred, occurred before Bush took office.

Besides, as David, Cram, and CRW have all pointed out, AQ had been striking at us since at least the early 90’s. If one accepts your position that AQ struck at us because we provoked them by our support of Israel (I don’t), it must have been Clinton’s support of Israel that provoked them.

“Bush apologists here ignore Bin Ladin's point in the Dawn interview:”

Don, I read the interview. NOT ONE WORD ABOUT THE F16’S. ZILCH. NOTHING. NADA. If this was really the “straw that broke the camel’s back”, why has UBL, in all the statements that he has released, never mentioned it? Do you have any evidence to support your contention?

Don, all your evidence really establishes is that whatever” provoked” the 9/11 attacks could not possibly have anything to do with the Bush Administration.

“The FACTS are that Clinton, unlike Bush, was exerting pressure on Israel in 1998 and was making progress in Israel-Palestinian peace talks. See, e.g., the timeline at http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/chron5.htm . This effort was disrupted by the Clintonian scandal and impeachment. Obviously,there is no way to prove that
the Lewinsky affair was orchestrated by supporters of Israel --but it was damn convenient.”

Don, the problem with your evidence for the “disruption of Clinton’s attempts” is that the State Department time line that you cite shows no such disruption and no indication that Israel was being pressured. In fact, what is clear is that during 1998, when the “Monicagate “ scandal was in full bloom, Clinton and Albright were doing more than they had in the prior three years to bring both sides together. Do you have any evidence that Clinton was “exerting pressure on Israel” and that Monicagate disrupted this?

“ Sharon's deliberate insult/provocation triggered Palestinian rioting which Sharon used to get elected. Those who try to misrepresent and excuse his deliberate sabotage of the peace talks -- and Bush's pandering to that behavior -- show merely that their loyalty lies with Israel, not with America. “

Don, the peace talks at Camp David ended July 25, with Arafat turning down a peace deal brokered by Clinton. Clinton publicly blamed Arafat for the failure of the talks. Sharon went to Judaism holiest cite, known to Jews as the Temple Mount on September 28, over two months after the talks had ended. The talks were not at a “tense moment”, because they had ended. Incidentally, by agreement, Sharon and any other Israeli has access to the Temple Mount, which is also a holy cite for Christians. Sharon did not enter any Mosque.

One final note, Don, about the Al Aqsa Intifada: A Palestinian Cabinet official, Communications Minister Imad Falouji, stated “Whoever thinks that this [war] started as a result of Sharon's despicable visit to Al Aksa is in error. It was planned since Arafat's return from Camp David [where he] firmly stood up to Clinton and rejected the U.S. terms”, 03/03/2001, as quoted by the Associated Press.

“ Did we see Arafat stalking through Israeli synagogues with several hundred followers carrying AK47s?”

No. The Palestinians saved that sacrilege for Christianity’s most holy cite, the Church of the Nativity when 200 Palestinian gunmen invaded the Church. I don’t remember any Christians rioting, though.

“It is obvious claptrap that 14? men would give their lives in a suicidal attack "because they hate our freedom".

Don, that’s just shorthand for a point made by Cram: They hate everyone’s freedom. UBL is a Wahabist. His vision for the Middle East is as Taliban controlled Afghanistan. Where women can expect a bullet or a beating if they are caught reading. Where women will be murdered if they go out without their burkas. He attacked us because we stand in the way of that vision.

"Bin Ladin only took up the Palestinian issue very recently" was one of the lies put out by the Jewish-owned New York Times and the White House.”

Don, you can put a new dress on it. You can put a fresh coat of paint on it. But it’s still the same old lament: “the Jews control the media”. It didn’t wash then and it doesn’t wash now.

Allow me to offer an alternative reason why the media doesn’t print your theories: They’re really not very well thought out and they’re really not very well supported. And telling people to "kiss your ass" isn’t going to change that.


C.R.W. - 11/28/2003

Howcome I never hear accusations that Jimmy Carter's appointment of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who grew up in Poland, to the post of National Security Advisor, wasn't a politically insensitive conflict of interest in the eyes of our communist "friends" in the world?

We should express just as little "understanding" to the charge that being pro-Israel is too politically insensitive to our terrorist friends.


Cram - 11/28/2003

Other Jewish spies saying that bin Laden did not attack America because of Israel. Perhaps you've heard of them: Yassir Arafat and President Mubarak of Egypt:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2576741.stm

http://www.likud.nl/press103.html


Cram - 11/28/2003

Your anti-Semitism is precisely indicative of people who hate Israel. It is not enough that you disagree with Israel policy, you have to adopt the Nazi-era tool of blaming the Jews for controlling the world (or at least the media). In any event, I will humor by actually responding to your bigoted rants. Forgive me if I sound redundant, but much of your so-called "argument" is rather repetitive.

1) "President Bush, Dick Cheney, etc support Israel because there are billionaire supporters of Israel who make huge campaign donations. Wooing those supporters not only helps Bush win, it ,in some cases, weakens the Democratic Party."

If this is true, how do you explain the fact that the Christian Right (Bush’s primary constituency) supports Israel? To read your post, one would think that Bush and all conservatives are neutral towards Israel, but billionaires (and can you please gives names, sir, just so we are all on the same page) buy his support. This ignores the political reality of conservative support for Israel.

2) "The neocons, in my opinion, support Israel because their loyalty lies with Israel, not with America."

What possible evidence can you offer to suggest that Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. support Israel over America? Their opinion towards Israel is perfectly consistent with their world view of the free world vs. International terrorism. Of every foreign policy these people embrace, Israel is one cog in the entire ideology, not the sole organ of action.

3) "They [America] certainly would not continue to support Sharon if they were aware that the Sept 11 attack was driven by our arms sales to Israel, as stated by Bin Ladin."

As far as I am concerned, this argument is a moot point since 9/11 had nothing to do with our support of Israel and everything to do with troops in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden adopted the issue later because he knew it had broad support in the Arab world. Even if it were true (which it is not), I refer you to David’s posts about how that should effect out policy.

4) "Bin Ladin only took up the Palestinian issue very recently" was one of the lies put out by the Jewish-owned New York Times and the White House."

May I ask what your source of the news is?

5) "Rather, they are whores who take millions in exchange for lying to their fellow citizens. Surely you don't think they receive millions for telling the unvarnished truth?"

Millions from whom? Who pays them for these so-called lies? Their bosses, or some external sources?

6) "They don't control the US, they partially control the US policy in the Middle East--with Big Oil and Defense contractors weighing in as well."

Here is an important inconsistency. If all Bush cares about is oil, why support Israel at all, when opposing Israel would be much more profitable?

7) "We should be angry that the corruption of the Republican whores is bring unnecessary death, destruction, and the loss of a $Trillion dollars upon the American people."

Anyone who knows me knows that I am not a Republican, but why pick them out? What about the support Democrats have given to Israel over the years (indeed, it was a Democrat who originally recognized the state in 1948)?

8) "Sharon and Likud give the United States NOTHING... Only religious fanatics,
traitors, and corrupt whores would suggest that the US should continue to support Sharon's aggression, hypocritical posturing, and deliberate sabotage of the peace talks."

OR Americans who know what is happening in Israel and sympathize with an ally who shares our values and democratic form of government. America supports Israel because Israel, for all its strength and military might, is the victim of terrorist aggression. They support Sharon because if America didn’t, it is they that would be the hypocrites. I hope that answers you questions.


Don Williams - 11/28/2003

I've already addressed several of Mr Brody's comments in my replies to CRW, David,etc.
To cover his remaining points:

1) Mr Brody said: "Don, you have made the claim before that this is a lie, because, in your opinion,
Bush’s Administration did do something to deserve the attacks by supporting Israel. But you altered
the quote by adding the parenthetical “his administration”, to dishonestly change the plain meaning
of Bush’s quote. He clearly meant, “The American people did nothing to deserve this. I agree with him. "

Response: Bush continually tries to justify his corrupt actions by dragging the American people
in as accomplices. But he is entitled to speak only for himself and his underlings. Hence, when he says
"We did nothing to deserve this" , the meaning is that his administration did nothing to provoke
the Sept 11 attacks --a claim manifestly false as I have shown.

Bush apologists here ignore Bin Ladin's point in the Dawn interview:
"The American people should remember that they pay taxes to their government, they elect their president,
their government manufactures arms and gives them to Israel and Israel uses them to massacre Palestinians.
The American Congress endorses all government measures and this proves that the entire America is
responsible for the atrocities perpetrated against Muslims. The entire America, because they elect the Congress.

I ask the American people to force their government to give up anti-Muslim policies. The American people
had risen against their government's war in Vietnam. They must do the same today. The American people
should stop the massacre of Muslims by their government. "
------------------
In other words, if we elect a pack of corrupt Republican predators then we are responsible for their actions.
What a concept.

Bin Ladin does not set US foreign policy. But US foreign policy should reflect the interests of Americans.
It is not in our interest to let special interests --the Israel lobby, Big Oil, defense contractors --inflict misery
in the Middle East and provoke an understandable backlash which brings death and destruction to the
US continent.

The agendas of the Israel lobby, Big Oil,and defense spending does NOTHING to benefit
average Americans --and has brought a huge cost --in blood and in money -- onto the average US citizen.
Those who continue to defend those special interests after Sept 11 are, in my opinion, either ignorant
or are corrupt traitors to America.

2)In response to my statement that 'Recall that Clinton's attempt to pressure Israel into making peace with
the Palestinians was disrupted when Monica Lewinsky exposed her affair with him. '
Brody replied:
"Don, you know this isn’t true. As you know (if for no other reason because I’ve pointed it out twice to you),
Clinton admitted his affair with Monica in August 1998. Clinton SUCCESSFULLY pressured Israel into
offering a peace deal to the Palestinians in July 2000, two years later. Arafat turned down the peace deal."
--------------
The FACTS are that Clinton, unlike Bush, was exerting pressure on Israel in 1998 and was making progress
in Israel-Palestinian peace talks. See, e.g., the timeline at http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/chron5.htm .
This effort was disrupted by the Clintonian scandal and impeachment. Obviously,there is no way to prove that
the Lewinsky affair was orchestrated by supporters of Israel --but it was damn convenient.

3) Brody noted: "Don, I know how hard it is to keep the dates straight. Arafat walked on the Camp David
talks in July 2000. Sharon went to the Temple Mount, one of Judaism’s holiest sites, in September 2000.
Arafat had already sabotaged the peace talks by then. Incidentally, Sharon didn’t “go into” any Mosque
during his visit. A visit he had every right to make. "

Response: At a tense moment in peace discussions, Sharon --then merely a member of the Israeli parliament--
walked into the grounds of Al Aqsa mosque --the third most holy site in Islam. (Temple Mount, by the way, does
not exist. It was destroyed during the Roman occuptation circa 70 AD)
Sharon was accomplied several hundred armed Israeli policemen. Did we see Arafat stalking through Israeli
synagogues with several hundred followers carrying AK47s?

Sharon's deliberate insult/provocation triggered Palestinian rioting which Sharon used to get elected. Those who
try to misrepresent and excuse his deliberate sabotage of the peace talks -- and Bush's pandering to that behavior -- show merely
that their loyalty lies with Israel, not with America.

4) Re Brody's comment: "Don, if you believe that it was the sale of the F-16’s that caused 9/11, why don’t you just come out and say it? "

I think Sept 11 was motivated by several events occurring over the past decades but I think the straw that broke the camel's back --
that triggered the execute command even in the face of devastating US response -- was the June 2001 sale. Many Arab Americans
had supported Bush's election because he had misled them into believing that he would support a fair policy. His pandering to the
aggression by the newly elected Sharon was a clear signal to the Arab world.

As I noted, the F16 sale triggered great anger in the Middle East -- ensuring that no one would alert our intelligence agencies to the
coming attack, although I believe one Taliban official did repeatedly warn our embassy in Kabul of the coming attack but was disregarded
by Bush officials for reasons that have never been made clear --and will continue to remain murky so long as the Bush Administration
can stonewall Congress's investigation of Sept 11.

5) Brody: " Ah, the old “Jews control the US media “ conspiracy. "

Actually there are only about 6 million Jews in the US. Most of them are middle class professionals. They have neither the votes nor the
wealth to influence US policy. The problem is the influence of a few wealthy men --some of whom, like Conrad Black, are not even
Jewish. The influence of those men is both real and evident.

American Jews support the existence and security of Israel. Many Americans, including myself, do as well. But that does not mean
we support Sharon and the Likud's slow destruction of the Palestinians and the hatred it is spawning.

Sharon is blameless on one point.
If our national leaders are amoral whores whose continue in their behavior even after it brings death and destruction onto Americans --as occurred on Sept 11 -- then the fault ultimately lies with those of us who elect them --not with Sharon.


David - 11/28/2003


Again, Bin Laden's beef with our foreign policy is as relevant to me, and should be as relevant to our government officials, as Sunday is to a pig. Our foreign policy is not, and will not, be determined by terrorists as long as conservatives are in power. That's why Leftwing wing appeasers are dangerous. If terrorism is seen to influence our policies, then God save us all.

I used the word "terrorist." I'm sorry, was I "ranting"?

You think you're making a point by using google searches to prove how Osama hates our Israel policy, and "F-16s". But you're not. The U.S. supports Israel, and any ally, with or without Osama's permission. Get that through your thick skull.

And your repeated references to "Sharon" can safely be ignored because we know that the U.S. has been on Al-Qaida's hit list since long before "Sharon" was elected PM, and it is therefore irrelevant. Your rants about "Cheney", "neocons" and "Republicans" also fail to impress because U.S. foreign policy in the region regarding the Saudis has been fairly consistent over the decades, long before "Cheney."

But let me ask you a question about the "kleptocracies" of the middle east, because on this I believe we find some agreement. They are dictatorships and "kingdoms," which we have for decades done business with and helped stabilize. If we had not done this, what kind of governments would have replaced them? Democracies perhaps? Of course not. So is the U.S. not to do business in that part of the world, period?

No, of course not. Our government's policy in the middle east ensures the free flow of oil. They sell the oil, we buy it. But in your cliche-ridden mind, commerce is "looting" of their "birthright." We don't apologize for buying oil at market prices. We don't apologize for that. But you, terrorist sympathizer that you are, and Osama would have an islamic theocracy cover the entire map of the middle east, a new Caliphate, and use oil as a weapon against us, and the West. This is reality, unlike your lofty words about "

This would be your perfect world where all the "arab people" would inherit their "birthright". Except they'd fail to sell their oil because we'd rather buy cheaper oil from Russia and Venezuela than from an inslamic Caliphate using their oil as a weapon.

You live in a fantasy world, as does Osama with his dreams of a resurrected Caliphate using arab oil to control the wordl.


C.R.W. - 11/28/2003


The only "logical" conclusion Don's diatribe amounts to is that the U.S. should allow Osama bin Laden to dictate U.S. foreign policy.

But seeing as how he seems to believe that he understands the dynamics of the Cold War, I'd ask him how he'd respond to the substitution of the terms "neocon" to "U.S." and "Israel" with "Eastern Europe."

"Neocon loyalty to Israel is not worth this."

During the Cold War maybe he would have said the following:

"U.S. loyalty to Eastern Europe is not worth this."



No one is dictating American policy. bin Laden is the emissary of the newest form of tyranny: a fascist Islamic theocracy. We didn't bend down to the Soviet Empire, and we will get nowhere by forsaking the existence and defense of free nations and the cause of liberal democracy so that in response to the threat of tyranny Williams can satisfy his instinct to take the defensive crouch position.

Although doing so would make it that much easier to "kiss his ass."

Personal responsibility is not possible without freedom. Williams is a fan of neither.


Don Williams - 11/28/2003

Re CRW's points:

1) re Bush's statement that "We did nothing to deserve this " [the Sept 11], that the attack occurred "because they hate our
freedom", and that he had been working on a "secret" plan for a Palestinian state in the weeks prior to Sept 11-- I would have
thought my point was obvious. Bush's actions prior to Sept 11 show that his statements above were a pack of misleading lies.

It is obvious claptrap that 14? men would give their lives in a suicidal attack "because they hate our freedom". Bush obviously
didn't want to explain to America the real reasons why
attack occurred. The news media aided and abetted his misleading deceit.

Nothing "justified" Sept 11. But well-planned and well-executed attacks are not carried out by insane men. There were rational
reasons for the attack --reasons that the American people did not learn because Condoleeza Rice went to the TV Network CEOs and
twisted their arms to censor future Bin Ladin broadcasts.

For decades , the US government has inflicted enormous misery and poverty on the people of the Middle East for the sake of
commercial interests like the oil companies. Some of the US actions were understandable in the early years of the Cold War
against the Soviet Union. But nothing justifies our continued malign actions since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nothing justifies
our continued support for Sharon's aggression and slow killing of the Palestinians.

As I noted, Bin Ladin indicated in November 2001 that the Sept 11 attacked was motivated by US arms sales to Israel. Research
shows that Bush suppressed State Department criticism of Sharon's use of F16s jets to attack Palestinians in months prior to Sept 11.
It shows Bush then rewarding Sharon's aggression by selling him 52 more F16s in June 2001 --and that Israeli purchase of the jets
was indirectly funded by US aid. Bush's pandering to Sharon in the months leading up to Sept 11 strongly indicate that Bush
was NOT working on a "Secret plan" for a Palestinian state --indeed, that Bush was prepared to stand by while Sharon slowly
destroyed the Palestinians --to even give Sharon the weapons.

2) Re CRW's statement "t seems that though he lacks the balls to say so outright, Mr. Williams wants to say that killing 3000
unarmed noncombattants while they begin the workweek in 2 large office buildings is justifiable because of the economic symbolism
of the WTC. If Mr. Williams sympathizes with an attempt to cripple our economy I'm sure Mr. bin Laden would be open to more
suggestions on how to accomplish this. It would take a real deficiency of mental capacity to not realize that this would make him
a traitor (if he's a U.S. citizen), or an accomplice, if not a principal in the war on terror. I hope for his sake he's aware of the
consequences for taking such actions. "

CRW can kiss my ass. I'm not justifying the Sept 11 attack --I'm saying that Americans need to understand who provoked it and why
because those same malign groups will provoke further attacks in the future. To say this is the same as supporting Bin Ladin and terrorism is
an insulting smear designed to duck the real facts and issues.

Sept 11 cost us 3000+ deaths and about $1 Trillion in direct and indirect costs. Neocon devotion to Israel is not worth this.

Al Qaeda does not need advice on the vulnerable points of US infrastructure and the economic impacts from attacks on those points.
Past studies by the US government --e.g., the Y2K reports -- give them much of the needed info. Either we will lose another $Trillion
from attacks on those points or we will lose $500 billion plus loss of our civil liberties protecting against those attacks.

Neocon loyalty to Israel is not worth this.

Campaign donations by wealthy supporters of Israel is not worth this.

Donations by
the Oil Companies wanting to cut sweetheart deals with puppet governments set up in the Middle East and Caspian Sea region are
not worth this.

Donations by Defense contractors wanting huge arms sells to the Middle East and an increase in the already
bloated defense budget are not worth this.

3) It is idiotic to expect that corrupt US interests can continue to cause death, destruction, and deep poverty in the Middle East and not expect blowback. It is idiotic to expect people stirred by deep hatred at unjust actions and organized economic slavery/coercion will
follow our rules of morality and to fight wars the way we want.
Especially when much of Bush's claims for moralism appear deceitful, hypocritical , and misleading. You never have, and never will, see Dick Cheney or Bush preaching the virtues of democracy to the oil dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan.

4) Re CRW's statement "The fact that this poster thinks that "assassination" is a term that can apply to "children" hammers
the final nail in the coffin of whatever hope you could have that he maintains any grasp on reality. "

Again, the typical device of Bush supporters, war bloggers, and National Review readers -- go off into the weeds with a trivial
irrelevant non sequitur in the hope that ignorant slurs will disrupt and break up any rational discussion --and thereby
divert attention from Bush's perfidy.


Don Williams - 11/28/2003

David's hysterical rant covers up and ignores several major facts.

1) I , of course, do not think our policy should be set by terrorists. I ,like most Americans,
want Sept 11 avenged. But I think some of our hatred, anger, and revenge should be
directed at those in the US whose actions and influence UNNECESSARILY provoked
that attack.

2) To defeat an enemy, you must understand it. I care nothing for Bin Ladin or Al Qaeda.
What I do care about is that a small corrupt clique --through lies and deceit -- is dragging the
American people into a war with 1 billion Muslims. We have already suffered thousands of
unnecessary deaths and lose of enormous wealth for no good reason -- and these traitors are
about to ensure we lose more in the service of their agenda.

3) Cries of "mass murderer" and "terrorist" are propaganda. Thousands of civilians died on Sept 11.
Thousands of civilians also died in US military actions. The major point is that we, the American
people, are responsible for the actions of our government. Because of deep corruption, that
government has killed thousands of innocents in the Middle East and
has supported vicious dictatorships who
have stolen the wealth of their peoples.

My loyalty is to the people and land of the United States --not to corrupt interests who wrap
their self-serving and destructive agendas in the US Flag.

We cannot provide $billions/year, F16s attack jets, and Apache Helicopters to Sharon and not expect the
Arab world to hold us accountable when Sharon uses those F16s jets to bomb a 3-story apartment building
in the middle of the night --in the most densely populated area on earth -- and kill
9 children. We cannot expect the Arab world not to blame us when Sharon allows a massacre in
Palestinian refugee camps. We cannot expect the Arab world not to blame us when Sharon has Apache helicopters
firing missiles into crowds in Gaza, killing innocents.

The point is, there is no rational reason for Bush's continued tolerance of Sharon's behavior -- only corruption in
which campaign donations from wealthy supporters of Israel -- and favorable coverage by news media organizations supportive of Israel--
-- outweigh American
deaths and loss of wealth.


Don Williams - 11/28/2003

Most of Cram's responses appeared to be sarcasm intended to duck the facts I presented. In one or two
places, Cram came dangerously close to making a factual statement. I will address those assertions:

1) Cram: "The REAL reason however, is that Bush himself actually supports the State of Israel, as do his supporters.
Because conservatives support Israel, and because this country as a whole supports Israel, the President of this
country (you guessed it) supports Israel. It’s really not complicated."

Response: President Bush, Dick Cheney,etc support Israel because there are billionaire supporters of Israel who make
huge campaign donations. Wooing those supporters not only helps Bush win, it ,in some cases, weakens
the Democratic Party.

The neocons, in my opinion, support Israel because their loyalty lies with Israel, not with America.
Americans, as a whole, support Israel's right to exist. They would not support Sharon/Likud's deceitful
aggression, if the US news media informed them of it. They certainly would not continue to support
Sharon if they were aware that the Sept 11 attack was driven by our arms sales to Israel, as stated by Bin Ladin.
Which is why Israel's supporters had to mount such a deceitful campaign to lie to American citizens in the weeks after
Sept 11. That is why Bush had to explain why the attack occurred with such meaningless deceitful claptrap as
"they hate freedom".

2) Cram: "Whew, for a moment, I thought bin Laden had no reason to murder 3000 innocent people, but now that
you say that, all is well. Except for the fact that Bin Laden only took up the Palestinian issue very recently, and
his real beef was US troops in Saudi Arabia"

Response: This ,of course, is wrong. I specifically noted the US TV interviews given by Bin Ladin back in 1998 in which
US government support of Israel's aggression was cited as one of three reasons for a Jihad against the US. The
"Bin Ladin only took up the Palestinian issue very recently" was one of the lies put out by the Jewish-owned New York Times
and the White House.

Re "his real beef was US troops in Saudi Arabia", US military deployments in Saudi Arabia was the second of three reasons
for jihad cited in the 1998 Bin Ladin interviews. But the US news media has distorted this as well. The real quarrel is
that the US government has protected and supported the Saudi kleptocracy for decades in exchange for the Houston
oil companies being allowed to loot the birthright of the people of Arabia. We can't be criticized for buying oil from
Arabia. We can be criticized for using means both open and covert to create and protect that oil dictatorship. We can be
criticized for massive arms sales to that dictatorship which lets a small group steal most of the oil revenues.

There was a bombing in Saudi Arabia a few month ago that hit a US corporation. It was revealing that the US news media
was so reluctant to note that the company hit provides mercenaries to train the "Saudi National Guard" -- aka the Saudi Gestapo.

The US news media also covers up the fact that little of the oil wealth goes to the mass of Arabian citizens -- that the US-supported
oil dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Kuwait are among the few nations which refused to give income distribution data
to UN statistical agencies and the World Bank.

3) Cram: "I always thought Peter Jennings, Tom Brokow, Barbara Walters, and Connie Chung were Mossad spies! "

Response: Those TV reporters are nothing so honorable as Mossad spies. Rather, they are whores who take millions
in exchange for lying to their fellow citizens. Surely you don't think they receive millions for telling the unvarnished
truth?

4) Cram: "IF what you say is all true, we should not be mad at Israel supporters, we should admire their ability to
control the most powerful nation in the world. "

They don't control the US, they partially control the US policy in the Middle East--with Big Oil and Defense contractors weighing in as
well.

We should admire nothing about this situation. We should be angry that the corruption of the Republican whores
is bring unnecessary death, destruction, and the loss of a $Trillion dollars upon the American people. The loss of
a $Trillion is not just money -- it means that in the decades to come
millions of people will die before their time due to lack of health care,
millions of US children will live lives of drugery because they received a crappy education, and millions of elderly will
live near starvation levels of poverty.

Sharon and Likud give the United States NOTHING --we don't even have a major military base there. Only religious fanatics,
traitors, and corrupt whores would suggest that the US should continue to support Sharon's aggression, hypocritical posturing, and
deliberate sabotage of the peace talks. The US government should TELL Sharon what the peace agreement will be --and
be prepared to back that statement up with the full forces of CENTCOM and STRATCOM.


Cram - 11/28/2003

Steve,
While we may disagree on other issues, I agree with David and commend you for your patience in dealing with someone who clearly has no moral problems with 9/11 and other acts of terror.


David - 11/27/2003


Steve,

I love the way you calmly dismantle and dissect this poor man's muddled arguments. I particularly enjoyed your exposing the fallacy of his statements by pointing out the inconsistency between the dates and events used to "prove" his points. Brilliant. Also, you exposed Don's intellectual dishonesty by showing how he added his own words to a Bush quote, which completely changed the meaning of the quote, just to favor Don's argument. You have a keen eye, and you make it seem effortless. Good work !!


Steve BRody - 11/27/2003


“..is that Bush is a whore for supporters of Israel. Plus he is hoping to destroy the Democratic Party by luring away the major financiers of the Democrats --many of whom are supporters of Israel. People like Haim Saban , the Israeli who gave $12 Million to the Democrats in the last election cycle.”

So, Don, your problem is that you think Bush is “out whoring “ the Dems?

“A quick check shows that (a) US support to Israel was one of three causes for Islamic jihad cited by Bin Ladin in 1999 and (b) The US sold Israel 52 F16s in June 2001 --several months prior to Sept 11 -- at a time when the world was condemming Sharon for using F16s to bomb the Palistinians”

But Don, that interview was conducted in 1999, so UBL couldn’t have been referring to anything Bush had done. He must have been referring to the support that Clinton was giving to Israel.

As for the F16 sale in June 2001, I find no reference to that in any of the UBL interviews that you cite. Surely, if that were the cause of the 9/11 attacks, UBL would have mentioned it at least once.

“Yet the latter fact has never been revealed in the US news media --which is controlled by people whose allegiance is to Israel, not to the United States.”

More Jewish conspiracy theories, Don?


Steve Brody - 11/27/2003


“In reality, both Israel's supporters and Bush were desperately lying to the American people -- to prevent them from noticing that Bush's pandering to Sharon had triggered the death of 3000+ citizens, $100 Billion in direct costs, and $1 Trillion in indirect costs.”

Don, this is more of your pathological need to blame Bush for 9/11. The reality is that every US administration has supported Israel, with the overwhelming support of the American people.

“In his speeches after Sept 11, Bush told America that that "we" (his administration) had "done nothing to deserve this". He stated that the attack occurred because "they hate our freedom"..

Don, you have made the claim before that this is a lie, because, in your opinion, Bush’s Administration did do something to deserve the attacks by supporting Israel. But you altered the quote by adding the parenthetical “his administration”, to dishonestly change the plain meaning of Bush’s quote. He clearly meant, “The American people did nothing to deserve this. I agree with him.

"The Sept 11 attacks were not targeted at women and children. The real targets were America's icons of military and economic power. ..”

Self-serving statements from a mass murderer do not impress me.

“Recall that Clinton's attempt to pressure Israel into making peace with the Palestinians was disrupted when Monica Lewinsky exposed her affair with him. “

Don, you know this isn’t true. As you know (if for no other reason because I’ve pointed it out twice to you), Clinton admitted his affair with Monica in August 1998. Clinton SUCCESSFULLY pressured Israel into offering a peace deal to the Palestinians in July 2000, two years later. Arafat turned down the peace deal.

“An Israeli legislator, Sharon, then sabotaged the talks by going into the third most holy Islamic mosque with several hundred policemen. Sharon used the ensuring riots that he triggered to win election as Prime Minister and then hit the Palestinians hard.”

Don, I know how hard it is to keep the dates straight. Arafat walked on the Camp David talks in July 2000. Sharon went to the Temple Mount, one of Judaism’s holiest sites, in September 2000. Arafat had already sabotaged the peace talks by then. Incidentally, Sharon didn’t “go into” any Mosque during his visit. A visit he had every right to make.

“In spring of 2001, he even used F16s fighters bought from the US to bomb Palestinians, arousing the anger and condemmation of the world.”

In answer to numerous homicide bombings by Palestinian terrorists. And killing far fewer than the homicide bombers had killed.

“The final approval on the sale was announced a few days before the Sept 11 attack.”

Don, if you believe that it was the sale of the F-16’s that caused 9/11, why don’t you just come out and say it?

“The fact this information has been hidden from the American people-- that it has never appeared in the US news media -- shows the lengths to which Likud's supporters will go to mislead Americans.”

Ah, the old “Jews control the US media “ conspiracy.


NYGuy - 11/27/2003

Don Williams

4)However, Bin Ladin indicated in an interview, published in a Pakistani newspaper called DAWN, why the Sept 11 attack occurred:

"The Sept 11 attacks were not targeted at women and children. The real targets were America's icons of military and economic power. .....The American people should remember that they pay taxes to their government, they elect their president, their government manufactures arms and gives them to Israel and Israel uses them to massacre Palestinians. "

NYGuy,

Whew. I thought Bin Ladin was a terrorist and a murder. It is good to know that he is a humanitarian who made a mistake by using the Julian Calendar instead of the Gregorian Calender in planning his attack. That is why the attack occurred on a weekday during rush hours instead of on a quiet Sunday morning.

No wonder the anti-war group is yelling that Bin Ladin is a victim of Ashcroft’s goons.


C.R.W. - 11/26/2003

I suppose so. As long as you would forgo the following caveats:

1) Yasir Arafat, HAMAS, and PIJ played no role in fomenting the violence.

2) Arafat has distanced himself from bin Laden. Even the Palestinian factions aren't dumb enough to blatantly alienate the U.S. (although that's precisely what they accomplished through their support of terrorism and stifling of internal political reform and the development of civil society).

3) I think point #3 is not really a point; Mr. Williams just lacked the capacity to work it into one.

4) Hmmm. It seems that though he lacks the balls to say so outright, Mr. Williams wants to say that killing 3000 unarmed noncombattants while they begin the workweek in 2 large office buildings is justifiable because of the economic symbolism of the WTC. If Mr. Williams sympathizes with an attempt to cripple our economy I'm sure Mr. bin Laden would be open to more suggestions on how to accomplish this. It would take a real deficiency of mental capacity to not realize that this would make him a traitor (if he's a U.S. citizen), or an accomplice, if not a principal in the war on terror. I hope for his sake he's aware of the consequences for taking such actions.

5) Arafat, Faisal Husseini, and Marwan Barghouti all agree. In press interviews/statements they have said that the al Aqsa "intifada" was pre-meditated and encouraged.

Still doesn't make it worthwhile or right, regardless of the pretext.

6) Who cares about this point?

7) The fact that this poster thinks that "assassination" is a term that can apply to "children" hammers the final nail in the coffin of whatever hope you could have that he maintains any grasp on reality. I'm not aware that the Palestinian Authority was governed by children in any sense other than mental ability. I think the Land of Oz was populated by munchkins and ruled by a short guy behind a machine that made him look bigger and more powerful than he was. Come to think of it, maybe the Wizard was Arafat.....? Hmmmm.....

Targetting the Iraqi economy would have probably been better accomplished by burning the country's oilfields. Looks like Saddam and bin Laden do have some common tactics after all.

This poster is a joke.


David - 11/26/2003


Who cares if Osama doesn't like our support for Israel. He's a terrorist and mass murderer. Oh, was that too unequivocal for you? Was I too absolute in my judgement towards him?

HE'S A TERRORIST AND A MASS MURDERER. How's that?

American policy towards Israel, or ANY ally, is not dependent on how terrorists and mass murderers feel about it, NOR SHOULD IT BE.

So what point do you think you've made by trying to prove our support for Israel made Osama angry?

Oh, silly me. I know what you're trying to prove. You're trying to say that we DESERVED to be attacked on 9/11 because of our "foreign policy", and you have the Google searches to prove it !!!

Are you insane? You ARE insane.


Cram - 11/26/2003

Wow, so much to say, so little time:
Just a few responses although I wish I had time to write many more after reading this:
1 “The reason for this unfair policy, contrary to American values, is that Bush is a whore for supporters of Israel. Plus he is hoping to destroy the Democratic Party by luring away the major financiers of the Democrats.”

Hmmmm interesting theory. The REAL reason however, is that Bush himself actually supports the State of Israel, as do his supporters. Because conservatives support Israel, and because this country as a whole supports Israel, the President of this country (you guessed it) supports Israel. It’s really not complicated.

2 “The problem is that Bush's whoredom is spending US treasure --and US blood. The roughly $200 billion spent on the Iraq invasion --and the US lives lost --was not done because Hussein was a credible threat to the US. It was done because Hussein was viewed as a threat by Sharon.”

So Bush went to war because Sharon asked him to? Question, did Bush Sr. ask Saddam Hussein to attack Kuwait in 1991 because he wanted an excuse to attack Iraq to protect Israel? Oh oh I got one: How about the US actually committed the attacks of 9/11 so that it would give us a reason to support Israel? Oh that’s good, I like that!

3 “In an interview with the Pakistani newspaper DAWN, Bin Ladin noted that the attack occurred because of US Arms sales to Israel.”

Whew, for a moment, I thought bin Laden had no reason to murder 3000 innocent people, but now that you say that, all is well. Except for the fact that Bin Laden only took up the Palestinian issue very recently, and his real beef was US troops in Saudi Arabia.

4 “Yet the latter fact has never been revealed in the US news media --which is controlled by people whose allegiance is to Israel, not to the United States.”

I always thought Peter Jennings, Tom Brokow, Barbara Walters, and Connie Chung were Mossad spies!

5 “It is amazing how a small powerful group --with the assistance of their Republican whores --can lie to and mislead the US voters.”

IF what you say is all true, we should not be mad at Israel supporters, we should admire their ability to control the most powerful nation in the world.


Don Williams - 11/26/2003

1) After Sept 11, the New York Times ran an article telling us that the Sept 11 had nothing to do the one-sided US government's one-sided support of Israel. Bill Kristol went on NBC's This Week and told us much the same.

In reality, both Israel's supporters and Bush were desperately lying to the American people -- to prevent them from noticing that Bush's pandering to Sharon had triggered the death of 3000+ citizens, $100 Billion in direct costs, and $1 Trillion in indirect costs.


2) The most casual Internet search will show that Bin Ladin gave a series of interviews to US TV networks in 1998 and that he repeatedly cited US support of Israel's attacks on the Palestinians as one of three main reasons for an Islamic Jihad against the US. See
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html

3) In his speeches after Sept 11, Bush told America that that "we" (his administration) had "done nothing to deserve this". He stated that the attack occurred because "they hate our freedom" He also stated that he had been "secretly" working on a plan to create a Palestinian state in the weeks prior to Sept 11.

4)However, Bin Ladin indicated in an interview, published in a Pakistani newspaper called DAWN, why the Sept 11 attack occurred:

"The Sept 11 attacks were not targeted at women and children. The real targets were America's icons of military and economic power. .....The American people should remember that they pay taxes to their government, they elect their president, their government manufactures arms and gives them to Israel and Israel uses them to massacre Palestinians. "
(See http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/10/top1.htm )

5) Recall that Clinton's attempt to pressure Israel into making peace with the Palestinians was disrupted when Monica Lewinsky exposed her affair with him. An Israeli legislator, Sharon, then sabotaged the talks by going into the third most holy Islamic mosque with several hundred policemen. Sharon used the ensuring riots that he triggered to win election as Prime Minister and then hit the Palestinians hard. In spring of 2001, he even used F16s fighters bought from the US to bomb Palestinians, arousing the anger and condemmation of the world.

Bush, however, halted State Department criticism and encouraged Sharon by selling Sharon 52 more F16s in June 2001, several months before the Sept 11 attack. (See http://www.clw.org/cat/newswire/nw060601.html#State ,
http://www.clw.org/cat/newswire/nw061301.html#Rep,

6) For the June 20 , 2001 announcement of the F16 sale, go to here :
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/ , click on "Archives", select June 2001 from the list, and then search the resulting page for "Israel" or simply page down to the June 20 entries. )

7) The final approval on the sale was announced a few days before the Sept 11 attack. One reason why our intelligence received no warning of the attack was the seething anger in the Arab world over the F16 sale. See http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/s300179.htm and
An excerpt from http://www.iansa.org/oldsite/news/2001/sep_01/deal_israel.htm
dated September 8,2001:
" The timing the US chose to announce its decision to give Israel the dangerous F-16 jets is really strange. It seems as though the US is telling Israel "Go ahead Sharon! Carry on with the assassination of Palestinian children and the destruction of the houses of peaceful civilians! Proceed with the destruction of the Palestinian defenseless people's infrastructure and with desecrating Islamic sanctities in the holy land!"

The fact this information has been hidden from the American people-- that it has never appeared in the US news media -- shows the lengths to which Likud's supporters will go to mislead Americans.

Re "Terrorism", Bin Ladin noted the following in the Dawn article:
"The Sept 11 attacks were not targeted at women and children. The real targets were America's icons of military and economic power. "
Change "America's icons" to "Saddam's icons" and this statement sounds like US CENTCOM explaining the bombing of Iraq.


Don Williams - 11/26/2003

The US government has done NOTHING to press the Israelis to make a just peace with the Palestinians. The Bush administration, in particular, has engaged in two-faced posturing that is a stain on US honor -- a mockery of our alleged national values.

The US government has given Israel roughly $91 Billion in aid over the past decades, $3 billion /year in aid on a regular basis, and
has recently guaranteed several billion in loans that won't be paid back. The US government directly funds Israel's economy so that Sharon can pursue his aggression. Meanwhile, the US does nothing while Sharon continually wrecks the Palestinean economy. As a result, Israeli per capita income is around $17,000/year while Palestineans are sunk in deep poverty with a per capita income of roughly $1600/year.

The US has also given enormous military support to Israel via arms sales and direct support. Witness the US F16s being used to bomb apartment buildings at night in Gaza --and Apache helicopters launching multiple missiles into crowded intersections in the daytime.

THe US government has also exerted financial pressure to carve away Egyptian and Jordanian support for the Palestinians. THe US gives roughly $3 Billion in aid to Egypt every year to bride Egypt into abandoning the Palestinians.

Finally, the US government has done nothing while Israel has created 400+ nuclear bombs --which makes Bush's invasion of Iraq based on so far non-existent WMDs look like deceit.

The reason for this unfair policy, contrary to American values, is that Bush is a whore for supporters of Israel. Plus he is hoping to destroy the Democratic Party by luring away the major financiers of the Democrats --many of whom are supporters of Israel. People like Haim Saban , the Israeli who gave $12 Million to the Democrats in the last election cycle.

THe problem is that Bush's whoredom is spending US treasure --and US blood. The roughly $200 billion spent on the Iraq invasion --and the US lives lost --was not done because Hussein was a credible threat to the US. It was done because Hussein was viewed as a threat by Sharon.

3000+ lives were lost in the Sept 11 attack, several hundred billions were lost in direct costs, and probably close to $1 Trillion was lost in indirect costs (recession,etc.) In an interview with the Pakistani newspaper DAWN, Bin Ladin noted that the attack occurred because of US Arms sales to Israel. A quick check shows that (a) US support to Israel was one of three causes for Islamic jihad cited by Bin Ladin in 1999 and (b) The US sold Israel 52 F16s in June 2001 --several months prior to Sept 11 -- at a time when the world was condemming Sharon for using F16s to bomb the Palestinians.

Yet the latter fact has never been revealed in the US news media --which is controlled by people whose allegiance is to Israel, not to the United States. It is amazing how a small powerful group --with the assistance of their Republican whores --can lie to and mislead the US voters.


Cram - 11/25/2003

:-)


David - 11/25/2003


Cram, sometimes I can't believe how much I agree with you, and other times you make me pull my hair out. I'm having a real time getting an angle on you!


Cram - 11/25/2003

9/11 was not just significant for political and military reasons but also for philosophical reasons.

What 9/11 tought the world was that terrorism is not something people should sympathize for, an act of desparation carried out by suffering victims of oppression, but a despicable action by uncompromising radicals motivated by political goals and objectives.

When elderly people are murdered while praying, when schoolchildren are blownup on a bus, when teenagers are slaughtered in a cafe for the crime of being born Jewish, and when innocent Arabs and Turks are murdered in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the response should not be the blanket "we reject terrorism from all sides," but a firm commitment never to negociate with terrorists who would target innocent civilians.

Israel learned this lesson the hard way through years of futile negociation with a people whose final objective is their destruction (see http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm for more). Unfortunitely, America had to find out the same way.

If Israel is wrong to occupy the West bank, then America was wrong to go in and occupy Afghanistan. If Israel is wrong in refusing to negociate with Arafat, then we were wrong not to try and negociate with bin Laden. Finally, if Israel is wrong to seek the arrests of terrorist organizations, then civil rights groups were wrong to seek a arrests of the KKK members who lynch innocent people.

Israel and the United States are not perfect, and both have committed crimes for which both should be held accountable. But there can be no equivication between military oporations that kill civilians as a result, and military actions that TARGET innocent civilians as the goal! One is allowed under international law (not that that ius worth anything) and the other is clearly a violation of basic human rights.


David - 11/25/2003


The thesis of Sally Dean's post is that the poor palestinians have responded only with "peace" to Israel's continued "aggression." This statement would be merely silly if it weren't such a bold faced lie.

The exact opposite is true. For the last two years I've seen Israel exercise its right to defend itself in the face of palestinian efforts to terrorize Israel back to the peace table, or into a unilateral withdrawal Lebanon style (A withdrawal that Israel is still paying for).

But it was the palestinians who walked away from the peace table in their fit of violence, and their continued violence will not bring Israel back to that peace table. Can anything be more clear than that?

It has taken two years, but I think the palestinians are finally getting it through their thick skulls that whatever terror they can throw at the jews is peanuts to what jews have seen in the last 2 millenia.

Now we have the Wall, which is the logical conclusion to the palestinian terror war against Israel. Any country would do the same if in Israel's position. No, let me correct myself. Any country would line up their howitzers on their border and level a village anytime a palestinian with a bomb crossed the border. But Israel is more civilized than that. A wall will suffice for now. Later, we'll see.


3rd grade english teacher - 11/25/2003

At least she can compose coherent sentences.


Sally Dean - 11/25/2003


Denying the existence of Palestinians by claiming they were just wayward Jordanians motivated them cut a peace deal but not enough.

Bombing Palestinian refugee camps motivated a peace deal though it was still not cut.

Cracking down on Hamas and Islamic Jihad by threatening to kill or exil Arafat motivated him to talk peace, but not on the Likud's terms.

Likud's openness to negotiation with slaughtered children, uprooted olive trees, and murdered American protesters has motivated a fearful world to rally behind it, and push forward towards cutting the peace deal to end all peace deals.

Now, in light of these brilliant past moves to "change the status quo", we can clearly see that building a gerrymandered wall to grab more West Bank territory for peace-loving settlers will bring fearful Palestinians to the peace table once and for all.

Is it wonderful having such knowledgeable historians as Dr. Klinghoffer explain the complexities of peace to us ?

History News Network