Political Crossfire Forums

[mr crunchy]

israel had no choice in 1982
the plo with syrias blessing were just a gigantic pain in israels ass and
with the iran/iraq war going full blast,a dead sadat in egypt and a lot of uncertainty from their allies here in the us israel decided to put an end to the mosquito's biting them from their bases in lebanon...

the claim that they lost is bull
the battle of the becca valley showed the world that the russian migs were no match for the israeli air force and syria has been essentially neutered since...

theyre no longer being attacked daily from that perimeter
lebanon is fairly quiet these days and little assad has his hands full with his own issues in his own nation

lebanon appears ripe for a rebound towards democracy

[Yrkoon]

superskippy wrote: Quote: Forcing him to come back and set up shop right smack dab in the middle of Ramallah. Yes. I'm sure that's exactly what you all wanted. In the meantime you guys LOST your war in Lebanon and ended up retreating back home with your collective lails between your legs in 2000.

We'd rather have him in Ramallah where we could keep on eye on him and strike at him rather then in his fortresses in Lebanon, or his bases in Tunis.

We won in Lebanon and withdrew per peace negotiations from the 10 mil security strip we had kept for decades, Operation Peace for the Galilee achieved its goals, it destroyed the PLO as an effective military group and reasserted peace in the Galilee and forced Syrian Artillary out of the Beqa Valley as well as their SAM Sites.

Lebanon: Israel's Veitnam?

The Retreat: Like Saigon?

Also, I find it *HILARIOUS* that anyone, especially an Israeli, would claim that the war in Lebanon destroyed the PLO as an effective military group. Tell us, does this mean that the COUNTLESS accusations, finger pointing, and in fact, the very Ramallah seige against Arafat was a pointless endeavor? Was it a clear case of Israel attacking and focussing on a NON-effective military group?

Go ahead, tell us why you guys have been laying the blame for all the violence on Arafat, when according to your claim, you had already crushed his military to the point of ineffecteness years ago.

[Yrkoon]

mr crunchy wrote: israel had no choice in 1982
LOL. That's like saying Osama had no choice in 2001.

Total rubbish. Greed, land grabs, and pre-emptive wars of aggression are, by defintion, CHOICES.

[superskippy]

Of course it destroyed the PLO as a military force, they lost all their tanks and heavy equipment and never regained them. They lost upwards of 10,000 fighter KIA, WIA, or captured. Their command structure was destroyed, and they never again returned to the field.

We took casualties in Lebanon from Hizbullah but their attacks didnt influence our organization of the security territory, that objective had been established when the 1982 campaign began, and we simply waited for an International Force to land in Lebanon.

We crushed Arafats military, but not is terrorist wings which took years putting down. Other groups have risen from the ashes of a very much broken PLO. As for the siege of Ramallah it was excellent, we could keep him under control and prevent him from giving any orders. And with all luck we made him miserable and possibly hastened his death that came far too late for a man like him.

[mr crunchy]

you want to compare binladen to israel??
can you be more specific in your analogy??

bin laden had no authority in any sovereign nation
while israel had the responsibility to protect her citizens
hundreds of attacks befelled israel from lebanon prior to 1982 and israel had enough,they were heavy handed as usual and as usual they were successful

what has binladen ended??
who has he protected??

its easy bad mouthing israel from 6000 miles away but just remember the feeling you had on 9-11 and
multiply that by 1000 and this is how israeli's start their day...
angry,vengeful and somewhat frightened for their loved ones

[Yrkoon]

superskippy wrote: Of course it destroyed the PLO as a military force, they lost all their tanks and heavy equipment and never regained them. They lost upwards of 10,000 fighter KIA, WIA, or captured. Their command structure was destroyed, and they never again returned to the field.
That's not a sign of a weakening force, is it. What poses the bigger threat to Israel today? A foreign conventional military with armed troops? or a clandestine, popular resistance force featuring "terrorists" with Semtex Jackets and truck bombs?

superskippy wrote: We took casualties in Lebanon from Hizbullah but their attacks didnt influence our organization of the security territory, that objective had been established when the 1982 campaign began, and we simply waited for an International Force to land in Lebanon.
Excuse me, but I thought the goal was to end the northern threat against Israel. Hezbollah came out of the Lebanon war *stronger* and with much more political and military clout, didn't they. or are ALL of your leaders lying out of their asses when they claim that Hezbollah is as big a threat as they ever were?

superskippy wrote: We crushed Arafats military, but not is terrorist wings which took years putting down.
Then you lost the war. The goal was to remove the PLO as a threat. But when you retreated in 2000, the PLO was still a threat, wasn't it. In fact, Didn't the Al Asqa intefada begin in 2000?

superskippy wrote: Other groups have risen from the ashes of a very much broken PLO.

Then you lost. Worse than we did in Vietnam.

[mr crunchy]

good point Y
lebanon has often been called ""israels vietnam"" but theres a big difference

we didnt have vietnamese lobbing missiles over the border from canada
we didnt have vietmihn attacking civilians on the mexican border either

how much of that crap should a sovereign nation have to put up with?

[Yrkoon]

For Crunchy guy, I will elaborate... mr crunchy wrote: israel had no choice in 1982
the plo with syrias blessing were just a gigantic pain in israels ass

Oops, Perspectives. Aren't they a b****. an Osama defender could easily point out that the US, with it's war in Iraq, its troops in Saudi Arabia, its bombing of a Sudan aspirin factory, and its ships near the gulf was just a gigantic pain in the ass for Osama and his followers. so they had no choice but to attack the US.

See how stupid that sounds?

[Yrkoon]

mr crunchy wrote: good point Y
lebanon has often been called ""israels vietnam"" but theres a big difference

we didnt have vietnamese lobbing missiles over the border from canada
we didnt have vietmihn attacking civilians on the mexican border either

how much of that crap should a sovereign nation have to put up with?
The comparison to veitnam was about the *loss* of a war. not "who started the war and why", remember?

As for how much crap a sovereign country should put up with. Lets ask Syria. Or do Israeli missiles and air strikes against Syria not count?

And what about the US? Tell us about Johnathan Pollard, and the USS liberty attack. How much crap must WE take?

[mr crunchy]

i brought up the uss liberty last week Y and
i did mention jonathan pollard as well as
the current scandal in douggie feiths office as well
as listing the past secretarys of defense and state with israeli ties as well as
listing the owners of the media outlets that provide us with our news

check out my other posts
ive only been here a month and ive been called an anti semite and a jew apologist

i guess that makes me even handed??

as far as syria goes
assad was directly responsible for the lebanese civil war,hence the opening of southern lebanon to the militant plo who is hated by every arab regime from tunisia to bagdad...no arab nation wants the palestinians
anyways
israel should never give back the golan
it would be stupid since theyve been attacked from that point 3 times in less than 20 years

a bin laden supporter could point to the hypocritical agenda the us government has in dealing with israel and arab disagreements and they could point to the us funding israels settlements as well

but binladen doesnt represent anyone but himself and his band of murderers
they have no nation
they have no use in this world
they dont build
they dont heal
they destroy everything they touch,including the sudan,afghanistan and the ""lawless"" tribal areas of pakistan

as much as i hated the policies of ari sharon and the likud party they are an infinetly better bargain for the rest of the world than OBL is...

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: Had we known the major civilian presence then an assault might have proven worse as a battle inside a packed civilian zone almost never turns out well.

And yet your forces chose to shell the place. Well done. Thanks for making a bloodbath out of a village of sheep.

superskippy wrote: So artillary should never be used on urban targets because civilians may be present? Tell that to Russia, America, Germany, Egypt, Syria, the Palestinians, Italy, France, North Korea, South Korea, China, Japan, etc etc. Artillary is an established weapon of war and war is not refineable.

Ok, so the bombardment of Israeli villages using Kassams is intentional, but bombardment of Lebanese towns by Israelis is not?

superskippy wrote: Not really, I never contested that their were civilians, their will always bee civilians in a town or village but the aim was to dislodge the Hizbullah militants that had fired at us bare minutes before and from the same area.

What Yrkoon said.

superskippy wrote: We won in Lebanon and withdrew per peace negotiations from the 10 mil security strip we had kept for decades, Operation Peace for the Galilee achieved its goals, it destroyed the PLO as an effective military group and reasserted peace in the Galilee and forced Syrian Artillary out of the Beqa Valley as well as their SAM Sites.

And yet it proves that your forces didn't win: the Israelis will forever be remembered for the mess they made in Lebanon.

superskippy wrote: Also dont try and portray it that Sabra and Shatilla happened because the PLO could no longer protect it, the PLO and the Palestinian militia's carried out dozens of massacres over the years in Lebanon far exceeding the casualties of Sabra and Shatilla.

Yes, Damour was one of them, yet in fact the deaths of Palestinian and Lebanese innocents surmounted the deaths of Lebanese Phalange Christians and Israelis. Go back in time before Damour and think Karantina, which was another bloodbath. Sabra and Chatila, along with these massacres, surmounted the deaths of Lebanese Christians. Not to mention the oppression. Also, I stick to Yrkoon's take on the situation per Arafat.

[superskippy]

Quote: And yet your forces chose to shell the place. Well done. Thanks for making a bloodbath out of a village of sheep.

Had we known their had been an abundance of excess civilians there a shelling would have been called off, nor was the UN compound the target.

Quote: Ok, so the bombardment of Israeli villages using Kassams is intentional, but bombardment of Lebanese towns by Israelis is not?

Artillary is a universally accepted weapon of war on urban targets and has been for decades. The Palestinians can and do fire all the rockets and artillary they want for the express purpose of killing civilians, we'll just f***ing kill them when they do.

Quote: And yet it proves that your forces didn't win: the Israelis will forever be remembered for the mess they made in Lebanon.

The war aims were to destroy the PLO as a military force, and to stop their raids, and to force Syrian Artilalry and SAM sites out of the Beqa Valley and away from our border. We achieved them all, it was a brilliant campaign and an excellent victory in the annals of the IDF.

We didnt make the mess Saracen, the Palestinians did. We tried to pick up the pieces after we were left with a ruined and civil war torn country after the final defeat of the PLO.

Quote: That's not a sign of a weakening force, is it. What poses the bigger threat to Israel today? A foreign conventional military with armed troops? or a clandestine, popular resistance force featuring "terrorists" with Semtex Jackets and truck bombs?

I'd rather be fighting the terrorist groups we fight today, then the massivly armed military formations we fought in times past. They killed far far more people back then because they had more capacity to do so.

And beleive me the Palestinians wish with all their hearts that they could have their former strongholds in Lebanon and their military back in action.

Quote: Excuse me, but I thought the goal was to end the northern threat against Israel. Hezbollah came out of the Lebanon war *stronger* and with much more political and military clout, didn't they. or are ALL of your leaders lying out of their asses when they claim that Hezbollah is as big a threat as they ever were?

It was to destroy the PLO in Lebanon, to end their raids and artillary attacks on the galilee, and to secure our border and to drive the syrian artillary and SAM sites from the Beqa Valley. We achieved every objective, it was a victory.

Quote: Then you lost the war. The goal was to remove the PLO as a threat. But when you retreated in 2000, the PLO was still a threat, wasn't it. In fact, Didn't the Al Asqa intefada begin in 2000?

We destroyed PLO as a military force and truly as a threat. The new threat has come from the Islamic groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad that formed into their true form in the 90's. The PLO is a broken force that is unable to even carryout its normal terrosit functions, Fatah the only power left in it has been falling into decay and has lonst its function as a terrorist and military support group.

The Al-Aqsa intifadah has been carried out almost entirely by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyrs etc. For example Hamas alone is responsable for more then 350 deaths of our 1,000 some toll.

[mr crunchy]

arent islamic jihad and the al asqua brigades an offshoot of the plo??

anyways
marwan barghouti is a man who israel should take seriously and is a much better alternative than the hamas groups

barghouti is well read,fluent in hebrew and a man who has always lived in palestine/israel/gaza
he has respect amongst many israelis despite his current situation which finds him in a jail cell

he is popular amongst the militant brass,hes popular with the younger generation and hasnt been corrupted by the established members of the PLO who arent trusted by anyone

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/palestine/marwan-barghouti.htm


barghouti in my opinion is a legitimate alternative to the hamas and i believe it would suit israelis interests to free him today

i can also see why israel would keep him in jail
im not a blind man but in the middle east politics makes strange bedfellows and barghouti should be in the game if they want legitimate candidates in palestine

as far as lebanon go...
sabra and shatila were essentially the end of the israeli moral authority
when the world saw what sharon allowed they took notice and for the 1st time in recent history the palestinians were seen as victims of wanton aggression and unjustified terror and israel had lots of unneeded blood on its hands...

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: Had we known their had been an abundance of excess civilians there a shelling would have been called off, nor was the UN compound the target.

Yet the Israelis said that they would call off the shelling, skippy, but they did not. They continued to pound the UN camp.

Lauri King-Irani wrote: Most residents of Qana and neighboring villages had fled north a week
earlier seeking refuge in Beirut. Those who remained behind had
assumed--incorrectly--that since international law strictly prohibits the
targeting of civilian structures and UN facilities they would be safe under
UNIFIL's protection. International law and 106 innocent Lebanese civilians
soon fell victim to an act of Israeli aggression deemed intentional by
objective and independent investigators.

UN Press Release wrote: Speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, KHALIFA O. ALATRASH (Libya) said that in paragraph 14 of resolution 54/267 the General Assembly had requested Israel to pay all the costs resulting from its act of aggression against the headquarters of UNIFIL in Qana. Necessary measures should be taken to guarantee the full implementation of that resolution. In his report on the financing of UNIFIL, the Secretary-General had made it clear that Israel had yet to implement it. Israel should pay restitution for its criminal act of aggression, which had resulted in considerable damage and in numerous deaths. Israel defied the resolution, and its failure to pay the damages negatively affected the financial situation of the Force.

The shelling of UNIFIL headquarters had been a premeditated and deliberate act, he continued, which led to damages in the amount of over $1.28 million. A precedent of non-payment would increase the danger for United Nations and associated staff, and the Arab Group urged the international community to once again adopt a resolution holding Israel accountable for the deliberate damage to UNIFIL headquarters, and force Israel to shoulder its responsibility. It was important to include information about the Qana incident in relevant reports, and the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) should explain the status of the amount of damages in the account of the Mission.

The United Nations Interim Force was playing a positive role under difficult conditions in Lebanon, he said. It would be unfair for other Member States to bear the financial burden for Israel's act of aggression. The leaders of Tel Aviv were still committing massacres against civilians, destroying their homes and forcing them to flee from their country. There were many examples of that. The Qana massacre in South Lebanon was one of those examples. The United Nations was not spared because of its international status, despite the United Nations Charter to which all Member States had committed. Refugees and citizens in South Lebanon had taken refuge at UNIFIL, seeking safe haven there. However, that did not deter Israeli aggressors. Tel Aviv leaders did not respect the international community and failed to implement relevant United Nations resolutions. Those were war crimes, for which international tribunals were established these days.

There is damning evidence that the shelling was deliberate, skippy. The Israelis are not above international law or this system of "populism" anymore.

superskippy wrote: Artillary is a universally accepted weapon of war on urban targets and has been for decades. The Palestinians can and do fire all the rockets and artillary they want for the express purpose of killing civilians, we'll just f***ing kill them when they do

Universally accepted or not, it was still unacceptable. Israel has too many times violated international law to the degree that its excuses are becoming threadbare and unbelievably whitewashing. Moshe Yaalon knew what he was doing when he ordered the shelling of the village. Yes, you can retaliate, but Qana was by no means a "retaliation".

US District Court wrote: As Head of Army Intelligence of the IDF, Defendant had constructive notice that civilians were sheltered at the Qana compound. Two Israeli reconnaissance helicopters with real time data link and a remotely piloted vehicle were present over the Qana compound at the time of the shelling.

24. As Head of Army Intelligence of the IDF, Defendant had actual notice that the site attacked was a UN compound and that civilians were sheltered there. During the attack UNIFIL officers provided notice that civilians had taken refuge in the compound, yet the IDF forces did not cease their attack.

25. Upon information and belief: From 1988 until 2000, the Northern Command was responsible for patrolling Israel’s northern border with Syria and Lebanon.

The Golani Brigade was directly subordinate to the Northern Command, which took direction from Defendant, former Head of Military Intelligence, for its operations. In February 1995, the Golani Brigade formed an elite special operations unit, Egoz. This unit began operations in June 1995 and was specially trained to combat Hezbollah within and beyond occupied territory in southern Lebanon and the region where the UNIFIL compound was located. It was responsible to both the Golani brigade, and to Aman who regulated cross border operations. Egoz’s activities during this period constituted a cross-border operation, and were therefore within Aman’s jurisdiction, and under Defendant’s command.
At all times relevant hereto, Defendant was acting under color of Israeli law.

Well, it seems obvious that Yaalon was up to some dirty tricks. According to the rest of the article, the IDF notified the nearby village inhabitants that they would bomb those villages, yet it turned out that they were misled into this massacre, which makes Israel's crime more heinous in this one.

superskippy wrote: The war aims were to destroy the PLO as a military force, and to stop their raids, and to force Syrian Artilalry and SAM sites out of the Beqa Valley and away from our border. We achieved them all, it was a brilliant campaign and an excellent victory in the annals of the IDF.

That's not what this report told me:

AMEU wrote: Until the October 1973 war—the fourth between the Arabs and Israel—the Lebanese government had been able to control the fedayeen by appealing to Lebanese national self-interest. There had been tremendous challenges, beginning with the Israeli attack on the Beirut International Airport Dec. 28, 1968. The Israeli raid caused the moderate government in power then to collapse under parliamentary accusations that the Lebanese army had refused to defend the airport. The Israelis predicated the raid on alleged Lebanese governmental complicity in the attempted hijacking of an El Al airliner in Athens on December 26 by members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the main extremist guerrilla group. Israel said it held Lebanon responsible because the hijackers supposedly embarked from Beirut, where the PFLP operated with the alleged acquiescence of the Lebanese government.

Lebanon rejected the Israeli charge. Nevertheless, the Beirut International Airport raid established a new Israeli strategy to hold the Lebanese government accountable for any fedayeen activity that could be traced to Lebanon. This strategy was to put new, critical pressures on a governmental system that already was approaching a breaking point

This means that the Israelis instigated a strife by blowing up the airliner and holding in charge the Lebanese government. Obviously, this made things uneasy for the Palestinians and the Lebanese, and the inherent relationship they had before the civil war.

superskippy wrote: We didnt make the mess Saracen, the Palestinians did. We tried to pick up the pieces after we were left with a ruined and civil war torn country after the final defeat of the PLO.

And yet the support for the Phalanges, the attacks and air raids on Beirut, and the continuous pounding of the Palestinian and Lebanese positions made more enemies than friends, and thus, it wasn't really a victory. Maybe on your terms, but it was the biggest mistake in Israeli history, and it clearly defined the brutality of the Israeli army.

superskippy wrote: I'd rather be fighting the terrorist groups we fight today, then the massivly armed military formations we fought in times past. They killed far far more people back then because they had more capacity to do so.

And beleive me the Palestinians wish with all their hearts that they could have their former strongholds in Lebanon and their military back in action.

I doubt it. The Palestinians are more keen on getting their land back... you know, the one they lost since 1948 and are still losing to this day.

superskippy wrote: It was to destroy the PLO in Lebanon, to end their raids and artillary attacks on the galilee, and to secure our border and to drive the syrian artillary and SAM sites from the Beqa Valley. We achieved every objective, it was a victory.

And yet you used the "ends justifies the means" approach. Who cares if many people died? Bush's war on Iraq is producing many casualties, and Mao got what he wanted by killing many people. But yeah, who cares, right? National interests come first.

superskippy wrote: We destroyed PLO as a military force and truly as a threat. The new threat has come from the Islamic groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad that formed into their true form in the 90's. The PLO is a broken force that is unable to even carryout its normal terrosit functions, Fatah the only power left in it has been falling into decay and has lonst its function as a terrorist and military support group.

The Al-Aqsa intifadah has been carried out almost entirely by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyrs etc. For example Hamas alone is responsable for more then 350 deaths of our 1,000 some toll.

But ask yourself: why are the Palestinians resisting to the Israeli occupation?

I'll answer for you. And this is an account regarding an Israeli living under Israeli occupation.

Robert Fisk wrote: Whenever Amira Hass tries to explain her vocation as a journalist, she recalls a seminal moment in her mother's life. Hannah Hass was being marched from a cattle train to the concentration camp of Bergen-Belsen on a summer's day in 1944. "She and the other women had been 10 days in the train from Yugoslavia. They were sick and some were dying. Then my mother saw these German women looking at the prisoners, just looking. This image became very formative in my upbringing, this despicable 'looking from the side'. It's as if I was there and saw it myself." Amira Hass stares at you through wire-framed glasses as she speaks, anxious to make sure you have understood the importance of the Jewish Holocaust in her life.
In her evocative book Drinking the Sea at Gaza, Hass eloquently explains why she, an Israeli journalist, went to live in Yasser Arafat's tiny, garbage-strewn statelet. "In the end," she wrote, "my desire to live in Gaza stemmed neither from adventurism nor from insanity, but from that dread of being a bystander, from my need to understand, down to the last detail, a world that is, to the best of my political and historical comprehension, a profoundly Israeli creation. To me, Gaza embodies the entire saga of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; it represents the central contradiction of the state of Israel – democracy for some, dispossession for others; it is our exposed nerve."

Now living in the West Bank town of Ramallah – with the Palestinians whom many of her people regard as "terrorists", listening to the Palestinian curses heaped upon "the Jews" for their confiscations and dispossessions and murder squads and settlements – Amira Hass is among the bravest of reporters, her daily column in Ha'aretz ablaze with indignation at the way her own country, Israel, is mistreating and killing the Palestinians. Only when you meet her, however, do you realize the intensity – the passion – of her work. "There is a misconception that journalists can be objective," she tells me, the same sharp glance to ensure my comprehension. "Palestinians tell me I'm objective. I think this is important because I'm an Israeli. But being fair and being objective are not the same thing. What journalism is really about – it's to monitor power and the centers of power."

Each day, Amira Hass writes an essay about despair, a chronological narrative she maintains when talking about her own life and about her parents: her mother, a Sarajevo Jew who joined Tito's partisans and was forced to surrender to the Nazis when they threatened to kill every woman in the Montenegrin town of Cetinje; her father Avraham who spent four years in the Transnistria ghetto, escaping a plague of typhus only to lose his toes to frostbite.

The story of the secular Jews Hannah and Avraham is essential to an understanding of Amira. "My parents came here to Israel naively. They were offered a house in Jerusalem. But they refused it. They said: 'We cannot take the house of other refugees.' They meant Palestinians. So you see, it's not such a big deal that I write what I do – it's not a big deal that I live among Palestinians." Hass became a journalist by default. She had survived on odd jobs – she once worked as a cleaner – and traveled to Holland. "I sensed there the absence of Jewish existence. And this told me many things, especially about my attitude to Israel, how not to be a Zionist. This is my place, Israel, the language, the people, the culture, the colors..."

Hass dropped out of the Hebrew University where she was researching the history of the Nazis and the attitude of the European left to the Holocaust. "I was stuck. The first intifada broke out and I didn't want to sit in academia while all this was happening. I used wasta – you know that Arabic word? – to get a copy-editing job on the Ha'aretz news desk in '89." Wasta means "pull" or "influence". Ha'aretz is a liberal, free-thinking paper, the nearest Israel has to The Independent. When the Romanian revolution broke out, Hass pleaded to be sent to cover the story – she had many contacts from a visit to Bucharest in 1977 – and much to her surprise, Ha'aretz agreed, even though she'd been with the paper only three months.

"When I'd gone to Romania before, I felt I had this philosophical responsibility to taste life under this socialist regime," she says. "It was a thousand times worse than I imagined. There was this terrible pressure – life under Israeli occupation is not as bad as life in Ceausescu's Romania. It was unbelievable suffocation. So I covered the revolution for two weeks and then went back to the paper. Ha'aretz didn't know if I could write – I knew I could. But I also knew never to look for what all the other journalists are looking for."

In 1990, with her parents' support, she joined a group called Workers' Hotline, which assisted Palestinians who were cheated by their Israeli employers. "During the Gulf War, I reached Gaza under curfew – I'd gone to give Palestinians their checks from Israeli employers. That's when my romance with Gaza started. No Israeli journalist knew or covered Gaza. My editor was very sympathetic. When in 1993 the 'peace process' broke out" – Hass requests the inverted commas round the phrase – "Ha'aretz suggested I cover Gaza. One of the editors said: 'We don't want you to live in Gaza.' And I knew at once that I wanted to live there."

From the start, Hass recalls, there was "something very warm about the Palestinian attitude – there was a lot of humor in these harsh conditions." When I suggest that this might be something she had recognized in Jews, Hass immediately agrees. "Of course. I'm an east European Jew and the life of the shtetl is inbuilt in me. And I guess I found in Gaza a shtetl. I remember finding refugees from Jabalya camp, sitting on a beach. I asked them what they were doing. And one said he was 'waiting to be 40 years old' – so he'd be old enough to get a permit to work in Israel. This was a very Jewish joke."

But Hass found no humor in the Israeli policy of "closure", of besieging Palestinian towns and throttling their economy and people. "I spotted as early as 1991 that the policy of 'closure' was a very clever step by the Israeli occupation system, a kind of pre-emptive strike," she says. "The way it debilitates any kind of Palestinian action and reaction is amazing. 'Closure' was also a goal: a demographic separation which means that Jews have the right to move about the space of Mandatory Palestine. The 'closure' policy brought this to a real perfection."

Hass found herself fascinated with the difference between Palestinian image and reality. "Their towns were being portrayed in the Israeli press as a 'nest of hornets'. But I really wanted to taste what it means to live under occupation – what it is like to live under curfew, to live in fear of a soldier. I wanted to know what it was like to be an Israeli under Israeli occupation." She has used that word "taste" again, just as she did about Romania under dictatorship. She says she was still thinking about her mother's trip to Belsen. "It was this idea of not intervening, not changing anything. And luckily, this combined in me with journalism." Hass is possessed of the idea that change can come only through social movements and their interaction with the press – an odd notion that seems a little illogical.

But there is nothing vague about her vocation. "Israel is obviously the center of power which dictates Palestinian life," she says. "As an Israeli, my task as a journalist is to monitor power. I'm called 'a correspondent on Palestinian affairs', but it's more true to say that I'm an expert in Israeli occupation." Israeli reaction, she says, is very violent towards her. "I get messages saying I must have been a kapo [a Jewish camp overseer for the Nazis] in my first incarnation. Then I'll get an e-mail saying: 'Bravo, you have written a great article – Heil Hitler!' Someone told me they hoped I suffered breast cancer. 'Until we expel all Palestinians, there will be no peace,' some of them say. I can't reply to them – there are thousands of these messages."

But many Israelis tell Amira Hass to keep writing. "People misled themselves into believing that Oslo was a peace process – so they became very angry with the Palestinians. Part of their anger is directed at me. Israelis do not go to the occupied territories. They do not see with their own eyes. They don't see a Palestinian village with a settler on its land and a village that has no water and needs government permission even to plant a tree, let alone build a new school. People don't understand how the dispersal of Jewish settlements dictates Israeli control over Palestinian territory."

As her mother lay dying this spring, Amira feared that she would be trapped by the Israeli siege of Ramallah – where she now lives – and spent hours commuting the few miles to Jerusalem. Now she is alone. The woman who taught her to despise those who were "looking from the side" died two months ago.

Stick to the facts: Israel killed more Palestinian civilians more than the Palestinians killed Israeli civilians. Also, Palestinians never had the power that Israel had, and Palestinians will continue to suffer until the Israelis end the occupation and give the Palestinians what they deserved from the beginning: a state.

[Fido]

Two points: Israel could get the hell out, and give the Palestine peace. The place cannot support them and the toe hold between Africa, and the Middle East is no longer needed. A state is the last thing Palestine needs, Though some form of social organization is needed. What ever happened to Trans-Jordan? Isn't that the proper area of the state if formed; something with some fixed geographical boundary's?

The use of violence against terror used as a form justice, and of political pressure never works. You cannot make people more poor nor less determined by making war on them. Terrorists result from violence. You cannot call the direct approach to fighting terror self interest. The real self interest is in always seeking justice, and in this fashion -making more friends than we lose with our cultural insensitivity.
When people feel they are reduced to non-existence while alive, and of not having enough of the respect due to all people, then those people are reduced to being counted, if only among the dead, to die for justice, to die for revenge, and in the process take as many as possible along.
The British found excuses for denying democracy to so many desert philosophers, but the suicide bomber is the ultimate democrat- becoming a person in the very instant of dieing.

[Saracen]

Fido wrote: Two points: Israel could get the hell out, and give the Palestine peace. The place cannot support them and the toe hold between Africa, and the Middle East is no longer needed. A state is the last thing Palestine needs, Though some form of social organization is needed. What ever happened to Trans-Jordan? Isn't that the proper area of the state if formed; something with some fixed geographical boundary's?

The use of violence against terror used as a form justice, and of political pressure never works. You cannot make people more poor nor less determined by making war on them. Terrorists result from violence. You cannot call the direct approach to fighting terror self interest. The real self interest is in always seeking justice, and in this fashion -making more friends than we lose with our cultural insensitivity.
When people feel they are reduced to non-existence while alive, and of not having enough of the respect due to all people, then those people are reduced to being counted, if only among the dead, to die for justice, to die for revenge, and in the process take as many as possible along.
The British found excuses for denying democracy to so many desert philosophers, but the suicide bomber is the ultimate democrat- becoming a person in the very instant of dieing.

Even though I don't agree with what suicide bombers do, I must say that this is one helluva damn fine post! :clap:

[superskippy]

Quote: There is damning evidence that the shelling was deliberate, skippy. The Israelis are not above international law or this system of "populism" anymore.

I've presented my argument I beleive beyond a doubt and I really have nothing left to say to be honest.

Quote: That's not what this report told me:

I dont give two damns what your report told you, the war aims were laid down by the Knesset, Prime Minister Begin, and the IDF General Staff. It is very clear in writing and in action, its simply fact.

Quote: This means that the Israelis instigated a strife by blowing up the airliner and holding in charge the Lebanese government. Obviously, this made things uneasy for the Palestinians and the Lebanese, and the inherent relationship they had before the civil war.

Thats not what it says. It says we raided the airport as a retaliation for the Lebanese being complicit with the PFLP's hijacking which originated from Lebanon.

Quote: And yet the support for the Phalanges, the attacks and air raids on Beirut, and the continuous pounding of the Palestinian and Lebanese positions made more enemies than friends, and thus, it wasn't really a victory. Maybe on your terms, but it was the biggest mistake in Israeli history, and it clearly defined the brutality of the Israeli army.

So long as the PLO was crushed and its fighters dead or forced from the ountry and our Northern border secure it was a victory. Every aim of the campaign was achieved.

Quote: I doubt it. The Palestinians are more keen on getting their land back... you know, the one they lost since 1948 and are still losing to this day.

That may very well be, but the militant groups yearn for the old days when they commanded whole troops brigades and batteries of artillary and companies of tanks. They'd trade their holdings in the West Bank and Gaza for their old positions in Lebanon any day, after all if they lose they can just return to the West Bank and Gaza like they did before.

Quote: And yet you used the "ends justifies the means" approach. Who cares if many people died? Bush's war on Iraq is producing many casualties, and Mao got what he wanted by killing many people. But yeah, who cares, right? National interests come first.

We didnt kill civilians on intent at all, in fact were it not for Arafats decision to make Beirut a battleground and its people a pyre for his cause the civilian casualties of the campaign would be around 90% smaller.

Quote: But ask yourself: why are the Palestinians resisting to the Israeli occupation?

If they were resisting the occupiers that might make sense. But they arent resisting the occupation their taking the long dangerous road into Israel to attack a Filafel Stand. Dont give me the resisting the occupation bullsh!t, they clearly arent doing that in the slightest.

Quote: Stick to the facts: Israel killed more Palestinian civilians more than the Palestinians killed Israeli civilians. Also, Palestinians never had the power that Israel had, and Palestinians will continue to suffer until the Israelis end the occupation and give the Palestinians what they deserved from the beginning: a state.

They had a chance for a state in 1948 a very rich and rather large state encompassing the Western Galilee along the coast and its rich farmland, the mediterannian coastal cities down south and the land spreading towards the Negev. The West Bank with its connection to the rich Jerusalem block and the Jordan Valley.

Dont give me they refused because they got less land, they didnt even want the Negev which is what gave us 55-60% of our territory. We would have traded the Negev for the Western Galilee anyday, but the Arabs not without logic wanted to keep the richer areas.

And in 1948 not only did they have that kind of power they had more power than we did. 7 Arab armies equipped to relativly good standerds with Tanks and Aircraft, and above all a stead supply of munitions not reliant on smuggling through a blockade.

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: I've presented my argument I beleive beyond a doubt and I really have nothing left to say to be honest.

Then you have nothing left to say on the matter.

superskippy wrote: I dont give two damns what your report told you, the war aims were laid down by the Knesset, Prime Minister Begin, and the IDF General Staff. It is very clear in writing and in action, its simply fact.

So, it's just because Begin and his Knesset said, the war aims were like that, no matter what the means were? That's "end justifies the means", and that's not right in anyone's book. Also, just because the IDF says it's "fact" doesn't mean it really is.

superskippy wrote: Thats not what it says. It says we raided the airport as a retaliation for the Lebanese being complicit with the PFLP's hijacking which originated from Lebanon

Oh, nice, so doing something and meddling in something that was not Israel's business was okay, like bombing a few planes and raiding Beirut.

superskippy wrote: That may very well be, but the militant groups yearn for the old days when they commanded whole troops brigades and batteries of artillary and companies of tanks. They'd trade their holdings in the West Bank and Gaza for their old positions in Lebanon any day, after all if they lose they can just return to the West Bank and Gaza like they did before.

Tanks and batteries of artillery? The best opportunity they had was when they were in Lebanon. In 1948, they had none of that stuff, and the ALA was not prepared for the Israeli forces.

superskippy wrote: We didnt kill civilians on intent at all, in fact were it not for Arafats decision to make Beirut a battleground and its people a pyre for his cause the civilian casualties of the campaign would be around 90% smaller.

This is getting old and lame really fast, skippy. The Israelis and Palestinians both intently targeted civilians. Regardless of what the orders were, it was very obvious that the Israelis got away with mass murder and pounding the sh!t out of Beirut.

superskippy wrote: If they were resisting the occupiers that might make sense. But they arent resisting the occupation their taking the long dangerous road into Israel to attack a Filafel Stand. Dont give me the resisting the occupation bullsh!t, they clearly arent doing that in the slightest.

Well, have you thought about it? I'll tell you: they (Hamas) think that through suicide bombing, they can strike terror and do the same thing that the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians as we speak: driving them out of their homes and their farms in the West Bank. Through this tactic, they think they can increase emigration from Israeli territory and decrease emigration from Israeli territory. That being said, both sides are driving each other out.

superskippy wrote: They had a chance for a state in 1948 a very rich and rather large state encompassing the Western Galilee along the coast and its rich farmland, the mediterannian coastal cities down south and the land spreading towards the Negev. The West Bank with its connection to the rich Jerusalem block and the Jordan Valley.

Dont give me they refused because they got less land, they didnt even want the Negev which is what gave us 55-60% of our territory. We would have traded the Negev for the Western Galilee anyday, but the Arabs not without logic wanted to keep the richer areas.

Here we go again... :lol:

Well, you asked for it. The Palestinians never had a representing voice over the UN partitioning agreements since the Yishuv was in control of most of the British economical affairs. Also, the Palestinians were given under 50% and the Jews about 60% (see map, and this one for comparison purposes). They were the majority of the population, yet they were forced to be squeezed into 40% of the land. It wasn't that they didn't want the Negev, but the Negev wasn't even given to them in the first place. Prior to the Jewish acceptance of the partition plan, the Palestinians rejected it because it was indeed unfair. Also, there was a lot of action taken by terrorist thugs like the Stern Gang, who worked to expel Palestinians from their villages. With that being said, the ethnic cleansing occurred prior to the so-called "declaration of war" on part of the Palestinians and their fellow Arabs.

superskippy wrote: And in 1948 not only did they have that kind of power they had more power than we did. 7 Arab armies equipped to relativly good standerds with Tanks and Aircraft, and above all a stead supply of munitions not reliant on smuggling through a blockade.

The Arab armies weren't even close to being well-prepared. All we hear is about how they have "tanks" and whatnot.

Simha Flapan wrote: The Arab armies neither coordinated their military operational plans, nor shared military intelligence among themselves. In fact, it wasn't until April 30, 1948 that the Arab armies' chiefs of staff met for the first time to work out a plan for military intervention. It's worth noting that this plan was later wrecked by H.M. King Abdullah, when he made last minute changes just before the entry of any Arab army into British Mandated Palestine. (Simha Flapan, p. 133 & Iron Wall, p. 35)

According to a Jewish Agency assessment of the Arab intentions and capacities, submitted in March 1948, reported that the Arabs chiefs of staff had warned their government against an invasion of Palestine and any lengthy war because of the internal situation in most of the Arab countries. For example, revolt in Yemen kept the Saudis at bay and there was a mass riot in Iraq against the Anglo-Iraqi treaty, (Simha Flapan, p. 123-124)

It was pretty evident that the Israeli army was well prepared to face off against the Arabs.

The History Channel wrote: Although the Palestinians outnumbered the Jews (1,300,000 to 600,000), the latter were better prepared. They had a semiautonomous government, led by David Ben-Gurion, and their military, the Haganah, was well trained and experienced. The Palestinians, on the other hand, had never recovered from the Arab revolt, and most of their leaders were in exile. The Mufti of Jerusalem, their principal spokesman, refused to accept Jewish statehood. When the UN proposed partition in November 1947, he rejected the plan while the Jews accepted it. In the military struggle that followed, the Palestinians were defeated. Terrorism was used on both sides.

The state of Israel was established on May 14, 1948, with Ben-Gurion as prime minister. Five Arab armies, coming to the aid of the Palestinians, immediately attacked it. Uncoordinated and outnumbered, they were defeated by Israeli forces. Israel enlarged its territory. Jordan took the West Bank of the Jordan River, and Egypt took the Gaza Strip. (Israel occupied these lands after the Six-Day War of 1967.)

But how exactly, were they outnumbered later on? The Arabs sent only skirmishers that attacked the Israeli positions, but were soundly defeated by the incoming Israeli onslaught that not only ethnically cleansed more villages, but also severed the Arabs' capabilities even further. Now, as for that "steady supply of munitions"...

Source wrote: -The other strongest Arab armies, Egyptian and Iraqi, had long supply and communication lines away from their bases in their respective countries.

-Under American and French pressure, the Lebanese Army was sidelined from the start, and it did not even cross the international borders. At the most, the Lebanese army provided a mediocre artillery cover to some ALA [Arab Liberation Army] volunteers at the beginning of the war. (Righteous Victims p. 233-234)

-These statistics (mentioned in the table) clearly show that the number of Israeli soldiers killed in offensive actions were well over 60% (2,759/4,558) of the total Israeli soldiers killed between November 30, 1947 and March 10, 1949. So from the Israeli prospective, the so called "War of Independence" was more offensive than defensive in nature.

-The Israelis maximally exploited the rivalry between H.M. the King Abdullah of Transjordan and al-Hajj Amin al-Husseini. For example, before the entry of any Arab armies to Palestine on May 15th, 1948, al-Hajj Amin (who resided at the time in Tyre-southern Lebanon) wanted to declare a provisional Palestinian government in the Galilee, with Safad being its capital. To preempt such a plan, H.M. the King pulled out Transjordan's irregulars troops out of Safad on May 11th, 1948, which was the primary reason for its falling into Israeli hands few days later (Benny Morris, p. 105). Another good reason that enticed H.M. the King to collaborate with the Jewish Agency was the promise of future payments of $4 million a year for the next subsequent 5 years. (Simha Flapan, p. 138)

Thus, the Jordanians weren't really looking forward to the battle against the Israelis, but were actually collaborating with them and gave them that bit of land for free, while the Palestinians were betrayed by their Arab brethren who collaborated with the Israelis.

Source wrote: -Although there was an arms embargo on the warring parties in the Middle East, the embargo negatively affected the Arabs more than the Israelis. While the Arab armies were depleting their arms and ammunitions, the Israeli army was stockpiling weapons and ammunitions from a huge arms shipment from Czechoslovakia that arrived in early May, 1948.

By October 1948, the Israeli army had 90,000 armed men, while the Arab armies had 68,000 armed men.

It was pretty obvious that the Israelis were arming themselves to the teeth. There is no mention of Arabs having tanks, planes, etc. All they had was mediocre artillery and were actually sidelined for a good portion of the war.

If you wanna continue this argument on history, we can, otherwise we just have to agree to disagree as per usual. :-D

[Yrkoon]

mr crunchy wrote:
israel should never give back the golan
it would be stupid since theyve been attacked from that point 3 times in less than 20 years
Wait, they've given back Southern Lebanon, even though they've been attacked from there several times in the past 20 years. And most Israeli leaders say pulling out of Southern Lebanon was a great idea. I'm curious as to wh at exactly makes the Golan any different. My guess is because Golan is an economically valuable piece of real-estate. I'm sure you'd agree, since you're so "even handed"8:)

mr crunchy wrote: a bin laden supporter could point to the hypocritical agenda the us government has in dealing with israel and arab disagreements and they could point to the us funding israels settlements as well

but binladen doesnt represent anyone but himself and his band of murderers
Our Government's 9/11 commission would strongly disagree with you, since they repeatedly point out that support for Bin-Laden and Al-qaeda is growing, and flourishing--even in the west.

mr crunchy wrote:
they have no nation
They are international.

mr crunchy wrote:
they have no use in this world
Oh I wouldn't say that. They've had a huge hand in turning US public opinion against the Iraq war, for example.

mr crunchy wrote:
they dont build
Neither does the IDF

mr crunchy wrote:
they dont heal
Neither does the IDF

mr crunchy wrote:
they destroy everything they touch,including the sudan,afghanistan and the ""lawless"" tribal areas of pakistan
On the other hand, the IDF has destroyed Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and a rather valuable US intel gathering ship.

mr crunchy wrote: as much as i hated the policies of ari sharon and the likud party they are an infinetly better bargain for the rest of the world than OBL is...
I don't see the big difference between the two, actually. Except that the latter still retains the use of his brain.

[Yrkoon]

superskippy wrote:

They had a chance for a state in 1948 a very rich and rather large state encompassing the Western Galilee along the coast and its rich farmland, the mediterannian coastal cities down south and the land spreading towards the Negev. The West Bank with its connection to the rich Jerusalem block and the Jordan Valley.

Dont give me they refused because they got less land, they didnt even want the Negev which is what gave us 55-60% of our territory. We would have traded the Negev for the Western Galilee anyday, but the Arabs not without logic wanted to keep the richer areas.


In reality, the main reason for the Arab rejection was because they knew the Jews would immediatly take this land by force. After all, even before the mandate ended, in April and May of 1948, Jewish fighters moved to protect, consolidate and widen the territory for the new Jewish state.

^You can dispute this if you want, but that wouldn't be very prudent. My source is British. Specifically, The BBC

Now, I don't know about you, but greedily taking what's not yours yet tends to kill most political deals, yes? And it certainly disproves the absurd claim of yours that the Arabs could have had a state in 1948.