Dean: fiscal conservative and social progressive

How could you not trust such a face...

http://wwwi.reuters.com/images/2003-09-18T124910Z_01_RAM03D_RTRIDSP_2_MIDEAST.jpg

Hmm, gesture seems familiar too...

RE: Glad you asked...

>Anyone who wants to know why the Israelis can't just give up

>the occupied terrorities without antyhing in return and then

>expect peace, just read the above.

Not so fast, read what I said. If you target and kill the moderates and delay serious peace talks while democracy and demography kick in, then in effect it is the Israelis who have made the idea of a workable two-state solution nigh on impossible. A question for you now? If Senator Mitchell was praised for his solution to Northern Ireland, why would you not accept the same principled approach to Palestine?

>Yeah - maybe we can get some nice trains to take them there.

They boarded them without complaint or hesitation last time...!

RE: Glad you asked...

>The

>only difference is that the alternative that occurs when the

>occupation is relaxed will include even MORE violence against

>Israelis. That is what you are asking them to risk. Does it

>really make sense for them to take that risk without any

>assurances from anybody that the situation will improve?

Do you really think that building and expanding settlements, seizing land outside the Green Line, and targeting political leaders is conducive to peace?

RE: Glad you asked...

>Not so fast, read what I said.

I did - you finally admitted what is, in any event, painfully obvious to any honest person - that the goal of Hamas, IJ, et al. is not withdrawl from the occupied territory, but the destruction of Israel as a state. I mean, they fucking admit this, so why try to obfuscate it?

>A question for you now? If Senator Mitchell was

>praised for his solution to Northern Ireland, why would you

>not accept the same principled approach to Palestine?

First of all, the fact that someone creates a solution for one situation doesn't mean that everything they about another situation is the Gospel. I think the Clinton Administration did a good job in Kosovo; it doesn't mean that they did a good job in Somolia.

Second, Senator Mitchell had two things in Northern Ireland that don't exist : (1) two sides clearly able to carry out what they agreed to; and (2) two sides which ultimately concluded that a peaceful resoultion was the only viable alternative.

Under Sen. Mitchell's plan, who and what is going to stop Hamas, IJ, et al. from pursuing their goal of the destruction of Israel?

>>Yeah - maybe we can get some nice trains to take them there.

>

>They boarded them without complaint or hesitation last

>time...!

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't think the next train boarding is going to quite that easy. That's what all those nice weapons are about.

RE: Glad you asked...

>Second, Senator Mitchell had two things in Northern Ireland

>that don't exist : (1) two sides clearly able to carry out

>what they agreed to; and (2) two sides which ultimately

>concluded that a peaceful resoultion was the only viable

>alternative.

The principle in Northern Ireland was one of respecting democracy and demographics. Why is that inapplicable in Palestine? If Israel accepted what the Protestants accepted in Northern

Ireland, we could all board our airplanes without worry of our dildos and vibrators falling out of our suit cases!

RE: Glad you asked...

>The principle in Northern Ireland was one of respecting

>democracy and demographics. Why is that inapplicable in

>Palestine?

Do you really need this answered? It's because your friends in Hamas and Islamic Jihad don't "respect democracy and demographics." They only respect one thing - the end of Israel. Why do you keep pretending this isn't so.

>If Israel accepted what the Protestants accepted

>in Northern

>Ireland, we could all board our airplanes without worry of our

>dildos and vibrators falling out of our suit cases!

If you think the only reason that Muslim fundamentalists hate the U.S. is because of Israel, then there is no reasoning with you. We have a pretty significant interest in the Middle East - it's called "oil". Ever heard of it? It's what necessitates our being involved in what's going on over there - and as long as that's the case, Mitchell Plan or no, they won't like us too much.

RE: Glad you asked...

>>The principle in Northern Ireland was one of respecting

>>democracy and demographics. Why is that inapplicable in

>>Palestine?

>

I think it has something to do with the fact that while Catholics who are oppressed because of their religion can always move to one of the many countries where Catholics are the majority, Jews don't have that option -- unless Israel remains a Jewish state. That is why the UN decided that it should be founded as and remain a Jewish state.

>>If Israel accepted what the Protestants accepted

>>in Northern

>>Ireland, we could all board our airplanes without worry of

>our

>>dildos and vibrators falling out of our suit cases!

You musn't expect Jews to give up a Jewish state just to make it easier for you to behave like a slut when you travel.

>If you think the only reason that Muslim fundamentalists hate

>the U.S. is because of Israel, then there is no reasoning with

>you.

I'm surprised you were ever under the impression that it was possible to reason with a bigot like Ad rian. With him, the cause of human rights is simply an excuse to bash Jews. Do you see any posts on this board about violations of human rights by any countries other than Israel and America (which as we know is controlled by Jewish money)? If I wanted to create a character who would always say exactly what one would expect from a member of the Muslim diaspora, I couldn't do better than to duplicate his posts. He is the most predictable poster here.

RE: Glad you asked...

>Do you really need this answered? It's because your friends

>in Hamas and Islamic Jihad don't "respect democracy and

>demographics." They only respect one thing - the end of

>Israel. Why do you keep pretending this isn't so.

No pretense at all n my part. Why do you fail to acknowledge the apartheid minority rule quality to your beloved Israel. Sorry, my friend the one side in this conflict - just as with the white settlers in South Africa before - that rejects democracy and demographics is the jewish minority that seeks dominion over a Palestinian majority over land that belongs to that majority. And despite all the funny numbers due to a racist "right of return", phoney dual citizenship, ignoring of refugees, as the NYT acknowledged recently that game is up!

RE: How could you not trust such a face...

You're right. That does look like a face you can trust.

http://www.ezshots.com/members/blueman/images/blueman-117.jpg

http://www.ezshots.com/members/blueman/images/blueman-118.jpg

http://www.ezshots.com/members/blueman/images/blueman-120.jpg

http://www.ezshots.com/members/blueman/images/blueman-119.jpg

RE: Glad you asked...

>Do you really think that building and expanding settlements,

>seizing land outside the Green Line, and targeting political

>leaders is conducive to peace?

No, I think the settlements (new or expanded) are an obstacle to peace and are being pursued by the more extremist elements within Israel.

Now let's talk about the "targeting of political leaders" for a moment. The one "political leader" you are referring to (which was their definition) was a leader of a terrorist organization by our definition. Since this group PURPOSELY targets and kills Israeli civilians (including children) and then proceeds to publicly take responsibilities for such actions, I agree with the definition that they are a terrorist organization. As such I fully support Israel's practice of targeting these terrorists and ridding the world of them.

I genuinely feel sad for the Palestinian people who are being governed by such militant extremists/terrorists who have chosen to use terrorism to further their politcal agenda. As long as they choose to use terrorism to further their goals, there will never be peace.

The Bush needs to switch his policy with Israel on two fronts:

(1) He needs to put much more pressure on Israel to stop expanding existing and building new settlements in stead of looking the other way.

(2) He needs to back off his call for constraint in their dealing with Arafat. Arafat has been the single biggest obstacle to peace and will continue to be as long as he is alive.

Personally, I think Israel should formally and publicly tell Arafat that since he refuses to reign in the terrorist groups, he and his cronies will be personally held accountable should one more attack occur against Israel. If just one more attack occurs, he and his inner group will be attacked with force (i.e., wiped out) just like any other terrorist leadership should be.

RE: Glad you asked...

>>Do you really think that building and expanding

>settlements,

>>seizing land outside the Green Line, and targeting political

>>leaders is conducive to peace?

>

>No, I think the settlements (new or expanded) are an obstacle

>to peace and are being pursued by the more extremist elements

>within Israel.

Yes, but those "extremists" have been governing your beloved Israel most of the time since 1976, and are currently doing so again. How do you propose to deal with that? More loan guaruntees? More military assistance? More UN vetoes? I am sure all of that will be extremely persuasive?

>Now let's talk about the "targeting of political leaders" for

>a moment. The one "political leader" you are referring to

>(which was their definition) was a leader of a terrorist

>organization by our definition.

No I am referring to the political leadership as distinct from military leadership of Hamas (a distinction that Israel has respected and understood until recently) and the elected leader of the Palestinian Authority in UN supervised elections. Friends and allies can't make peace between themselves by definition. Enemies can make peace, but one party does not get to choose the leader of the other. Do you think Palestinians enjoy dealing with war criminals like General Sharon or General Barak? The British would not deal with Nehru or Ghandi, but in the end they did. Ian Smith would not deal with Nkomo and Mugabe, but in the end they did. The leaders of Israel's apartheid cousins in South Africa would not deal with Mandela, but in the end they did. And so on, and so on .... If Israeal wants "peace" it will deal with the moderate secular Palestinian leadership before it is to late. If Israel wants a "piece" of land it will continue to violate international law in furtherance of its occupation in which case it will live without peace or security.

RE: Jimmy Carter on Israel's Choice

>If Israeal wants "peace" it will deal with

>the moderate secular Palestinian leadership before it is to

>late. If Israel wants a "piece" of land it will continue to

>violate international law in furtherance of its occupation in

>which case it will live without peace or security.

The Choice For Israelis

By Jimmy Carter

Tuesday, September 23, 2003; Page A27

Last week we observed the 25th anniversary of the Camp David Accords, which spelled out the basic relationships between Israel and its neighbors and led within a few months to the inviolate peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. Participants in the recent event included nine of the 11 members of the U.S. negotiating team and key advisers to Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.

It was intriguing to review the issues we faced then, after four major wars in the previous 25 years, and to assess how current problems have evolved. All of us have retained a deep interest in the peace process and hopes of eventual success.

Part of that hope was derived from the calm and relative friendship that prevailed after the successful negotiations at Camp David, those of the Norwegians between Israelis and Palestinians in 1993, and the Palestinian elections of 1996, in which a parliament was formed and Yasser Arafat chosen as president. These were times, although transient, when moderate leadership and sound judgment prevailed, and citizens lived and worked side by side in peace.

In each case, radical and violent actions subsequently intruded, exemplified by the assassinations of Sadat and of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and by the unconscionable suicide bombings and other violence that continue today.

There is an impressive continuity of unchanging basic issues, expressed most clearly and succinctly in U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which was passed unanimously after the 1967 war. It requires, in effect, a withdrawal of Israel from occupied territories, in exchange for ensured peace and recognition from all Arab governments and other organizations.

It has been recognized that Israeli settlements in the occupied territories were a violation of international law and the primary incitement to violence among Palestinians. Our most intense arguments at Camp David were about their existence and potential expansion. The parties agreed that all those in Egypt's Sinai region were to be dismantled, and there was a strong dispute about their growth in the West Bank and Gaza, then comprising about 4,000 settlers. During the first Bush administration, Secretary of State James Baker said, "I don't think there is any greater obstacle to peace than settlement activity that continues not only unabated but at an advanced pace," and the president threatened to withhold American financial aid in order to discourage settlement expansion.

But during the past two administrations in Washington and with massive financial and political incentives from the Israeli government, the number of new settlers has skyrocketed, with many settlements protected by military forces and connected to others by secure highways. An impenetrable fence is hastily being built, often through Palestinian lands.

We Camp David alumni discussed the "road map for peace," published in April 2003 by the United States, Great Britain, Russia and the United Nations, and agreed that it encompasses almost exactly the same proposals expressed in previous proclamations and peace agreements, including dismantling the settlements. The Israeli cabinet rejected a number of its key provisions, the Palestinians have not been able to find a negotiating partner acceptable to Israel and the United States and have failed to control violence, and the other three sponsors are effectively excluded from any role in the relatively dormant process.

There is an important and fundamental change in the motivation of the United States as mediator. At Camp David we Americans knew that our nation's strategic interests were directly involved in the peace process. Cold War alliances had resulted in a direct nuclear confrontation between the superpowers as Israel and Egypt fought during the 1973 war, with other aligned nations marshaled to take sides. The Holy Land was the tinderbox for World War III, and peace was vital to our own security.

Today, except for the fact that the Palestinian issue has become one of the foremost causes of international terrorism, our strategic interests are much less involved in the Israeli-Palestinian violence. There seems to be no urgency in resolving the relatively localized dispute, with harsh crackdowns from the Israeli military and abhorrent terrorist acts perpetrated by Palestinians who claim to have no hope for freedom and justice.

Confident that our support is unshakable, Israeli leaders eventually began to assert their independence, and real American influence has reached its lowest ebb in 50 years. In the face of certain rebuffs, why would any American president become deeply involved in a balanced mediating role?

No matter what leaders the Palestinians might choose, how fervent American interest might be or how great the hatred and bloodshed might become, there remains one basic choice, and only the Israelis can make it:

Do we want permanent peace with all our neighbors, or do we want to retain our settlements in the occupied territories of the Palestinians?

America's worst betrayal of Israel would be to support the second choice.

Former president Carter is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta.

RE: "Nothing to be Ashamed of..."?!

>As for the rest of your posting, it's just ridiculous. There

>is no "moral" issue whatsoever involved in the type of

>armaments Israel possesses vis-a-vis those the Palestinians

>possess.

Haaretz

Last Update: 23/09/2003 06:29

Israel to declassify junta-era Argentine papers

By Noga Tarnopolsky

The Foreign Ministry has decided to declassify

documents on Israel-Argentina relations between

1976-1982, when a military junta ruled the South

American state.

Israel was known to have sold

weapons to the Argentinian

dictatorship while at the same

time trying to save the lives

of individually threatened

Argentinians. The period has

been under investigation by an

Israeli panel of experts

looking into the fate of Jews

who disappeared under the

military junta.

A Foreign Ministry spokesman declined to comment

Monday on the decision to declassify the

documents, and would not specify how many

documents would be made public.

Dr. Ra'anan Rein, Head of the Institute for the

Study of Latin American History and Culture at

Tel Aviv University, said: "I'm happy and

satisfied with the decision, though cautiously

so, until we know exactly which documents are

released, how extensive the publication and if

the documents deal directly with the relations

of a military nature that existed between the

two countries."

So far, only the U.S. has published diplomatic

and political papers from the period. The

documents expected to be declassified by the

Foreign Ministry are considered especially

important since Argentina has yet to declassify

any papers from the period.

Israeli diplomats who served in Argentina at the

time said they were pleased. Herzl Inbar, a

former ambassador to Argentina said: "This is a

welcome decision and we have nothing to be

ashamed of." Eliezer Talmor, a former deputy

chief of mission said, "we have nothing to

hide."

Atilio Molteni, Argentina's ambassador in

Israel, welcomed the decision, calling it "very

positive." He said: "Any step that leads to

transparency in the relationship between two

countries as close as Israel and Argentina is a

positive step."