HAPPY?THANKSGIVING

Posted By: Glenn HaumanPosted On:

As relieved as I obviously am that the Macy’s parade went unmolested (could you imagine shooting the Charlie Brown balloon? You can hear him muttering “rats” as he deflates) one has to be dismayed by the new attacks on Israeli interests which–by startling coincidence–coincide with the primary elections that will determine whether Israel continues with the hardline tactics of Sharon or toes a more moderate line.

There is a growing desire by Israeli citizens–weary of being blown up wherever they go–to come to some sort of accord with the Palestinians. Feeling that the hawkish Sharon isn’t the one to achieve it, they are seriously eyeing candidates who favor such concepts as clearing out of the Gaza strip.

The problem is that some Arab factions wouldn’t want that to happen, because they’re not interested in a Palestinian state. They’re interested in killing all the Jews. One is staggered at the difference in extremist philosophies. The extremiest Israeli philosophy is, “No compromise because it threatens Israeli security.” The extremist Arab philosophy is, “No compromise because we want all the Israelis dead.” The latter fuels the former, and around we go.

So if major strikes convince more moderate Israelis that peace is hopeless, Sharon stays put, which helps the Arab extremists who are benefited by the world seeing Israel as unwilling to bargain.

The question is, who’s trying to manipulate the election? Palestinians? I’m not sure, but…I’m thinking no. I’m thinking bin Laden’s people, passing themselves off as a never-before-heard-from Palestinian militant organization, out to keep destabilized a region that is essential to the United States both for obtaining oil and for allies required for the suddenly vital war against Saddam.

PAD

15 comments on “HAPPY?THANKSGIVING”

  1. Peter,

    Your more serious-minded “predictions” seem consistently wrong a lot of late. Thankfully, so in most cases. I would start “looking before I leap”… a fool and his mouth opening and all that.

    Also, the Israeli elections were a Likud Primary between the hard-line Sharon and an even HARDER-line challenge by former Prime Minister Benjamin “BiBi” Netanyahu (Labor chose their more dovish candidate a short while ago). There was no choice about continuing “with the hardline tactics of Sharon or toes a more moderate line.” Netanyahu had promised anything but a more “moderate line.”

  2. >>Your more serious-minded “predictions” seem consistently wrong a lot of late. Thankfully, so in most cases. I would start “looking before I leap”… a fool and his mouth opening and all that.<<

    Aside from the fact that I don’t appreciate being referred to as a fool, and even if I were a fool, I’d be smart enough to know that the phrase is “a fool and his money” rather than his mouth, because who the hëll is parted from his mouth, I’m not endeavoring to “predict” anything. This blog exists for me to talk about what’s concerning me at any given moment.

    Being concerned something might happen is not the same as saying it will happen. The last thing I actually endeavored to “predict” on this blog was who the big bad for “Buffy” was this season. You’d never catch me actually predicting a calamity would transpire in the real world because, if it did, I’m superstitious enough to be worried that I somehow contributed to it occurring.

    PAD

  3. Marco is correct, Mr. D (not about you being a fool, of course) but about the Israeli primary being just within the Likud Party between Staunchly Conservative and Hard Line Conservative candidates. The election in January has the potential to bring in a new leader from the more dovish Labor Party but the only Israelis holding their breath are the ones who haven’t yet bought their gas masks.

  4. The question is, who’s trying to manipulate the election? Palestinians? I’m not sure, but…I’m thinking no. I’m thinking bin Laden’s people, passing themselves off as a never-before-heard-from Palestinian militant organization

    Pretty much the general consensus. The use of stinger missiles, the synchronization, and the fact that it was in Kenya, like the embassy bombing, all point to Al Qaeda.

  5. out to keep destabilized a region that is essential to the United States both for obtaining oil and for allies required for the suddenly vital war against Saddam.

    Why is the war suddenly vital? I truly want to know coming from New Zealand I can not see any justification of the movements of the United States and in our local area Australia. To me it seems that we currently have a bunch of trigger happy leaders who are making public opinion more war hungery than is necessary.

    Sorry to have this rant on your message board Peter, but your work is smart and your readers seem to be also.

  6. This war is vital because Bush sees Saddam as an threat that must be taken out post-haste. He has to cash in on the current general readiness of the american ppl to go to war.

    The Bush administration is using the War on terrorism to slowly take out the governments of all countries whom they deems to be “EVIL”. Freedom of self government and such.

  7. The reference to “vital war” was supposed to be sarcastic, actually. And yes, I knew it was a primary election, which is why I *said* primary. I just wasn’t sure how to spell Likud.

    PAD

  8. Peter,

    I aplogize for the fool comment, I was trying to be “too” clever. The saying I was thinking of was “better to let people think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”… whatever the saying… I was wrong.

    And while you might have said “primary”… the substance of your comment was “the primary elections that will determine whether Israel continueswith the hardline tactics of Sharon or toes a more moderate line.”

    The main opposition to Sharon was Netanyahu, is HE the “more moderate line” you were talking about. I have to assume that since you cited Sharon as the one possessing the “hard-line tactics.” The only other candidate was an American born Likud, who polled in at about 2.3 percent.

  9. What I would like to know is why these events keep happening in Africa. This is the second time that Kenya has been the sight of terrorist activeties. My thinking would be a general lack of infrastructure and security forces around to potentially foil their plots must make the continent atractive from a terrorists point of view. I wonder what the Africans themselves have to say about all of this. I am not sure if most Africans are pro- or anti- Israel today(most African governments were anti-Israel in the 70s and 80s due to Israel’s rather unfortunate relationship with South Africa), but many of the people in the horn area are Muslims (though Kenyans are predominantly Christians).

    I was also considering the irony that these bombings are having on the Palestinians. Every time Palestinians blow up Israelis, more Israelis vote for the hard-line Likud instead of the Labour party. I heard on the news the other day that some 75% of the Palestinian population is sick of the constant violence and ready for peace.

    I don’t mean to spark unnecessary controversy, but I am personally in favor of a Palestinian state, preferably with someone other than Arafat serving as leader. The current situation makes both sides look foolish and barbaric, and is only leading to more death and destruction. The problem of course, lies in where to place the boundaries. I am personally opposed to the settlements in the West Bank, which sound a bit too much like what the settlers did to the Native Americans in this country (Thanksgiving, for those who didn’t know, is a national day of mourning for Native Americans), but I can also see how a person who has sunk all of his fortune into building a place for himself and his family in the West Bank may not want to leave. If this is the case, perhaps Palestine should incorporate the settlements into its territory, with settlers becoming full citizens of the new state and with the full protection and rights of all other citizens. In that way, Palestine would keep its land and the Israelis would keep their property. I know it will probably never work, but I man can dream.

    Sorry to have rambled, but I have wanted to share my views on this problem for some time on this forum. By the way, Peter, do you have relatives in Isreal? I have never met a Paletinian or an Israeli (thus painting myself as a man who speaks from absolutely no experience) but would be anxious to hear what a person from either gourp thought about the problem.

  10. the only Israelis holding their breath are the ones who haven’t yet bought their gas masks.

    Bought our gas masks? Don’t be silly – we get them for free!

    More seriously, yes, as many said the primaries were between Sharon and Netanyahu – Sharon being the more moderate of the two.

    Being a leftist, and realistic about the chances of a party other than Likud to get elected, I’m glad Sharon was chosen.

    – Oren R., lurker, Israel

  11. “There is a growing desire by Israeli citizens–weary of being blown up wherever they go–to come to some sort of accord with the Palestinians. Feeling that the hawkish Sharon isn’t the one to achieve it, they are seriously eyeing candidates who favor such concepts as clearing out of the Gaza strip.”

    The thing that concerns me most about all of this is how easily the media conflates “people who don’t agree with Israel’s policies” with “anti-Semites.” It strikes the same wrong chord as labelling people who don’t like the Bush administration “anti-American.”

    Okay, what am I missing? How did you get from “accord” (i.e., peaceful solution) to “clearing out” (i.e., ethnic cleansing)?

  12. Peter said: “One is staggered at the difference in extremist philosophies. The extremiest Israeli philosophy is, “No compromise because it threatens Israeli security.” The extremist Arab philosophy is, “No compromise because we want all the Israelis dead.”

    Dear Peter,

    I really enjoy your comments on the Arab-Israeli conflict as they truly make me think. However, I think your characterization of the extremist groups is a little too simplistic and perhaps not fully informed.

    There are plenty of irrational, racist, and homicidal maniac extremists on the Israeli side as there are on the Arab side of the conflict. “The only good Arab is a dead Arab!” said the Israeli settler to my face in Hebron in 2000. That was six years after Israeli settler and local hero Baruch Goldstein walked into a mosque in Hebron and massacred over 20 praying Palestinians. Those racist and homicidal thoughts and actions are not born solely out of a need for security, but out of a perceived ethnic and religious need to be in sovereign control of all of ancient Judea and Samaria (the present day West Bank). These extremists are just as much of a problem for Israelis as they are the Palestinians. Just ask the widow of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. It is religious fanaticism that breeds homicidal Israeli settlers and homicidal Palestinian terrorists.

    So in my understanding of the conflict, there are wackos who are equally wacko on both sides.

    Shalom,

    Shawn

  13. >> Okay, what am I missing? How did you get from “accord” (i.e., peaceful solution) to “clearing out” (i.e., ethnic cleansing)? <<

    What you missed is that by clearing out Peter meant clearing out the settlements not ethnic cleansing !

    But to PAD comments. The biggest problem facing the peace in the middle east is not Sharon, Netanyahu (he just threatens Israel) or any other Israeli leader, but rather Yasser Arafat.

    History has often shown that great war time leaders do not necessarily make great peacetime leaders. Arafat is the best example for this.

    While Arafat led his people to the initial peace talks, he realized after the Oslo accords started changing the middle eastern landscape (peace after all is good for all) that he cannot hold power and may be replaced by someone else who will lead his people. His fear of being side-margined caused him to seed discontent in his people. He has done this by clever politcal manuvaring of the local police captains, pairing them off one against the other in the fight for power and control.

    The results of these fights were of course felt by the palestenian people, ultimatly the greatest sufferers from their own “elected” leader. Arafat then used their turmoil, to again rally the people against their “true” enemy – the Israelis and thus started the new Intifada.

    What this long fought conflict needs is a true palestenian leader who’s only interest is the well being of his people and not his own power and pocket.

    Just my $0.02

  14. Shawn Greenstreet and most other people of course have little accurate knowledge of Israeli history, Arab history, or ancient Middle Eastern history. First of all, Shawn talks about Goldstein’s massacre in Hebron. Arabs in Hebron massacred 67 Jews there in 1929. The encouragement that the Arabs got from the British at the time does not lessen anger at the Arabs.

    The Oslo “Declaration of Principle” was signed in DC under Clinton’s benevolent eyes in 9/1993. This was a signal to the Arabs to increase [not decrease] terrorist actions. One of Dr Goldstein’s best friends, Mordecai Lapid, and one of Lapid’s sons were murdered in January 1994 [among other post-Oslo, pre-Goldstein Jewish victims]. So if one wants to look for root causes of Goldstein’s massacre, look at the Oslo accords themselves which created a sense of anarchy –that every man does what seems right in his own eyes [as the Bible has it], as well as at the sharp increase in murders by Arabs of Jews after Oslo. Then too Jews recall the 1929 massacre, replete with gruesome mutilations, which can be ascribed to the British govt as well as to the Arabs, including the notorious Amin el-Husseini, the British-appointed mufti of Jerusalem who spent the years of WW2 in Nazi Germany helping Hitler recruit Muslims to his Kampf against civilization. A main feature of Hebron is the Tomb of the Patriarchs [where Goldstein killed Arabs], surrounded by stone walls erected by King Herod of Judaea at the same time as he renovated the Temple in Jerusalem [which we know because of the similar stonework in the remaining outer walls of the Temple and in the Tomb enclosure]. Hebron was considered one of the four Jewish holy cities [with Jerusalem, Tiberias, and Safed] because of the Tomb, etc. Before the Crusades, the Muslim rulers allowed Jews [and Christians] access to the Tomb. However, Sultan Baybars, the post-Crusades Mamluk ruler, banned entry into the Tomb for all but Muslims about 1260 CE. Jews were subject to constant humiliation in Hebron from then on whenever they approached the Tomb of their Patriarchs. So much for Hebron. Now terms like “extreme” and “moderate” are empty, politically expedient labels. I believe that the European Union’s support for Arafat and the “Palestinian Authority” –that is, support for Arab terrorists– is a major root cause of terrorism, to which Muslims seem predisposed to in any case [consider Algeria where Muslims slaughter fellow Muslims]. Let the EU and USA and UN stop helping Arafat, and the Middle East might be a more peaceful place, albeit al-Qa`ida could keep the world busy for another generation with their endless series of grievances, real, inflated, distorted, and imagined, and their bloody killings.

Comments are closed.