The Mote Archive - Islamism, A Global Threat?

Over the past few weeks I've been doing a fair amount of scanning of articles from various sources, and more than ever have been struck by the huge disparity of opinions about the Middle East within the Western world. I tried to ensure that the link list portrays a wide range of opinions, and am open to other sources--Ducky, add to them as you see fit.

In investigating the links for this thread, I came across a subject heading that struck me, and I did more reading on it. I realize that this might come off as a "duh" moment to the more well-informed folks here, but I had absolutely no idea that water rights were such an enormous issue throughout the region, particularly in Israel/Palestine/Jordan, Turkey/Syria, Iran/Iraq (water rights were one of the primary causes of their 80-88 war) and Egypt/Sudan. It was so interesting that I started collecting links just on this, which I collected here

They are all pretty easy reading. I haven't had time to really delve into the issue, so I'm really curious if others here know more about it.

2. Ms. No - 4/4/2002 6:31:16 PM

I don't know much about it except that my father used to call me with "The Water News". He took it in mind to follow stories about water rights and pipelines etc. When he brought it up it was definitely a "duh" moment for me.

3. CalGal - 4/5/2002 10:42:53 AM

I'll get back to water rights eventually, but I got bogged down in stuff yesterday and don't have time to write up some of the things I found.

I didn't see anyone discuss Bush's speech yesterday, but I might have missed it in RP's thread.

Transcript

So far as rhetoric goes, I thought it was a terrific speech. Blunt, forceful, compelling. Arafat got a spanking. Israel was told to back off a bit, but Bush's delivery of "I speak as a committed friend of Israel;" took some sting away.

And to those who would try to use the current crisis as an opportunity to widen the conflict: Stay out. Iran's arms shipments and support for terror fuel the fire of conflict in the Middle East, and it must stop. Syria has spoken out against al Qaeda; we expect it to act against Hamas and Hezbollah as well. It's time for Iran to focus on meeting its own people's aspirations for freedom, and for Syria to decide which side of the war against terror it is on.

Wow. We are the boss of the whole world! Stay Out! Back off! Iran, you wanna join Iraq at the top of the badboy list? Syria, shit or get off the pot. I hope he follows through on that rhetoric, if needed.

This piece suggests why Syria isn't interested in regional peace.

Opposition to the Syrian regime is not spawned by Assad's failure to reach an acceptable settlement with Israel - it is contained by the absence of a settlement. The Syrian regime relies upon the conflict with Israel to justify its bloated security forces, intrusive intelligence agencies and intolerance of dissent. Moreover, normalization of relations with Israel would increase pressure for a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, both in Lebanon and internationally.

4. CalGal - 4/5/2002 10:46:38 AM

I haven't read any reports of international disapproval of Bush's speech, although I imagine they exist.

But apparently, the EU tried to get involved and "help out", and was roundly spanked by Israel. I haven't read anything of this in American papers, but here is a Guardian column.

At least we tried

Stung by criticism that the EU had stood by and done nothing as the conflict had escalated, Spain, the current EU head, decided that enough was enough and took the unusual step of convening an emergency session of EU foreign ministers.

Late on Wednesday night the meeting, which took place in Luxembourg, agreed to send a delegation to the region immediately. The EU, for once, looked to have acted decisively. Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, and Josep Pique, the Spanish foreign minister, were on a plane to Tel Aviv on Thursday morning.

But by that evening a dramatic reversal of fortune and deflating of egos had occurred and both men were back at the airport bound for Europe, frustrated at every step by Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister. The EU's foreign policy aspirations were in tatters.

5. CalGal - 4/5/2002 10:47:38 AM

Pelle, Sto, or any other folks in Yurrup--was this covered locally? The column suggests that Bush's speech pushed it off the front pages.

6. CalGal - 4/5/2002 10:56:11 AM

Interesting factoid on CNN--4 out of 10 Brits think that they are aligned too closely with the US.

On the other hand, Blair has no serious competition at the moment, so there's no election in sight.

7. PelleNilsson - 4/5/2002 12:00:26 PM

It was covered but Bush grabbed the headlines.

What's the point in setting up a parallel thread to I&P?

8. CalGal - 4/5/2002 12:06:25 PM

Ha.

See Suggestions.

9. rubberducky - 4/5/2002 1:55:30 PM

well, imho, Pelle has a point if one goes solely by the title, CG.

maybe getting rid of the ME reference will clear it up? something along the lines of "Fighting the Global Terror War"?

10. CalGal - 4/5/2002 2:05:05 PM

Sounds great. Can you make the change? I'm swamped.

11. rubberducky - 4/5/2002 2:10:40 PM

done

13. rubberducky - 4/5/2002 2:23:47 PM

jexster's #12 didn't seem to have any relevance to the thread, so it was moved to the Inferno.

14. jexster - 4/5/2002 2:34:26 PM

My serious contribution rubberduckydelete...

What IS the Global War on Terror?

The Bush "Doctrine" is in shambles.

We are meeting with terrorists and terror appeasers. We have expanded our definition of the so-called "war" to include Iraq, but not Iran...North Korea (maybe) and even now are in the process of helping Georgia not fight AlQaeda but to fight rebellions generally.

So what is this "war"?

And when you run into Cal...say good morning will ya?

15. jexster - 4/5/2002 2:36:57 PM

And I guess the next question...assuming in the first place that you can identify the battlefields and causus belli, the orders of battle, etc.....is this really a "war" or is it something quite different, more akin to our "war" on drugs or "wars" against international organized crime etc.

16. wonkers2 - 4/5/2002 2:39:08 PM

We are making progress, dropping the War on Terrorism thread and adding the Fighting the Global War on Terrorism thread!

17. CalGal - 4/5/2002 2:44:50 PM

Jex,

What does causus belli mean? Or is it order of battle, that you follow up on?

I don't want to talk politics, so let's leave that out. Try and talk more generally--ie, compare US to Europe and Asia.

We don't really have the resources to fight it on all fronts, and at this moment North Koreans aren't blowing up US office buildings. I think it is fair to say that we are making some progress, although I am very worried about our safety at home.

18. jexster - 4/5/2002 4:06:24 PM

Yo Cal...

I dunno what's goin on but 4 what looked to be F16's were flyin low and fast over the City not 2 minutes ago..

My initial thought - blue angel f18's but it ain't Fleet Week and those were AirForce

19. jexster - 4/5/2002 4:07:01 PM

Could it be the North Koreans?

Is AlQ attacking us?

20. CalGal - 4/5/2002 4:08:57 PM

Air Force has the Thunderbirds. Are they in town?

21. rubberducky - 4/5/2002 4:20:30 PM

CG:

Politics will enter into this thread, right? why leave it out? I think we have to consider the political reasons and ramifications of the actions the US, Israel, or whomever take.

okay final title tweak. is it ok?

22. Ms. No - 4/5/2002 4:20:34 PM

Has any entity ever successfully fought a campaign against terrorists?

23. jexster - 4/5/2002 4:21:56 PM

Oh could be...I should check...they didn't look like the Blue Angels do on their practice runs...and they basically just buzzed and left heading toward PT Reyes.

24. jexster - 4/5/2002 4:23:56 PM

Good question Ms. No... I recall just after 9-1-1 an article probably from either the WP, NyT, or LAT because those are the only big time papers I read...

Exactly that subject...and the answer is yes.

The article outlined the ingredients of success. I believe I linked it in fact. Need intel, need persistence..

25. Ms. No - 4/5/2002 4:25:43 PM

Would that link be in the old Attack on America thread?

26. jexster - 4/5/2002 5:03:23 PM

Yes no.

Get it?

hahaha...I tried a quick Lexis search for ya but to no avail....my memory says it was within a month of 911

and Cal..

I think the Vast Right Wing conspiracy is takin another big dump on the Golden State....

I mean, have you heard anybody makin fun of the Bayou State over the Louisiana Taliban Man....

The Usual Suspects here and elsewhere sure had some fun with Marin County eh?

Where are they now..

Hell Baton Rouge, my hometown

27. jexster - 4/5/2002 5:04:15 PM

Da taliban can...time for nap

28. RustlerPike - 4/6/2002 12:25:59 AM

Jexster:

Were there black helicopters following the F-16s? Was there something like a tornado and a little girl in red pumps and a mangy little dog?

29. CalGal - 4/6/2002 1:30:12 AM

Christin,

We were basically successful in shutting down Qaddafi, although it took killing a few of his family members.

30. RustlerPike - 4/6/2002 2:09:11 AM

We were basically successful in shutting down Qaddafi, although it took killing a few of his family members.

I hate it when women talk macho like that. Ando does it too. It sucks.

Now they're posting female soldiers with no combat training as guards in 1,000 of Israel's 10,000 schools. I'm not sure if this is to deter the terrorists or to lure them.

31. RustlerPike - 4/6/2002 2:15:53 AM

Get this into your heads, everyone:

MAN - HARD - TOUGH - QUIET - UNFLINCHING - STEEL - BOMB - FIGHT - FIRE - KILL - DIE - FUCK - KNIFE - DEFEAT ENEMY - WIN - PEACE.

WOMAN - SOFT - RUN - SCREAM -TERROR - FLEE - SOFT - CRY - BABY - TEARS - PINK - WET - QUIET - HOME - GRATEFUL - HAPPY.

OK?

32. CalGal - 4/6/2002 2:30:04 AM

Please stay on topic, thanks.

33. RustlerPike - 4/6/2002 4:38:54 AM

I think societal effeminacy vs. a masculine spirit is as on-topic as it gets, when you're talking about fighting Arab terrorism. One problem we have with the Druze in my unit is they can't stand it when we have a female soldier lecturing us on gun use. They say if there are Pals watching somewhere, they're laughing at us.

This war is being waged by a very masculine society against a very feminized society, and that's one of the main reasons we can't 'get it up' as a nation and cream them. War is a masculine thing, in the end. My wife doesn't want me to carry a gun. My mother doesn't want me doing reserve duty, because I'll be fraternizing with other men and God knows what could happen. The Pals don't have these problems. They walk around with their guns, shooting them in the air and every which where. Does that make them better shooters? You betcha. Does that give them an advantage when they come to kill my kids? Sure does. Because I live in a dainty society where carrying a gun is bad, because it scares our women. It interferes with their divorce games: you don't want a man carrying a gun when you are torturing him senseless.

And so these very same women are getting blown to bits by the Pals. And they'll keep getting shot up and blown to bits until they make up their mind who the enemy is. We need every available ounce of national virility pumping through our veins in order to win this one.

34. RustlerPike - 4/6/2002 4:49:11 AM

We've been getting brainwashed, for the past ten years, and especially since the Rabin murder, about how evil all forms of violence and aggression are. Teachers are supposed to keep their hands off children, even if they see them fighting and gouging each other's eyes out. It's the PC thing. The Pals, meanwhile, are raising their children on the glory of war. Who comes out tougher, meaner? What's the PC way to clean up a casbah?

Having said all that: if you take a feminized male and then free him to be violent, you probably get the meanest, most unscrupulous junkyard dog out there. Women are nothing if not mean and unscrupulous.

35. RustlerPike - 4/6/2002 5:58:33 AM

And there's the question of reward. They get 70 virgins to pop in Paradise for ever and ever: no wonder they smile as they blow themselves up! What do we get? The vagina monologues? Why fucking bother? Even Frank Zappa said the reason the bandmembers try hard when they're onstage is that they're thinking of the blow job they'll get afterwards.

36. OhioSTOPAS - 4/6/2002 6:49:27 AM

What do the people who want John Walker Lindh executed for "treason" say about Yasser Esam Hamdi, the Louisiana-born Taliban fighter? Is Hamdi also a "traitor"?

37. joezan - 4/6/2002 9:14:00 AM

Ohio:

Yes.

jex:

...is this really a "war" or is it something quite different, more akin to our "war" on drugs or "wars" against international organized crime etc.

By GOD - Jex!

It's...it's all coming into focus now. You're RIGHT!

Just look at the parallels:

DRUGS: Victimless crime - dealers get what they want (money), users get what they want (high).

TERRORISM: Victimless crime -terrorists get what they want (lots of dead people), "victims" get what they deserve (blown up - I mean, you know they're asking for it, working in big tall buildings, gathering in large groups at bat mitzvahs and such). And hey! - when you think about it, everyone's gonna die anyway, right?

DRUGS: Excuse for gov't agencies to exist (and spend large sums of money doing so). The gov't even goes so far as to supply poor inner-city folks with crack, in order to perpetuate this perceived reason for existence.

TERRORISM: Excuse for gov't agencies to exist (and spend large sums of money doing so). Flight 77 - need I say more?

I'm with you, jex...

END THE FACIST WOT!
LEGALIZE TERRORISM NOW!

38. jexster - 4/6/2002 10:15:32 AM

what's a WOT?

39. jexster - 4/6/2002 10:20:50 AM

I mean I am glad you are with me JZ but it would be nice to know what it is I am doing?

I don't know what I am doing you know.

But I am terrified by terror.

Those Air Force jets yesterday? Here I thought we were under attack. That the Axis of Evil had hit California and that the WarLord was standing tall over the skies of San Francisco...

Actually, it was the GIANTS homeopener and that was an missing man formation flyover (jeez when will this 911 ooey gooey stop!)....How could I not recall that my Giants were in the frenly confines of the Belle of the Pacific on their way to their fourth straight win?

It was terror JoeZ and I for one am damn proud to be an Amuricun

41. CalGal - 4/6/2002 11:57:20 AM

RP,

The Israeli military is considered one of the finest and most qualified in the world, isn't it? I don't think any Arabic country or territory has a military that's anything more than a joke.

42. CalGal - 4/6/2002 12:03:10 PM

Ohio,

The Hamdi case is why I think it is critical that we take illegal immigration more seriously--and, for that matter, question our policy of allowing Muslims to immigrate or visit here, no serious questions asked.

Europe has a lot of problems with their Muslim population, but their less generous citizenship laws mean that they never have to treat them as equals. But we could have a "citizen" terrorist population in fairly short order if we aren't careful.

I think his citizenship should be revoked. I think that of Walker, too. Then they can both be sent back to Gitmo.

43. Rama - 4/6/2002 12:07:53 PM

What do the people who want John Walker Lindh executed for "treason" say about Yasser Esam Hamdi, the Louisiana-born Taliban fighter? Is Hamdi also a "traitor"?

Is Hamdi an American? Being born in the States, he is considered a native born citizen, unless he repudiates that citizenship. Has he done so?

44. CalGal - 4/6/2002 12:12:30 PM

I think he has done so. Surely joining the Al Qaeda qualifies as an expatriating act.

53. jexster - 4/6/2002 12:39:40 PM

I believe that the very use of the term "war" makes the objective - the destruction of Al Quaeda more difficult...

54. jexster - 4/6/2002 1:08:03 PM

I think he has done so. Surely joining the Al Qaeda qualifies as an expatriating act.

NEWSFLASH...

Its a little more complicated than that.

The law is not, thank God, as whimscally arbitrary and fatuous as the co-moderatrix

55. CalGal - 4/6/2002 1:15:16 PM

You are saying that joining the Al Qaeda doesn't qualify as an expatriating act? Or that we can't expatriate someone in this situation?

What are Expatriating Acts?

There are seven expatriating act designated in Section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by which a native born or naturalized U.S. citizen shall lose his nationality. There are as follows:

(1) Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state.

(2) Taking an oath or making an affirmation or the formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or political subdivision thereof

(3) Entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state.

(4) Accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state.

(5) Making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in the foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State.

(6) Making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the attorney General.

(7) Committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States.

Walker qualifies under #2 and #3, and the only real argument against is that the Taliban wasn't technically running Afghanistan. Pretty weak thread.

Hamdi qualifies under #7.

56. stostosto - 4/6/2002 5:01:39 PM

Is Israel's present America's future? (Robert Wright in Slate).

I think Wright is a closet European pansy-ass.

57. dusty - 4/6/2002 7:19:14 PM

Are there any Jexter-free threads?

58. slackjaw - 4/6/2002 8:13:42 PM

I think Wright is a closet European pansy-ass.

That dovetails nicely with his status as the single most fatuous idiot in the pseudointellectual punditocracy today.

59. CalGal - 4/6/2002 8:31:33 PM

Dusty,

I have already moved at least five of Jexter's posts. I will leave on topic responses. I don't want to ban him from the thread, but I intend to ensure he doesn't wreck it. I did leave some earlier posts that in the future will be moved.

BTW, you're a geektype. Had you known of the significance of water rights in the mideast? (see my first post)

60. CalGal - 4/6/2002 8:32:43 PM

That dovetails nicely with his status as the single most fatuous idiot in the pseudointellectual punditocracy today.

Exactly. It's not like they are only found in Europe, after all. But we keep ours under decent restraints.

61. ronski - 4/6/2002 9:46:36 PM

dusty,

The Good Life is generally jexster-free.

That's why its called The Good Life.

62. joezan - 4/7/2002 8:02:37 AM

Good one, ronsk.

63. stostosto - 4/7/2002 9:06:30 AM

slack,

well, Wright does have an overwhelming and annoying tendency to dress up his musings in pretentious game theoretic lingo, but I do think his points are valid.

Another way of putting it is one I heard yesterday by some Danish pundit: When the conflict becomes one of identity, it's almost impossible to end it. Palestinians are clearly becoming strongly committed to an identity as Jew haters - and vice versa. So making peace or even negotiating, or even accepting the existence of the other, becomes anathema to your very identity. Some Muslims, until now a small fanatic minority, feel that way towards the entire West, especially the USA. But it's quite important to prevent that from coming to define Muslim identity in general.

64. Julius Caesar - 4/7/2002 10:14:19 AM

Palestinians are clearly becoming strongly committed to an identity as Jew haters

This is like saying the Klan is just getting warmed up to hating blacks. The conflict is about identity and a more advanced culture being confronted by one that is 500 years behind it. The Muslims have been Jew-hating and anti-Western for a significant period of time. All of us want peace, sto, but your desire for it forces you to mutate reality in urging your European sense of cool detachment and reason into a white hot area.

So, with that genie out of the bottle, the next issue is "How to confront it?"

The United States, through successive administrations, has done a fair job in bribing players in the region and papering over the decay with accords and agreements and cease-fires and other regalia, all studiously ignorant of the fact that no matter what deal is truck, Israel will continue to be attacked by majority elements in the Arab world, funded by nations and prosecuted by terrorist groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and others.

Let Israel rake the territories for another week or two, Powell will "negotiate" a pull-back after the Israelis have had the time they need to enhance their security, and then a cease-fire will be reached, during which the fanatic terrorist groups will not cease, but only lessen, their fire.

The, we'll be back to the business as usual of stalemate.

65. jexster - 4/7/2002 10:21:48 AM

Off topic!

66. Julius Caesar - 4/7/2002 10:23:16 AM

Sto

By the way, if a group that supports suicide bombings against Israelis by a measure of 2 out of 3 (or 3 out of 4, depending on the poll) is only becoming strongly committed to an identity that is Jew-haters, what might be the deciding number? Only 66% (or 76%) of Palestinians want to see Israelis blown to smithereens. Keep hope alive.

The thoughts of the Palestinians in November 2000, when we were oh so close to peace:

10. Do you think Ehud Barak is a leader the Palestinian leadership can negotiate with?

Yes 8.8
No 84.9
Not sure 6.3

11. Do you support or oppose military attacks against American targets in the region?

Support 72.9
Oppose 21.7
Not sure 5.4

12. In the case of establishing an independent Palestinian State, would you view a friendship between a Palestinian and an Israeli positively?

Yes 30.7
No 64.8
Not sure 4.5

13. Do you support or oppose military attacks against Israeli targets at the present time?

Support 80.0
Oppose 15.1
Not sure 4.9

14. If you support military attacks, what should be the target of these attacks?

11.7 Support only against military targets
03.0 support only against settlers
33.1 against both military & settlers
00.4 against civilians in the 1948 proper
62.3 against all Israelis regardless

67. jexster - 4/7/2002 10:24:30 AM

On topic and removed yesterday,

Blair repeated pointed statements that he and Bush were "discussing" Saddam options is being taken widely and broadly as proof that "he gassed his own people in 1988" isn't impressing any Euros.

Maybe now that the news has had a chance to ferment its worth talking about in the thread where it supposed to be discussed.

Maybe not.

68. Indiana Jones - 4/7/2002 10:29:33 AM

I haven't really noticed Robert Wright before, but posts like #58 mean I must seek him out.

That is some accomplishment.

Do you have a cite for your poll, Caesar? Impressive stats.

69. stostosto - 4/7/2002 10:33:09 AM

Julio:

Hmm. November 2000 was hardly a point in time when we were "oh so close to peace".

Anyway, it's quite possible the Pals are in some ways beyond reach. I certainly doubt they'll become peaceful friends of Israel any time soon.

70. Julius Caesar - 4/7/2002 10:33:22 AM

Birzeit University November 2000 Development Studies Program Poll

71. Indiana Jones - 4/7/2002 10:35:31 AM

Thanks.

72. Julius Caesar - 4/7/2002 10:36:40 AM

Sto

We were a heck of a lot closer then than we are today, and 8 out of 10 Palestinians were proving their mettle as future partners in peace by supporting killing Israelis, in the immortal words of Lennon and McCartney, here, there and everywhere.

Peace is not in their interests and never shall be as long as they are in the grip of a backward, self-destructive religion/culture.

73. CalGal - 4/7/2002 10:37:55 AM

November 2000 was hardly a point in time when we were "oh so close to peace".

I beg your pardon? That is when Barak made the incredibly generous offer that was everything that Palestinians said they wanted, everything the Israeli left had demanded be turned over. It was an offer that lost him the next election, it was so good.

It was widely considered a time when peace was right there for the taking. Even in Europe.

74. Indiana Jones - 4/7/2002 10:39:16 AM

After reading the transcript of Bush's speech and his reiteration of the "us or them" theme and calling the suicide bombers terrorists not martyrs, I'm wondering about Saudi Arabia's payment of rewards to the families of suicide bombers.

My understanding is that this policy is from the Saudi government. Correct or no? (Though I don't see how one can distinguish between private and public acts in Saudi Arabia anyway, without becoming a pretzel.)

How, then, do we countenance it?

75. Julius Caesar - 4/7/2002 10:44:06 AM

Indiana

We're playing both ends against the middle. It is an American interest to support Israel while supporting Saudi Arabia, to have stalemate between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and one can't do that with getting dirty.

That said, one day, China may call our bluff on Taiwan, and we'll let Taiwan go. If the Arab world tries to call our bluff on Israel, Israel probably won't need us, but we'll be in the thick if it anyway.

76. Julius Caesar - 4/7/2002 10:45:30 AM

with-without getting dirty

77. stostosto - 4/7/2002 10:48:59 AM

Cal:

The Camp David talks took place in July or August 2000, so any offers Barak made (and nothing is officially known as to what exactly these offers were), were long since made and rejected by November. Sharon took his Temple Mount stroll on September 26, the "Second Intifada" erupted the following day with five or six Palestinians killed; more demonstrations, more killings followed, there was the 12 year old boy in the start of October (whoever actually killed him, his death hardly contributed to calming tempers), and the lynching of two Israelis in Ramallah. And so on and so forth. By November, the situation was pretty much spun out of control.

And I am not sure whether Barak lost because of his offer, or whether he was seen as the wrong man for the coming fight that the Pals were seen, understandably, to be spoiling for.

78. CalGal - 4/7/2002 10:49:33 AM

Indy,

Saudi Arabia pays suicide bombers families? I thought that was Iraq.

79. CalGal - 4/7/2002 10:53:23 AM

Sto,

Ah, that's right. I always get the timing off. Your wording made it sound as if peace had never been in the vicinity in that time frame at all, rather than peace being "oh so close" just a few months before.

And I am not sure whether Barak lost because of his offer

That seems contrary to every thing I've read.

80. Indiana Jones - 4/7/2002 10:54:58 AM

Well, Caesar (Julius or JC just seems disrespectful for a personage such as yours, BTW--like addressing the President "Hey, GB"), I understand the necessities of Realpolitik. I'm not a hand-wringing left-winger, you know.

My question was sort of rhetorical in that I think the House of Saud and our relationship with it is not going to come out of the next few months and years unscathed either. If, as I predict, we "fix" the Iraq situation in the coming months, I think we will be in a position to say, "Look, we're serious and we're able to do what we want over here. Things are not going to continue as they have been except when business as usual is in our interests."

Whether we'll do it or not remains to be seen, but we're not going to win the war on terrorism without changing how Saudi Arabia conducts itself. Modifying Saudi Arabia won't require military action, either.

81. Indiana Jones - 4/7/2002 10:55:52 AM

Cal: That's what I'm talking about. We play up Iraq ($25,000) and barely mention Saudi Arabia ($10,000)--if at all.

82. stostosto - 4/7/2002 10:58:01 AM

Cal:

Barak allegedly made even more far-reaching offers at the talks in Egypt (I forget the name of the place) in January 2001, which was a frantic last minute attempt at turning his fortunes just before the upcoming Israeli election -- and for Clinton to make his legacy. Do you think Barak would have done that if he didn't consider a possible peace deal material for his electoral success?

83. CalGal - 4/7/2002 11:00:35 AM

Indy,

I haven't read anything about the Saudi government paying them.

CBS News

But Saddam is not the only one giving money. Charities from Saudi Arabia and Qatar — both U.S. allies — pay money to families of Palestinians killed in the fighting, including suicide bombers.

84. Indiana Jones - 4/7/2002 11:06:17 AM

Cal: A print newspaper I was reading when Iraq raised their bounty mentioned Saudi Arabia's similar practice without going into detail about "charities." I'd read either in the story you linked or somewhere else that the payments came from charities. Hence my initial caveat about private versus public.

Regardless of the purported source, isn't it true that virtually all the wealth of Saudi Arabia is controlled by the Royal Family and that the same can be said of almost all significant government offices? And in any case I don't believe for a minute that a "private" charity could pay those bounties against the government's wishes.

85. Julius Caesar - 4/7/2002 11:09:23 AM

Idny

I agree. We are changing our military relationship with Saudi Arabia as we speak, moving men and materiel to Bahrain and Quatar.

And if we'd just annex Mexico and invade Venezuela, we could work with a much freer hand in the region.

86. jexster - 4/7/2002 11:10:10 AM

Middle East Conflict Blurs Bush's Anti-Terrorism Focus - LAT

That's a charitable headline...its collapsing under the own weight built as it was on Manichean Moralizing & sermonizing and not on reality.

87. Indiana Jones - 4/7/2002 11:10:20 AM

From Bush's speech:

Those governments, like Iraq, that reward parents for the sacrifice of their children are guilty of soliciting murder of the worst kind.

I think the plural as significant.

88. Indiana Jones - 4/7/2002 11:10:44 AM

as = is

89. CalGal - 4/7/2002 11:11:15 AM

Sto,

Oh, for heaven's sake. Then I wasn't that far off, after all, if lazy about looking up dates.

So.

1. Camp David (7/00).
2. Sharon goes to Temple Mount (9/00)
3. Barak makes overgenerous offer that costs him the election. (1/01)

I was referring to #3 in my first post. I still don't see how you can deny that peace was very nearly attainable during that period, but whatever.

90. Julius Caesar - 4/7/2002 11:12:26 AM

Indy

Probably not. Bush is an exceedingly casual speaker. I saw some of his press conference with Blair. About a dozen, "You know" and I think (though maybe I'm misremembering), one or two "Those guys".

91. Indiana Jones - 4/7/2002 11:13:38 AM

Yes, Caesar, the troop movement is the other fact that has me thinking along these lines.

Of course if we went with the Caesar annexation plan, we could just tell the region to play frog and scorpion until both the Islamic and Jewish hells freeze over.

92. jexster - 4/7/2002 11:14:01 AM

"But the Bush administration's road to Baghdad now appears to run through Jerusalem....

If the road to Baghdad leads not only through Jerusalem but also through Riyadh and Paris and Moscow, it might be a long journey."

"So Saddam how do you take Bush's threats?"

"Slightly reclining, cocktail in hand"

Paper tiger.

93. Julius Caesar - 4/7/2002 11:14:50 AM

Cal, sto

Try this. When peace was significantly closer at hand than it is now and may have ever been, 8 out of 10 Palestinians were up for dicing Israelis not matter.

That should be all you need to know about the situation.

94. Julius Caesar - 4/7/2002 11:19:35 AM

At the same time, polls of Israelis had 6 to 7 out of 10 supporting a Palestinian state, a state for people of whom 8 out of 10 wanted to kill Israelis at a rapid clip.

Peace, but not in our time. A whole lot of people have to die before peace is ripe.

95. stostosto - 4/7/2002 11:20:18 AM

I still don't see how you can deny that peace was very nearly attainable during that period, but whatever.

Well, I think there were absolutely nothing left of any good faith on either side by November. Nobody really believed the January talks were more than a token effort. Barak could have offered anything, and it would still not have been taken up. Barak was practically "irrelevant" by that time (as was Clinton), but the fact that he thought his chance for reelection lay in patching together some kind of deal, any deal, with the Pals, suggests that he considered this his last hope. But the entire atmosphere was poisoned at that time.

The poll is interesting, but I think it would be even more interesting to see the same poll from before the Camp David talks broke down for indication as to how that (and Sharon's Temple Mount stunt and following) influenced Palestinian opinion.

96. Julius Caesar - 4/7/2002 11:20:26 AM

On that note, good day all.

97. CalGal - 4/7/2002 11:23:00 AM

JC--yes, that was my point, as well. Sto confused me with his cavils, but that was my fault since I should have known the dates better. (g)

98. jexster - 4/7/2002 11:25:49 AM

This is the more immediate future of this amorphous and ill-conceived and misnamed "war"...its gonna be War on Drugs...

Sound familiar?

[W] ASHINGTON -- In South America, the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, controls lucrative coca fields that finance a terror campaign against the government. In the Philippines, the Abu Sayyaf group kidnaps people to sustain its separatist dreams. In Sri Lanka, the violent Tamil Tigers have a fleet of stealthy vessels for smuggling contraband across the Indian Ocean. In Uzbekistan, heavily armed Islamic militants run a protection racket for opium traffickers. And before the fall of the Taliban, Al Qaeda was thought to profit from Afghanistan's thriving poppy trade.

99. CalGal - 4/7/2002 11:27:09 AM

Indy,

I think Bush was talking about Syria and Iran, who he mentioned specifically later on.

As for Saudi Arabia, they trade the ability to lead the country for the right of the religious nutballs to fund whoever and whatever they like. I doubt they know or care what happens to the money. Their sin is generally considered to be cowardice or Macchiavellian finangling, as opposed to support for terrorism.

100. stostosto - 4/7/2002 11:27:12 AM

Btw, I distinctly remember Arafat being received as a hero after the Camp David breakdown when he made a speech to an ecstatic crowd of Palestinians in Gaza vowing never to give up on Jerusalem. Arafat never tried to sell the idea of compromise to his compatriots. Maybe he didn't want to. Maybe he didn't have the guts. The fact is, the mood in November 2000 was definitely much more poisoned and radicalised than pre- or during Camp David.

101. jexster - 4/7/2002 11:27:26 AM

102. jexster - 4/7/2002 11:28:06 AM

SLightly Reclined, Coke Spoon in Hand

103. CalGal - 4/7/2002 11:28:51 AM

And before the fall of the Taliban, Al Qaeda was thought to profit from Afghanistan's thriving poppy trade.

This is untrue. The Taliban shut down the opium trade entirely for at least two years.

104. CalGal - 4/7/2002 11:33:19 AM

Jex--No spewing. Do not put a blurb in one post and a link to the same article in the second or I'll move them.

108. CalGal - 4/7/2002 11:47:55 AM

Indy,

Cokie Roberts just said that the Saudis were paying suicide bombers, and didn't specify charities. So maybe there is new information.

114. jexster - 4/7/2002 12:10:44 PM

and while we are waiting, what do you folks make of this?

British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently delayed plans to publish a similar account of Iraq's weapons developments to avoid fueling anti-Western sentiments in the Arab world and because of concerns that the evidence was not sufficiently convincing.

122. jexster - 4/7/2002 12:25:25 PM

I am sure that we all would appreciate Cal's views on the Sharon's contribution to the Intifada in light of European Muslim problems and welfare state in light of the foregoing post from HAMAS, published by the BBC but unfortunately unavailable for link as it is too old....

123. CalGal - 4/7/2002 12:42:55 PM

unfortunately unavailable for link as it is too old

Not any more....

Text of Hamas Report

126. CalGal - 4/7/2002 2:19:47 PM

Gen X

This is such a sad TNR article.

Confident, articulate, wearing blue bell-bottom stretch pants and an olive-green chenille cardigan over her turtleneck, Shireen seemed almost high on the news of Ayat's courage. "If I had the means," she said, "I would have done it yesterday."

Shireen's father told her she is too young to become a bomber. When she grows up, he said, she can choose her own path. And so, with martyrdom not an option now, Shireen spends her time studying science and math and listening to Palestinian nationalist songs. "If I can't become a martyr," she said, "I want to be a doctor in a Palestinian hospital." When she insinuated that she would only treat Palestinians, her father interrupted. "You have been treated by an Israeli doctor. And my life was saved by an Israeli doctor in 1984 when I had a car accident. A doctor mustn't make distinctions between patients." And then he said to us, "You see, we're losing control of our children."

The father of the girl who blew herself up at the supermarket was devastated by her death; thought she was the most brilliant of his children. He doesn't hate Israelis, and is in business with an Israeli construction firm, building homes.

127. joezan - 4/7/2002 7:38:53 PM

You gotta give the Arabs credit - they have GREAT slogans:

About 53,000 French Jews demonstrated in the French cpaital to show their anger at attacks on Jewish targets in France and support for Israel in the bloody conflict with the Palestinians.

Behind a banner reading "With Israel for Peace and Security. Against Terrorism and Anti-Semitism," the crowd -- estimated by police at 53,000 -- moved down the 1.5 kilometre (one mile) from the Place de la Republique to the Bastille square to a background of songs and chanting in Hebrew and French.

There was also trouble in a parallel demonstration in the southern port of Marseille, where a group of young Arabs flung missiles at the procession and chanted slogans such as "We are all kamikazes."

The only question I have is, were they singing that to the tune of Sympathy for the Devil?

128. Rama - 4/7/2002 8:05:21 PM

This is the more immediate future of this amorphous and ill-conceived and misnamed "war"...its gonna be War on Drugs...

This is being faught as a "war" against "terrorism" because leftist idiots in the capitalist democracies made it impossible to do any other way. In fact, we would still be pretending it was ok for ignore the people who hate capitalism and democracy, except some other idiots did fly jetliners into builings.

In the long run, democracy (political libery) and capitalism (economic liberty) will prevail, but it will take a lot more blood on the ground because of leftists.

129. wonkers2 - 4/7/2002 9:12:10 PM

Please enlighten us on the "other way" the leftists have made it "impossible to do."

Have you been smoking dope? Your grammar is usually better if not your ideas.

130. jexster - 4/7/2002 10:00:34 PM

There is a silly little girl who has her own thread so that she can't be shown up as the little idiot she is...

Of her more absurd contentions, sure to be moved her because her fragile ego will not tolerate debate, the idea that Sharon's Al Aqsa walk was not the primary fuel for the intifada fire...

What business her Thread With No Name has messing with the Middle East or with any other topic (esp. parenting!!) is another question....

But this little chirpie needs a lesson in foreign affairs among other things...

Sharon Profile, October 2000

CaliGali - what a ball busting waste of time

131. joezan - 4/7/2002 10:35:16 PM

OOOOOOooooOOOOooooOOO.....

Watch OUT - Jexster's breaking out the big guns now.

Slate...gimme a friggin' break.

132. RustlerPike - 4/7/2002 11:21:18 PM

This thread has me constantly checking the post numbers before I read the messages.

133. CalGal - 4/7/2002 11:21:19 PM

Jex,

I think you're imagining things. I've never made any such statement about Sharon.

Joe,

Don't encourage him.

134. Rama - 4/8/2002 10:09:25 AM

Please enlighten us on the "other way" the leftists have made it "impossible to do."

Being a typical example of the people who kept action from being taken until the Towers fell, you are quite aware of what I am talking about. The blood of the collateral damage from this war is on your hands.

135. Rama - 4/8/2002 10:23:24 AM

Case in point: http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,680094,00.html

137. jexster - 4/8/2002 11:12:40 AM

Iraq Halts Oil Exports

138. concerned - 4/8/2002 11:18:58 AM

November 2000 was hardly a point in time when we were "oh so close to peace".

I beg your pardon? That is when Barak made the incredibly generous offer that was everything that Palestinians said they wanted, everything the Israeli left had demanded be turned over.

That in no way equates to being significantly 'closer to peace', of course, given that it would have thrown a wrench into the goals of the Palestinian leadership...of overrunning Israel.

139. jexster - 4/8/2002 11:22:35 AM

Demands That US Leave Bahrain

140. concerned - 4/8/2002 11:28:17 AM

Calgal -

Shouldn't you replace rubberducky with jexster as cohost?....based on the frequency of his posting, I mean:)

141. zojak quafeth - 4/8/2002 11:33:02 AM

Jex-

139. jexster - 4/8/02 10:22:35 AM

Demands That US Leave Bahrain

Interesting article as far as it goes. Just as if the NYT had reported on a Pro-Life...or...Pro-Choice...or...[Name your issue] Rally on the grounds of the the US Capitol Building.

Just because some people feel that way, doesn't mean that the either the majority or the gov't feels that way. The fact that a protest occured is just that.

Are you suggesting something more?

142. CalGal - 4/8/2002 12:02:49 PM

Wow, things are heating up. CNN reports that not only is Iraq cutting oil exports, but Iran and Libya are verbally supporting the boycott. Oil prices are spiking even though these three countries on their own can't do much harm, and OPEC has rejected a boycott. The real issue is what will Saudi Arabia do?

CNN report

Watching wars start really seems to have a soap opera quality to them. Why would Sharon so explicitly reject the US request? Will this create more opposition to Israel in this country? Bush's hawk core must be furious that Saddam has the nerve to declare a boycott when in any reasonable world we'd already be kicking his ass if it weren't for this pesky Palestinian problem.

146. jexster - 4/8/2002 12:14:50 PM

Iraq's oil cutoff is not going to be supported by OPEC, not even Libya or Iran will go along with it.

Saddam's move is intended to further enhance his support in the Arab street to make it more difficult for Bush.

147. CalGal - 4/8/2002 12:18:42 PM

Yes, Libya is already backing off of their verbal support, saying that they'll do it only if everyone else goes along.

As for Saudi Arabia and "the real issue", Jex, I was speaking of impact of oil supply on the US economy, not in any greater sense.

148. concerned - 4/8/2002 12:36:37 PM

Besides the fact that Saddam is careful to itemize precisely through which channels his oil exports are going to be restricted, I'm interested in how this will impact the Iraqi economy, which would not likely tolerate such a move if Iraq had a representational government.

149. jexster - 4/8/2002 1:08:55 PM

Morroccan King Gives Powell the Cold Couscous

150. CalGal - 4/8/2002 1:23:51 PM

What would happen if we cut off aid to Israel, washed our hands of that region, and moved onto Iraq?

151. concerned - 4/8/2002 1:25:39 PM

Won't happen.

152. concerned - 4/8/2002 1:26:31 PM

My feeling is that the US is more solidly behind Israel than perhaps ever before, rhetoric notwithstanding.

153. CalGal - 4/8/2002 1:39:43 PM

I know it won't happen. I like hypotheticals.

155. RustlerPike - 4/8/2002 3:17:49 PM

Conster:

My feeling is that the US is more solidly behind Israel than perhaps ever before, rhetoric notwithstanding.

How's that?

156. concerned - 4/8/2002 3:39:58 PM

Re. 155 -

The foreign aid loot is still rolling in, right?

157. PelleNilsson - 4/8/2002 3:44:35 PM

It seems to me that Sharon has succeeded in linking the Intifada to global terrorism and in portraying Arafat as a second Bin Laden.

158. concerned - 4/8/2002 3:46:05 PM

That would seem to be quite an accomplishment, if that's really the case with Yurrupeons.

159. zojak quafeth - 4/8/2002 3:46:39 PM

What would happen if we cut off aid to Israel, washed our hands of that region, and moved onto Iraq?

It'd never happen. But. If we washed our hands of the region meaning we say do whatever the heck you want, we're outta here, then you see all out war.... soon.

The only question is who strikes first. And how many Arab countries get involved.

Israel's only defense is to say they'll retaliate against any agressors w/ nukes.

Then we wait for 'em to start flying.

Which is one of the reasons it will never happen.

160. zojak quafeth - 4/8/2002 3:50:29 PM

...and... we wouldn't be washing our hands, because we'dbe attacking the arab world by attacking Iraq.

161. zojak quafeth - 4/8/2002 3:51:07 PM

... and we'd lose whatever help Isaeli intel services are giving us now.

162. zojak quafeth - 4/8/2002 3:51:56 PM

..and we'd be abandoning both Israeli and arab allies and losing whatever world clout we have.

etc.

163. zojak quafeth - 4/8/2002 3:52:33 PM

oops. did I break the 3 post rule? My bad. (blush)

164. PelleNilsson - 4/8/2002 3:56:36 PM

concerned

No, not the Europeans.

165. concerned - 4/8/2002 4:04:51 PM

Re. 155 -

RP -

After all, what have all the fine words and high flown gestures from Israel, the PLO, the EU, the US and the rest of the world resulting from the Oslo Agreement amounted to, in the de-facto judgment of most Israelis?

166. CalGal - 4/8/2002 4:10:37 PM

Zojak,

By "in the region" I meant I/P only. I agree that all-out war would occur, but wouldn't Israel have a significant advantage militarily, in that case?

As for loss of Israel's intel, that's a good point. I was thinking that Israel might see the ability to kick Palestinian ass once and for all a decent trade for losing 2.3 billion.

167. zojak quafeth - 4/8/2002 4:15:27 PM

By "in the region" I meant I/P only.

That's the way I understood it. I still think that an I/P conflict would spread to neighboring countries ... quickly.

And that if in conjunction with that we moved into Iraq, then we could write off relations with ANYONE in the Middle East.

Anyone left after the nukes start flying anyway.

168. CalGal - 4/8/2002 4:18:32 PM

Who has nukes in the area? The complete list, I mean. I thought it was only Israel and Pakistan.

169. concerned - 4/8/2002 4:20:58 PM

I would like to see RP address the implications of the fact that Israel has negotiated with Arafat this long, only now to massively repudiate its diplomatic investment in the area.

170. Ms. No - 4/8/2002 4:25:32 PM

Countries with Nuclear Arms

Dunno if this is comprehensive, but I think so

171. CalGal - 4/8/2002 4:28:51 PM

Thanks, MsNo! That's pretty much what I thought.

I don't think Iraq and Iran have weapons yet, but they're trying hard.

So I'm not sure that a lot of nukes would be flying. Surely Israel wouldn't dare?

The reason I asked the question, btw, is because I got curious as to what other possibilities are out there. We don't seem inclined ever to let them duke it out. Not that we necessarily should, but I'm wondering as to the downside.

172. concerned - 4/8/2002 4:29:47 PM

Israel would be throwing most of the nukes in such an exchange, but I figure that would only have a chance of happening if Arab armies were intent on washing all the Jews out of Israel in rivers of blood.

173. Ms. No - 4/8/2002 4:32:00 PM

But aren't they?

174. concerned - 4/8/2002 4:32:11 PM

Re. 172 -

Which, despite the Islamic regimes' massive and systemic shortcomings, I don't really see them attempting.

175. Ms. No - 4/8/2002 4:33:44 PM

okay, I know, it was alarmist and extreme, but I don't think it's completely out of the question.

176. CalGal - 4/8/2002 4:34:01 PM

Is there any Arabic army of any decent quality?

177. concerned - 4/8/2002 4:37:12 PM

Re. 175 -

I agree that the possibility exists, but perhaps what I perceive as Sharon's attempts, if not prematurely terminated, to take the fight out of the Palestinians stands some chance of ultimately reducing it. Just my hunch.

178. Ms. No - 4/8/2002 4:42:27 PM

Re. 177 -

I hope you're right.

179. zojak quafeth - 4/8/2002 4:43:22 PM

So I'm not sure that a lot of nukes would be flying.

From what I've read Israel's arsenal is fairly extensive. Lots of smaller tactical nukes that can be delivered via F-15. Nuclear landmines, missiles.

It's not the number of countries that have nukes, it's the number of nukes.

As to military advantage. Lemme take a look. I'll post some numbers or a link or 2.

180. zojak quafeth - 4/8/2002 4:46:45 PM

ISRAEL

Military branches:
Army, 134,000
Navy, 9,000
Air Force 32,000 troops
Reserves, 430,000

Primary military equipment

Ground forces: 3,800 tanks, including U.S.-built M1A1a, M-60A3a, and native Merkaavas; 1,500 large artillery pieces.
Sea power: Four diesel submarines, three missile corvettes and a fleet of about a dozen fast missile patrol boats.
Air power: About 2,000 combat aircraft, mostly U.S. F-16 and F-15 variants, plus 25 nuclear capable F-15Es; about 80 older F-4 Phantoms.

Military expenditures: $8.7 billion, fiscal year 1999
Military expenditures, percent of gross domestic product: 9.4 percent, fiscal year 1999

Military manpower
Age of service: 18
Military manpower, availability: Males age 15-49, 1,499,186; females age 15-49, 1,462,063; 2000 estimate.
Military manpower, fit for service: Males age 15-49, 1,226,903; females age 15-49, 1,192,319; 2000 estimate.
Military manpower, reaching military age annually: Males, 50,348; females, 47,996; 2000 estimate.

181. CalGal - 4/8/2002 4:48:55 PM

Zojak,

It's not the number of countries that have nukes, it's the number of nukes.

Oh, I totally agree. But I just can't see Israel deciding to use nukes. Even if the US didn't mind, Europe would go beserkers.

182. zojak quafeth - 4/8/2002 4:49:09 PM

SYRIA

Military branches:
Army, 134,000
Navy, 9,000
Air Force 32,000 troops
Reserves, 430,000

Primary military equipment

Strategic Israel

MSNBC Interactive

• Israel's secret arsenal

Ground forces: 3,800 tanks, including U.S.-built M1A1a, M-60A3a, and native Merkaavas; 1,500 large artillery pieces.
Sea power: Four diesel submarines, three missile corvettes and a fleet of about a dozen fast missile patrol boats.
Air power: About 2,000 combat aircraft, mostly U.S. F-16 and F-15 variants, plus 25 nuclear capable F-15Es; about 80 older F-4 Phantoms.

Military expenditures: $8.7 billion, fiscal year 1999
Military expenditures, percent of gross domestic product: 9.4 percent, fiscal year 1999

Military manpower
Age of service: 18
Military manpower, availability: Males age 15-49, 1,499,186; females age 15-49, 1,462,063; 2000 estimate.
Military manpower, fit for service: Males age 15-49, 1,226,903; females age 15-49, 1,192,319; 2000 estimate.
Military manpower, reaching military age annually: Males, 50,348; females, 47,996; 2000 estimate.

183. zojak quafeth - 4/8/2002 4:50:20 PM

oops, the above is a mispost. I reposted the Israel info...

Sorry. Correction coming up.

184. zojak quafeth - 4/8/2002 4:50:52 PM

SYRIA

The armed forces consist of the Syrian Arab Army, Syrian Arab Navy, Syrian Arab Air Force, Syrian Arab Air Defense Forces, police and a security force. Military service is compulsory for men and normally lasts for 30 months. The country's armed forces in 1999 included an army of 215,000, an air force of 40,000 and a navy of 6,000. Syria also has a large air defense command.
Available males ages 15 to 49: 4,384,528 (2001 estimate)
Military expenditures: $921 million (FY00 estimate); the figure is based on official budget data that may understate actual spending

Primary Military Equipment:
Ground forces: Main battle tank group consists of T-55, T-62 and T72 tanks. At least 1,500 armored personnel carriers and more than 4,000 surface-to-air missiles.
Sea power: Soviet-made Romeo submarines and frigates.
Air power: Air combat capabilities include Soviet-made Su-22's and MiG-21's.

185. zojak quafeth - 4/8/2002 4:53:46 PM

OK, Syria alone outnumbers Israel 2-1 with its army. Throw in Egypt and Jordan and Israel is facing BAAAAD odds.

If you're in charge, how do you even the odds.

You threaten the use of nukes.

Especially if you'vebeen abandoned by the US.

And if other countriesattack, or even massfor an attack do you use them?

Can you afford not to?

186. CalGal - 4/8/2002 4:55:37 PM

Different subject, but one to cheer about--at least as a first step:

New Visa Restrictions for Foreign Students

Effectively immediately, a student has to have visa in hand before he can start class.

The INS is also proposing to limit tourism and business visas to 30 days. Hear, hear.

187. concerned - 4/8/2002 4:56:19 PM

But I just can't see Israel deciding to use nukes. Even if the US didn't mind, Europe would go beserkers.

I don't believe that what 'Europe' 'thinks' would be a primary concern if Israel was seriously considering a nuclear response.

I should mention that I believe, at this moment, that Sharon is gambling that his military approach will improve Israeli security against Palestinian terrorism in the medium term, or at least open up more options for Israel, perhaps at some cost to its 'moral authority', if need be.

I'm not sure that Sharon's gamble has better than moderate odds going for it, though, if the goal is to simplify Israel's situation vis a vis its neighbors in the short haul.

188. CalGal - 4/8/2002 4:57:28 PM

Zojak,

But that presupposes that the militaries are of equivalent quality. I thought I'd read more than once that all the Arabic armies were very nearly incompetent. I remember that Syria lost dozens of planes to Israel in their last set-to.

189. concerned - 4/8/2002 4:59:41 PM

Israel could probably reprise its successes of '67 and '73, if it came to that.

190. CalGal - 4/8/2002 5:00:02 PM

I don't believe that what 'Europe' 'thinks' would be a primary concern if Israel was seriously considering a nuclear response.

It would if they stepped in and helped the Arabs.

192. zojak quafeth - 4/8/2002 5:13:06 PM

But that presupposes that the militaries are of equivalent quality. I thought I'd read more than once that all the Arabic armies were very nearly incompetent. I remember that Syria lost dozens of planes to Israel in their last set-to.

Sure. And looking at the equipmen, the Israelis have better equipment.

But...

If you're outnumbered severely, being an optimist is courting death.

In the hypo you set forth above, Israel has no choice but to threaten nukes. In the event of a build-up, it has no choice but to get ready to use them.

If it waits for a Break through by superior numbers it's already too late. Except to nuke foreign capitals, etc. As a dying gasp.

193. wonkers2 - 4/8/2002 5:16:00 PM

"Fighting" Global Terrorism may not be the best title. It implies a military solution which is only part of the answer. Not sure what the right word is. Possibly "Dealing With." Or "Answers to" GT. Or "What Should be Done About" GT. Or perhaps something more American and optimistic like "Ending Global Terrorism in Five Easy Steps."

194. concerned - 4/8/2002 5:18:12 PM

I read an interesting article a week or so back which made the point that some of the very characteristics which characterized Islamists, particularly their lack of trust in secular hierarchical authority or in their fellows with slight religious differences greatly reduces their effectiveness in organized warfare.

196. concerned - 4/8/2002 5:20:29 PM

oops... I read an interesting article a week or so back which made the point that some of the very characteristics intrinsic to Islamists, particularly their lack of trust in secular hierarchical authority or in their fellows having slight religious differences greatly reduces their effectiveness in organized warfare.

197. concerned - 4/8/2002 5:22:04 PM

Pelle -

Are most Swedes such great idiots as this Hanna Kvanmo?

198. concerned - 4/8/2002 5:23:17 PM

Looks like Calgal done yanked the post I was responding to in 197. Feel free to pull 197 and this one too, in that case, CalGal.

199. CalGal - 4/8/2002 5:37:22 PM

Concerned,

I yanked it because Jex isn't allowed to spam endlessly, not because it isn't a good piece.

Europe Knows Who's to Blame in the Middle East

That title is pretty appalling, isn't it? At first I thought it was Jex's.

Several points this article makes:

There are more Arabs than Jews in Europe
The European response isn't uniform. Britain and Germany are, by and large, supportive of Israel. France has a nasty history of antisemitism that is showing up again.
Sharon is widely disliked.
There is not a great deal of support for the existence, per se, of Israel.

200. concerned - 4/8/2002 5:39:25 PM

That title is pretty appalling, isn't it? At first I thought it was Jex's.

I agree. Did you see my latest post to Jexster in Israel and Palestine?:)

201. Ms. No - 4/8/2002 6:10:35 PM

Someone in the office just mentioned that Israel is backing off/pulling out. Anyone know if this is true?

202. CalGal - 4/8/2002 6:19:52 PM

Yep. Blurb on CNN:

Sharon aide: Army will pull out of "one or two" West Bank cities within hours; Towns of Qalqilya, Tulkarem, Israel radio reports

He blinked.

203. jexster - 4/8/2002 7:53:55 PM

Israeli Soldiers Raid Arab Television Newsrooms

204. Rama - 4/8/2002 8:08:07 PM

He blinked.

How can you tell the difference between that and finishing up?

205. CalGal - 4/8/2002 8:13:06 PM

Because he first said they weren't going to withdraw at all but had some finishing up to do, and now they're withdrawing from three towns?

206. jexster - 4/8/2002 8:14:13 PM

NO -

IDF started to pull back from two small towns but expanded operations around Nablus.

The pullback was announced just minutes b4 Powell met with Crown Prince Abdullah in Morrocco.

207. wonkers2 - 4/8/2002 9:03:46 PM

Let's face it, we're giving Israel $3 billion-plus a year, and they are fucking us around.

208. CalGal - 4/8/2002 9:15:33 PM

Bubba made this post in AP:

BUT I also think that it sounds hugely arrogant for Bush to be dictating what they must do immediately because they're messing up his plans to go to war with Iraq.

Again, there's nothing arrogant about giving flat out orders to a country who takes billions of your aid money.

But in any event, your "because" reason is just wrong and foolish. He ignored the events in part because he didn't want to get involved. He's sending Powell over there in recognition that he's lost that debate. He's telling Sharon to pull out because that's a basis for negotiation, not because he figures he can waltz off to Iraq when Israel's left the West Bank.

209. Indiana Jones - 4/8/2002 11:10:15 PM

Criticizing Bush for arrogance in telling Israel to pull out after almost everyone in the world has already done so (including a UN Security Council Resolution passed on March 30 by a vote of 14 to 0) looks like a desire to just bash Bush no matter what he does.

Bush hasn't explicitly said that Israel should pull out because of his Iraq plans--and unfortunately for my bet, I read that Iraq is being put on hold for a while anyway. Nevertheless, even if that were the case, the elimination of Saddam Hussein is certainly in Israel's interests too, as evidenced by his $25,000 payments to the families of suicide bombers, his cutting of Iraqi oil in support of the Palestineans, his gratuitious lobbing of SCUDs into Israel during the Gulf War, the necessity of Israel taking out his nuclear reactor because they (in all likelihood, correctly) perceived his development of nuclear weapons as a threat to themselves, and just general principles.

Nations usually ask other nations to behave in a way conducive to the asking nation's interests. In this case we're asking an ally who relies on our support more than all the other nations in the world put together to quit embarrassing us and otherwise causing us difficulties. At least for the time being. At the same time, Bush ripped Arafat a new one. (Andonly's characterization of the speech I think was pretty accurate.)

I don't see that as arrogance.

210. Indiana Jones - 4/8/2002 11:11:35 PM

More on Saudi aid to Palestineans

211. CalGal - 4/8/2002 11:17:19 PM

Well, I don't see anything wrong with humanitarian aid--although the "aid to the families" sounds a bit suspicious. But I have read something just recently about a prince calling for help to the suicide bombers, a more direct link.

212. Indiana Jones - 4/8/2002 11:45:29 PM

$331 million in 18 months is pretty suspicious, too.

Israel has a population of only about 6 million, and of those about 18 percent are Palestinian. (Don't know whether this counts Palestinians in the PLO-"controlled" areas or not.)

And three fourths of it is going through Al-Aqsa Intifada.

213. RustlerPike - 4/8/2002 11:58:20 PM

Looks like Calgal done yanked the post I was responding to in 197.

Does that make Jexs a yankee?

220. PelleNilsson - 4/9/2002 1:28:24 AM

concerned

Are most Swedes such great idiots as this Hanna Kvanmo?

Ms Kvanmo is Norwegian. The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of the Norwegian parliament.

221. concerned - 4/9/2002 2:04:00 AM

Pelle - my post was in reference to this from Jexster, which had been moved to the Inferno. Regardless of errors about nationalities, Kvanmo still sounds like an anti-Semitic idiot.

BERLIN
I wish it were possible that we could recall the prize," Hanna Kvanmo, a member of Sweden's Nobel Peace Prize committee, said recently about the 1994 award to Foreign Minister Shimon Peres of Israel. She mentioned no similar regret over Yasir Arafat...

222. concerned - 4/9/2002 2:45:27 AM

Is it 1938 again for the Jews?

Unfortunately, the author's categorization of the world's attitude toward Jews is all too valid.

223. wonkers2 - 4/9/2002 9:22:50 AM

Swedes, Norweigians, Danes, makes no difference!

228. Åse - 4/9/2002 11:13:52 AM

Hmpf!

229. CalGal - 4/9/2002 11:14:08 AM

Defector reveals extent of Iraqi weapons programme

Iraq is developing a long-range ballistic missile system that could carry weapons of mass destruction up to 700 miles, according to an Iraqi defector interviewed in this month's Vanity Fair.
...
In the interview, the defector identifies sites where chemical and biological weapons are designed, manufactured and tested, as well as one where nuclear weapons are again being tested.

He also reveals how Iraq used a network of front companies to evade Western sanctions.

He says the Mukhabarat's firms sold items imported as part of the UN's "food for oil" program, in return for money for arms procurement; and smuggled military equipment and raw materials via Dubai for Iraq's Military Industrial Commission.

Mukhabarat is the Iraqi Intelligence service.

249. CalGal - 4/9/2002 12:04:32 PM

Jex just posted an article in its entirety; I removed it; here is the link.

When the Palestinian army invades the heart of Israel

252. jexster - 4/9/2002 12:14:54 PM

Very good...Cal on the way to a working relationship!

EBSCO HOST Academic Elite has a wealth of information on the military questions you asked....

Perhaps laters...

War-induced psychic trauma: An 18-year follow-up of Israeli veterans. By: Solomon, Zahava; Kleinhauz, Moris; American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Jan96, Vol. 66 Issue 1, p152, 9p, 3 charts

I know that RP would be interested.

253. jexster - 4/9/2002 12:15:55 PM

After Martha Stewart that is...

254. jexster - 4/9/2002 12:31:43 PM

The Justice Department refuses to prosecute the Louisiana Man Taliban Man

255. CalGal - 4/9/2002 2:33:06 PM

Saudi Arabia censors classroom content at foreign schools

The Ministry of Education has set up a four-member panel of volunteers to scrutinize books and materials currently being taught at foreign schools in the Kingdom.

The panel will read and review the textbooks to identify contents that go against Islam and the Arab heritage and culture. They will also be checking general educational standards.

“The panel, in which more volunteers will be inducted in the future, will comb the whole syllabus of the international schools to ensure that all books are in line with our religious values and social system,” said Aqeel Al-Onaizi, director of foreign education at the Ministry of Education, here yesterday.

This doesn't appear to have been covered in the US papers, but a number of American kids go to school in Saudi Arabia. What exactly would they purge?

256. Ms. No - 4/9/2002 3:02:54 PM

I'm wondering what they can possibly leave in besides Math and Science.

257. concerned - 4/9/2002 3:52:45 PM

They're probably not hurting their students too badly up to about the middle school educational level.

258. concerned - 4/9/2002 4:10:55 PM

25 Charged in 9/11 Charity Scams

259. jexster - 4/9/2002 4:23:08 PM

Any one care to speculate on what would happen if we invade Iraq?

Assuming we can find a country in the hood that would be foolish enough to host the invasion force that is.

260. AytchMan - 4/9/2002 4:54:10 PM

jex--

Assuming we could find a host and assuming the country was solidly behind a full-scale invasion (two big if's):

We'd probably win but the ensuing chaos (in both Iraq and throughout the Middle East) would make the current dustup appear trivial by comparison.

261. Julius Caesar - 4/9/2002 4:59:51 PM

jexster

If we inavded Iraq and toppled Sadaam --

Iran would do nothing but wail a little.

Syria would look to see what everyone else was doing.

Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt may have to go a little Musharaff on their folks, which would be a good thing.

All around, despite the namby-pamby State department concerns of regional destabilization, taking Iraq down would make solidify American presence in the region.

They'd know the game was real.

Of course, the Wahabbis would go Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, but they'll do that anyhow.

And anyone who posits a foreign policy based on fear of creating unrest amongst the savages cannot really be taken seriously.

What do you think these regimes, with their excess dough and nice suits and convenient Islam that allows blowjobs from French whores, are gonna' do when the rubber meets the road?

Go to Allah? Lord, even Arafat's not kosher.

That's for the chumps and the sheep that act as oppressed for the Arab world. Your own fanaticism is more real than the ruling factions in the Middle East.

262. Julius Caesar - 4/9/2002 5:02:15 PM

would make solidify = would solidify

263. wonkers2 - 4/9/2002 10:02:07 PM

The risks outweigh the possible gain.

264. RustlerPike - 4/9/2002 10:25:35 PM

No, it's the other way round, wonkers.

The gisks outweigh the possible rain.

265. joezan - 4/9/2002 10:37:48 PM

Holy smokes. I just got a look at Lynne Stewart - the attorney for Sheik Abdel Rahman who was arrested for passing messages between him and The Islamic Group (now there's a catchy name).

Today on NPR some guy was talking about how sometimes attorneys will become enamored of their clients and do all sorts of mischief for them, by way of explaining Ms. Stewart's stupid actions. And I thought, HELL NO!...no fucking way anybody's gonna be enamored of that freak...eeewwwww!

Anyway, that was before I saw her. Makes perfect sense, now.

And Ashcroft's got a damn fine case against her, I believe. And if it falls through, he can always have her re-arrested for impersonating the ass of a German Shepard.

Plus, being Ron Kuby's friend has gotta be a 5-year felony, at least.

266. Property of Jesus - 4/10/2002 5:45:44 AM

Kuby is a self-hating Jew.

America has a lot of them. That's why the so many of them give money to the Democrats.

267. RustlerPike - 4/10/2002 9:10:19 AM

PoJ:

Kuby is a self-hating Jew.

No, it's the other way around: Booby is a self-jading hew.

268. jexster - 4/10/2002 11:13:25 AM

Springtime for Saddam
"What a glorious season this has been for Saddam Hussein. After a winter of adjective-rattling, the Bush administration has still shown no sign of converting its doctrine (evil Saddam must go) into a practical strategy."

269. jexster - 4/10/2002 12:57:22 PM

Third Oil Crisis? Krugman's Gloomy Assessment

270. Julius Caesar - 4/10/2002 1:25:43 PM

From Keller's piece

Arab neighbors who, in private, might love to see Saddam fed to the worms have little choice but to kiss his emissaries and proclaim their solidarity, as they did at the Arab League summit.

Winning Arab support for a campaign against Iraq is not the only reason, or even the best reason, that Mr. Bush is right to invest some political capital in calming the Israeli-Palestinian hostilities. But the two things are intimately connected. Restoring a political dialogue on the future of Israel and Palestine is a prerequisite for doing anything about Saddam. As long as Arab passions are so inflamed, we will lack the necessary support for any move against Saddam, diplomatic or military.

I think the hawks are right that Saddam is a menace to the safety of the free world. My threshold question is not whether he can be shown to have a working kinship with Al Qaeda — although that would be nice to prove for the purpose of rallying world opinion. The critical question, in a world recently awakened to the monstrous possibilities of human hatred, is this: Can we live with a chronically aggressive, genocidal tyrant who possesses a nuclear weapon?

Keller's problem is that he makes equivalent Arab passions and living with a chronically aggressive, genocidal tyrant who possesses a nuclear weapon, i.e., as long as the former are inflamed, we may have to live with the latter.

This is on its face ridiculous and dangerously timid. Arab passions will be inflamed no matter the degree of hostility between Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. Islamic Jihad, etc . . . the latter threat is critical. The former fact is inexorable and cannot really be appeased. If Arab passions are aroused further by the toppling of Sadaam, the Arab leadership will either slide on by their fanatic populations, shoot them, or succumb to them.

271. Julius Caesar - 4/10/2002 1:27:35 PM

Keller's conceit is that there exists some phalanx of really, really angry and unreasonable and Arabs, and woe to the nation that arouses their passions.

Interestingly, jexster cites Keller but fobs off any comment on Keller's following observation: But I believe there is a large risk — much too large for comfort — that he would use a nuke if he got one. I doubt he would have any compunctions about having a terrorist friend deliver it to New York or Tel Aviv, if he thought he could do so without leaving his fingerprints.

For Saddam gives Bush fits, and as such, jexster finds his sins old (mere 180s gassing) but his fashion smart.

272. Julius Caesar - 4/10/2002 1:33:31 PM

180s=1980s

273. Julius Caesar - 4/10/2002 1:36:07 PM

It's kind of funny, but sad too.

274. CalGal - 4/10/2002 1:40:38 PM

Friedman thinks that the Arabs will always publicly growl but secretly approve if we go after Hussein. But they will insist that we shoot to kill this time.

275. Property of Jesus - 4/10/2002 2:01:20 PM

That's why we'll have to use newly-designed bunker nukes.

NPR had an item on them recently. They work, with little radiation dustup.

276. PelleNilsson - 4/10/2002 2:49:39 PM

Here is a piece by William Pfaff for discussion if anyone is so inclined.

Empire isn't the American way

277. CalGal - 4/10/2002 3:06:02 PM

Pelle,

"Empire" in what sense? Taking over and colonizing, as Europe did?

278. PelleNilsson - 4/10/2002 3:34:39 PM

You'd better read the article. Pfaff mentions the Phillipines but only in passing.

279. CalGal - 4/10/2002 3:36:48 PM

I did read it. That's why I was asking; the contradictions were rampant.

280. PelleNilsson - 4/10/2002 3:36:56 PM

That was a stupid post. On the other hand I was distracted.

No, empire as Julius sees it.

281. concerned - 4/10/2002 5:00:30 PM

Terrorism in Oslo? Time for the Norwegians to elevate appeasement to a new plane of self abasement, perhaps cough up a few more Nobel Peace Prizes for Arafat?

282. concerned - 4/10/2002 5:06:59 PM

Gimme a 'Q'. A 'u'. An 'i'. An 's'. An 'l' An 'ing'! What does it spell?

283. Julius Caesar - 4/10/2002 5:29:25 PM

Pfaff's piece is very weak. Mainly because he does not define imperialism other than in terms of brute, moronic military enforcement. Thus, the United States is non-imperial because it does choose a side in the Middle East and blast the other; it does not eviscerate all opposition in Afghanistan; it does not dictate all things.

It is also a tedious lament as to how the cowboy Americans don't learn from the wisened structure of international law (built over three centuries, no less).

Moreover, Pfaff ignores the flexing of muscles when they do occur. The military action in Afghanistan is significant; Israel's abilities are derived from being armed by the American Empire.

I read it twice and it makes less and less sense.

But an interesting and certainly more edifying piece is this one Among the Bourgeoisophobes - Why the Europeans and Arabs, each in their own way, hate America and Israel which I wrongly posted in the Israel thread.

284. concerned - 4/10/2002 5:38:46 PM

Btw, I considered posting 'Among the Bourgeoisophobes' here a couple of days ago but didn't want to seem too redundant.

285. CalGal - 4/10/2002 5:59:13 PM

I read it twice and it makes less and less sense.

That's what I thought, too. Is that the David Brooks piece? He always invents explanations. They usually sound reasonable, but he makes them up.

286. AytchMan - 4/10/2002 6:06:25 PM

jc--

The article is a useful, if a little over-the-top, link between the classic anti-capitalist, anti-modern position and the fanatical Islamists.

287. concerned - 4/10/2002 6:09:28 PM

Re. 276 -

Pfaff's piece seems to me to be the kind of ostentatiously inoffensive cud that Europeans would probably like to ruminate over when contemplating the present day world situation vis a vis the US and themselves.

288. concerned - 4/10/2002 6:12:54 PM

However, for one thing, I believe Pfaff errs when he infers that the present administration is more 'unilateralist' than the previous one.

289. CalGal - 4/10/2002 6:18:07 PM

The Islamist fanatic and the bourgeoisophobe hate the same things.

This is where the piece falls apart.

First, they hate the city. Cities stand for commerce, mixed populations, artistic freedom, and sexual license.

Europeans hate the city, artistic freedom, and sexual license? I'm thinking not. Plus, they approve of commerce. They just want that commerce taxed so that they can live off of a generous social welfare system.

Second, they hate the mass media: advertising, television, pop music, and videos.

Again, not. The same Europeans that are so pro-Palestine love pop music and trashy culture.

Fourth, they hate prudence, the desire to live safely rather than court death and heroically flirt with violence.

Nonsense. Europeans are famously wussy.

I think he's correct that Europeans and Islamists both hate Americans, and that it is for our success. But his attempt to link them together in terms of hating our culture is asinine.

290. AytchMan - 4/10/2002 6:22:02 PM

cal 289--

If you're talking about the Brooks piece, he's not equating Europeans in general with Islamists, rather a subset of Euros.

291. CalGal - 4/10/2002 6:33:26 PM

Aytch,

I know, but the subset of Euros he's talking about are the ones that hate America and Israel, and that's the group I'm talking about, too.

292. concerned - 4/10/2002 7:07:44 PM

Sandwiches at war

293. RustlerPike - 4/11/2002 2:50:09 PM

There was a synagogue bombing in Tunis today. At least six killed.

294. wonkers2 - 4/11/2002 4:53:17 PM

Pandora's box is open. Very sad.

295. Property of Jesus - 4/11/2002 4:59:02 PM

Four of the six were German tourists.

296. OhioSTOPAS - 4/11/2002 5:17:45 PM

According to Yahoo! news, the incident referred to by RustlerPike was possibly an accident. A truck carrying "cooking gas" (?) hit the outer fence of the synagogue and blew up. The synagogue was undamaged and the persons killed were the driver, a police officer, and four (apparently non-Jewish) German tourists.

Still, let's hope this doesn't give anyone ideas.

297. lizzard - 4/11/2002 6:12:06 PM

Fourth, they hate prudence, the desire to live safely rather than court death and heroically flirt with violence.

Nonsense. Europeans are famously wussy.

I once lived in Italy for a year and DO think we are seen as wanting to eliminate all risk from daily life, at the expense of using common sense. I blame it on all the lawyers here in the US.

298. CalGal - 4/11/2002 6:28:30 PM

Oh, we are definitely lawsuit happy.

299. OhioSTOPAS - 4/11/2002 7:11:37 PM

Oh yeah? Say that again and I'll sue you for slander!

300. CalGal - 4/11/2002 7:57:30 PM

I thought people sued for money.

301. RustlerPike - 4/11/2002 9:56:18 PM

CalGal:

Don't try humor. You're bad at it.

Stick with cruelty.

302. RustlerPike - 4/11/2002 10:08:06 PM

PoJ:

Well, Israel doubts the official Tunisian version. Apparently the road leading to the synagogue leads nowhere else, and there are no customers of natural gas in the synagogue.

303. RustlerPike - 4/11/2002 10:09:10 PM

I guess that was to OHIO more than it was to PoJ.

304. wonkers2 - 4/11/2002 10:17:11 PM

RP, Well, if what you say is true, and I don't doubt that it is, do you see the connection between that atrocity and the atrocities Israel is perpetrating against innocent Palestinians? Do you see the connection betweet that event and the Israeli settlements in Palestine?

305. wonkers2 - 4/11/2002 10:18:16 PM

Do you have even the slightest doubt about the wisdom and efficacy of fighting terror with more terror?

306. wonkers2 - 4/11/2002 10:20:28 PM

Do you think that the fact that the Israelis wear
army uniforms means insulates them from charges of terrorism?

307. RustlerPike - 4/11/2002 10:33:31 PM

Wonkers:

Baby, you haven't seen terror yet. Terror will come when the F-16s and artillery go into action, and not against empty offices. When you see these long streams of refugees on the roads leading east - that's when you can talk about Israeli terror. This is nothing.

And even then, we won't purposely target children and babies, like the Pals do. But we won't try not to kill them either.

308. wonkers2 - 4/11/2002 10:38:06 PM

You confir my worst fears. Grab your ass. The entire region may go up in flames.

309. RustlerPike - 4/11/2002 10:38:15 PM

You apparently think we have a conscience, wonkers, because you keep appealing to it. You're wrong. You have about as much chance convincing me not to kill Pals as you do of convincing Arafat not to kill our babies. I want Pal blood. I want a thousand shells an hour on Nablus, and I want to see that stream of refugees heading east. I want to see Saddam dead and the Pals in Jordan. We won't have peace, but at least we'll have a respite.

310. RustlerPike - 4/11/2002 10:46:34 PM

Wonkers:

I think Paris and London are in greater danger than Tel Aviv, when it comes to going up in flames. Much of the West apparently still thinks the Middle East can't reach it, even after 9/11. But 9/11 won't always be remembered as 9/11, wonk. That's because there'll be a 5/14 and a 3/1 and a 10/9, and pretty soon it'll become pretty confusing. The Islamic world is committing suicide, but it wants to take as many of us down with it as possible. You may think Israel is the problem, or our settlements. But we are a settlement. We are one big settlement. And guess whose settlement we are? Yours. That's right - we were planted here by the West, which was wary of Islamic nationalism from day one and needed something to balance it with. Remember the 1956 war? Eight years after Israel's establishment, the Brits and French used us to fight the Arabs in their colonial interest. You think the Arabs don't know all this?

311. CalGal - 4/12/2002 11:38:57 AM

Time to stop the war on Terrorism

Put it this way: If Syria formally declared war on the United States and (somehow) attacked us with missiles and artillery, would we declare a "new war on ballistic armaments"? Or would we just declare war on Syria and be done with the semantics? If al Qaeda raised an army against us and fought with conventional weapons, would we refrain from firing back — since we are at war with "terrorism" and not with conventional armies?
...
The simple fact is that we are not at war with terrorism, we are at war with a brand of Islam. You can deny that, if such clarity makes you uncomfortable. But you cannot deny that a brand of Islam is most certainly at war with us. You can call this brand Islamofascism, radical Islam, Wahhabism, whatever you want — just so long as you remember that they are not Islamofascists because they are terrorists, they are terrorists because they are Islamofascists.

There is a great deal of discomfort with this idea, but I think he's got it right. Nonetheless, I was reading over at RI, where if you even mention the word Islam in association with terrorism, someone like Irv rushes to yap at you for being a racist of some sort.

So we've got an administration bending over backwards not to upset the Arabs among us, for political reason, and at the same time we've got anti-Semitism on the rise in Europe (and possibly even in US college campuses), while no one in the administration seems to worry about upsetting the Jews.

It's a weird world.

312. jexster - 4/12/2002 11:53:55 AM

Damn it.

I came here all ready to roast Caligula and damned if she doesn't post something that makes sense!

Not to mention that I agree with.

Not to mention that I posted an op-ed on the very same topic earlier in the weeke.

The point of the op ed - that the war on "terrorism" isn't a real war. Terrorism is BEHAVIOR. The Israelis can fairly be charged with terrorism.

What we are fighting in AlQ is NOT their behavior but the fact that this behavior is direct against us by a movement and by a nation that wishes to destroy us and our allies.

Terrorism is not an enemy.

313. ronski - 4/12/2002 11:57:24 AM

No doubt much of the support of Israel was based on the fear that without a western presence in the Middle East, the West would be denied oil. Or denied easy access to oil at reasonable prices.

Neither of those things would have happened, however, since the Arabs and Iranians (and the rest of the oil-producing states) have to sell the stuff to the people who have the money to buy it, namely, the West.

314. jexster - 4/12/2002 11:58:18 AM

What Do You Mean, 'Terrorist'?

315. ronski - 4/12/2002 12:01:52 PM

I think the Bush administration has gone just about as far as it can go for now in tilting towards the Arabs and still survive U.S. domestic politics.

OTOH, one nuclear bomb (or similar catastrophe) somewhere down the line launched by Islamofascists on U.S. soil, and Israel will be on its own.

316. Julius Caesar - 4/12/2002 12:05:05 PM

ronski

I disagree. One nuclear bomb or similar catastrophe somewhere down the line by Islamofascists on U.S. soil, and Israel becomes our 51st state.

317. CalGal - 4/12/2002 12:06:22 PM

Ronski,

I think you're right. I posted in I/P that Feinstein and McConnell are drafting legislation declaring the PLO a terrorist organization and denying them offices and visas.

I just read that there was an assassination attempt on Powell by the Palestinians. Has anyone else heard this?

318. CalGal - 4/12/2002 12:08:14 PM

I was agreeing with Ronski's first paragraph. I think if we were nuked, Rumsfeld would win out and Powell would resign or close to it. If so, I agree that we wouldn't want to waste the assets of one of the better militaries in the world.

322. robertjayb - 4/12/2002 2:00:06 PM

OSAMA-At-Large: Day 213

323. concerned - 4/12/2002 4:49:46 PM

Osama pushing up daisys - Day 50+

324. concerned - 4/12/2002 4:51:24 PM

Aiding and Abetting Terrorism: Some Lefties just can't stop (being) revolting

325. concerned - 4/12/2002 5:56:56 PM

'In Praise of Cowardice': A Pakistani Editorialist Attempts to wrap the Islamic Cave Dweller Mentality around such concepts as economics, advanced warfare and diplomacy while struggling to define such within a societal context which hasn't materially changed in 3000 years. Interestingly enough, some of his specific observations are reasonably astute, but he suffers from an absurdly inappropriate tribalistic outlook which would approve of slavery, feeding oldsters to dogs and ritual human sacrifice but not the concept of universal human rights.

326. jexster - 4/12/2002 6:46:26 PM

WRT the Glorious Coalition (RIP)

CAIRO, April 12--Egypt and Jordan deployed thousands of police in their capitals today and restricted access to major mosques in a move to stifle pro-Palestinian demonstrations after two weeks of sometimes violent protests. The security measures were extensive even for the tightly controlled societies of the Arab Middle East and reflected tensions peculiar to Jordan and Egypt. Both countries are closely allied with the United States, at peace with Israel and have rebuffed public demands to close Israeli Embassies in Amman and Cairo and expel Israeli diplomats.

The public outcry, including protests that have involved extensive property damage and injuries to dozens of police and demonstrators, reached such a pitch in recent days that officials from both countries appealed to the United States to intervene in hopes of calming the violence in Israel and the West Bank

Growing Unrest Threatens Arab Allies

329. CalGal - 4/12/2002 7:53:55 PM

Concerned, please don't use such long anchor text, and provide the link without too much editorializing. You can editorialize right below (in the same post). And if all you're going to provide is links, I'd rather you put them all in one post.

Jex, this isn't a place for news bulletins. I've said it before.

331. jexster - 4/12/2002 9:43:50 PM

Further to Cal's discussion of terrorism and my exposition of the flimsy foundation of the Duhbya "Doctrine"

The New Republic, whose frothing superhawk credentials are impeccable (measured by the Weakly Standard)

For leftists, economics determines international relations; for realists, power does. But the extraordinary thing about American foreign policy since September 11 is the extent to which it has been shaped by language. In the terrible days after the World Trade Center fell, the Bush administration grasped for words that would capture America's resolve. And it came up with "war on terrorism." Through endless repetition, the phrase was fleshed out. "Terrorism" meant violence by individuals or groups (but not governments) against civilians, no matter what the cause. "War" didn't connote a merely military effort, but it suggested a broad struggle with the urgency, and Manichaean clarity, of a battlefield campaign.

TRB From Washington: Why all wars on terrorism are not the same

or why the Duhbya doctrine is nothing more than, as Robert so pithily put it (Mote Post of the Month Nominee)

"Talk loudly and carry a swizzle stick"

334. arkymalarky - 4/12/2002 10:59:03 PM

I'll agree with that. I've got to write it down.

335. concerned - 4/13/2002 12:20:21 AM

And if all you're going to provide is links, I'd rather you put them all in one post.

Even if there's no connecting logic between them, and I run across the articles at distinctly different times?

336. CalGal - 4/13/2002 12:30:49 AM

No. Not if you run across them at different times. And I just saw those posts were an hour apart. I was looking at 323 and 324 and confusing them with 324/325. Sorry. But keep the anchor text thing in mind, please.

Part of this is just my own finicky preference; I like to have some idea what I'm linking to. Long descriptions as part of the link always look suspicious, to me.

337. CalGal - 4/13/2002 12:34:22 AM

IDF's Wanted Page

David Brooks of the Weekly Standard points out that we never hear of the people who the Israelis are hunting down and capturing. It is a bit of a media blitz. Look at the people who are hiding in that church.

338. robertjayb - 4/13/2002 12:44:55 AM

The Bush Doctrine, R.I.P....Frank Rich, NYTimes

As a statement of principle set forth by an American chief executive, the now defunct Bush Doctrine may have had a shelf life even shorter than Kenny Boy's Enron code of ethics. As a statement of presidential intent, it may land in the history books alongside such magisterial moments as Lyndon Johnson's 1964 pledge not to send American boys to Vietnam and Richard Nixon's 1968 promise to "bring us together."

339. concerned - 4/13/2002 12:50:43 AM

The Poor Rich boy anticipates wrongly, methinks.

340. CalGal - 4/16/2002 4:10:28 PM

Behind the Rage

This is an interesting think piece, and makes several great points:

a) the hypocrisy of the Arab rage at the Israelis, all out of proportion with their own sins.

b) the fact that they are a shame-based society, and that Israel represents a never-ending blow to their self-esteem.

c) the reminder that in the end, it doesn't pay to ignore their rage, which is real, even if it is hypocritical and largely based on their own sense of inferiority.

341. AytchMan - 4/16/2002 4:56:39 PM

I have a lot of respect for all ancient cultures and this includes the Arabs. There is something admirable about simply surviving for a couple of thousand years.

But, for the last several hundred, they have exhibited a tragic flaw -- the rejection of progress in several key areas including science and political thought. Everything seems to be swept before a religious Luddism.

342. CalGal - 4/16/2002 5:04:01 PM

There have been a number of essays post 9/11 that seek to identify the points at which Arab/Muslim history went "wrong". I don't think there is any one issue. But I do think that the failure of the Islamic religion to secularize is a serious contender for root cause.

343. wonkers2 - 4/16/2002 5:05:37 PM

Why not try for a shorter list of where it went right?

344. CalGal - 4/16/2002 5:07:43 PM

Ha.

Hmm.

345. AytchMan - 4/16/2002 5:21:30 PM

cal 342--

That's a good point. The retreat of Muslim empire from the West followed the truce (and growing tolerance) between religion and science in the budding European nation-states. Puritan ethic and all that ("Work and Invent, Work and Invent, Harder, Harder).

346. Wombat - 4/17/2002 10:38:40 AM

From its capture of Constantinople to the present, Islam has undergone centuries of unremitting political and military defeats at the hands of Europe. A common reaction to defeat of this scale is to "go back to basics."

347. CalGal - 4/17/2002 10:46:17 AM

It's almost like a communal mental illness.

348. robertjayb - 4/17/2002 12:21:29 PM

Shoe bomber's French Connection:

PARIS (AP) -- French security agents on Wednesday were questioning five people arrested in Paris and its nearby suburbs in connection with the investigation into shoe bomber Richard C. Reid, French television reported.

Agents from the DST, France's internal security agency, arrested the suspects on Tuesday, said the report on LCI television. It could not immediately be confirmed.

Reid, 28, a British citizen, has been in U.S. custody since Dec. 22 when he allegedly attempted to ignite the explosives in his shoes during a trans-Atlantic flight from Paris to Miami.

349. jexster - 4/17/2002 12:24:08 PM

Bush Renews Call to Act on 'Axis of Evil' States

Guffaw..guffaw..guffaw

352. CalGal - 4/17/2002 2:42:22 PM

BobbyJ,

Presumably they were Arabs? I can't find anything on that.

Afghan woman attacked with acid

The good news is that her neighbors chased the perp down as he tried to escape, and turned him over to the authorities. He was questioned, and gave 37 more names. Acid was found among these men as well--and some of them were wearing military uniforms, apparently.

353. robertjayb - 4/17/2002 2:48:13 PM

CalGal,

Pakis, it seems:

P A R I S, April 17 —

Police and security agents on Wednesday were questioning five Pakistanis arrested in Paris and its suburbs in connection with the investigation into shoe bomber Richard C. Reid, judicial officials said.

The suspects were arrested Wednesday morning, the officials said on condition of anonymity. They are suspected of providing various kinds of logistical assistance to Reid, 28, a British citizen, during his stay in Paris.

354. CalGal - 4/17/2002 2:50:09 PM

Reid's case demonstrates that Europe needs to pay a lot more attention to how it issues passports.

355. AytchMan - 4/17/2002 4:23:56 PM

Wombat 346--

I guess the question in my mind is whether:

a. An early defeat engendered an insular view that accelerated the decline or

b. Something inherent in the culture caused an inward turn that led to the early defeats. Perhaps a differing philosophical view bubbled up.

356. CalGal - 4/17/2002 6:07:51 PM

I don't know if anyone has been tracking Cynthia McKinney's truly disgusting behavior post 9/11 (not that it was all that sterling beforehand). She's a black Georgia congresswoman, the one who wrote an open letter to the Saudi prince (the one who had his $10 million donation thrown back in his face after saying that the WTC attack was due to American middle east policy), inviting him to give the money to a foundation to help black people, since the prince had such sympathy for the oppressed. Well. Yeah. Saudis are known for their desire to give everyone a chance to live in a free and open society.

But more recently, she has accused Bush of treason, of deliberately ignoring warnings about 9/11 because the industries that support him would benefit from a war.

Turns out McKinney's heavy hitting campaign contributors are from Mideastern organizations and individuals, like:

CAIR
American Muslim Council
Public Hamas supporter
Several mid-eastern or arab names with no occupation listed (although one did mention an "import company")

SLF is a conservative lobbying group, but they sourced it in FEC and Georgia disclosure reports.

357. concerned - 4/17/2002 6:13:43 PM

Been monitoring my posts re. McKinney in American Politics, I see.

358. CalGal - 4/17/2002 6:18:45 PM

No, I don't read American Politics all that often. I would have mentioned it if I had.

359. concerned - 4/17/2002 6:19:45 PM

Check out my link to McKinney's political contributors if you're interested, then.

360. TabouliJones - 4/18/2002 9:29:03 AM

From the Globe and Mail:

"Four Canadian soldiers died and eight were wounded in Afghanistan Wednesday when a U.S. fighter jet mistakenly bombed them during a live-fire training exercise.

Of the wounded, two suffered life-threatening injuries while six had either serious or very serious injuries, military officials said. All were Canadians from the 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.

Sources said Wednesday that Canadian and American officials were baffled by the colossal blunder.

At a hastily called midnight news conference in Ottawa, General Raymond Henault, Chief of Defence Staff, said the U.S. fighter jet was not involved in the training operations and misidentified the Canadian troops on the ground, who were in a recognized training area.

"It can only be a misidentification that can cause this to occur," he said."

The story broke late last night and it is unlikely that officials will figure out what went wrong for several days, if not longer.

361. Indiana Jones - 4/18/2002 9:38:41 AM

I agree that McKinney is a nutball and wish she could go live in some other country more to her liking, but I suspect those contributions flow to her because of her positions rather than her taking positions in response to her financial backers.

362. CalGal - 4/18/2002 10:52:43 AM

TJ,

Wow. The Canadians weren't thrilled about supporting the Afghanistan effort anyway, were they? Or were they just less in favor of it than we were.

363. CalGal - 4/18/2002 10:54:12 AM

Indy,

I don't think so. This was from 1999-2000, and I don't think terrorism and the mid east was sufficiently in the headlines for her to whore for back then.

364. TabouliJones - 4/18/2002 11:15:33 AM

Cal,

Prime Minister Chretien was slow to commit and deploy Canadian troops to Afghanistan. However, he was roundly criticized for his equivocation on the matter. I think that it is fair to say that the majority of Canadians supported the Afghanistan effort from the beginning and still support it --including the participation of Canadian soldiers.

At this point, I can't honestly predict how the incident will affect Canadian opinion regarding the war effort in Afghanistan. There will be much discussion in the weeks to come about what exactly went wrong and what implications there may be in terms of relations between the Canadian and U.S. military and the protocols, etc., involved in co-ordinating international forces in situations like Afghanistan.

I also think that the incident will generate much discussion about the seemingly high level of casualties due to mishap rather than enemy fire --an issue that Slate has discussed in recent weeks.

365. CalGal - 4/18/2002 11:20:03 AM

Have they? Do you know where that article is? I've been thinking that for a while, now--that we lose more people due to accidents than enemy fire. Substantially more.

But I'm sure that soldiers have always died from accidents, yes? It's just that there was more signal to noise ratio back when our weaponry wasn't so completely superior to our opponents.

366. Wombat - 4/18/2002 11:21:37 AM

In the Gulf War, the Brits lost more personnel to "friendly fire" than to enemy action. If the Scud hadn't hit the Saudi Arabian barracks, the same could have been said for the US.

368. TabouliJones - 4/18/2002 11:25:42 AM

Calgal,

Here is the information regarding the Slate article I referred to:

Generals' Apathy
The Pentagon's appalling record on "friendly fire."
By Scott Shuger
Posted Thursday, April 4, 2002, at 1:45 PM PT

370. CalGal - 4/18/2002 11:29:06 AM

General's Apathy

395. robertjayb - 4/19/2002 4:11:34 PM

Listen Up!

The FBI has undocumentated, unsubstantiated hunches that something unpleasant may happen sometime, somewhere. Be vigilant for suspicious activity. Condition Yellow continues.

Carry on.

396. robertjayb - 4/19/2002 4:21:29 PM

Really Scary!

The Secret Service is teaching dubya how to do J-turns. Supposedly he one-eightyed a Camero.

Now if he were a genuine Texas boy instead of a phoney Connecticut-born carpetbagger, he would know how to do that stuff.

397. CalGal - 4/19/2002 5:24:04 PM

What's the second one have to do with terrorism?

398. robertjayb - 4/19/2002 5:55:35 PM

Presumably to enable dubya to escape from a terrarist ambush. And spinning cars around is fun.

399. CalGal - 4/19/2002 6:14:12 PM

Okay.

In Cold Numbers, a Census of the Sept. 11 Victims

400. Property of Jesus - 4/19/2002 7:24:37 PM

I miss Jexster and look forward to his return next week.

401. RustlerPike - 4/20/2002 12:45:23 AM

PoJ:

Actually, I was just thinking the opposite. How the I&P thread had become more conducive to the expression of thought, rather than pure rabid pugnaciousness, since Jexs was banned.

402. concerned - 4/20/2002 12:57:29 AM

Gee, I was just thinking of poor little Jexster, deprived of his right to post, also. Thought I'd fill in for him a little with this funny from arabnews.com:

403. RustlerPike - 4/20/2002 2:55:33 AM

Suddenly the Arabs are great believers in Camp David.

God, I'm glad we get to be the better armed party in this - the second round of the global war that began 63 years ago.

404. CalGal - 4/21/2002 12:36:02 AM

Hey, CNN talked about the water issue.

Water fight intensifies Mideast conflict

I think part of the issue is not only is water scarce in this region, but there is inequitable access and use of it. Israeli settlers on the West Bank are using in the order of 4 times more water per person than Palestinians on the West Bank. And some Palestinian families don't even have access to enough water to meet even fairly basic household water needs. While some of the Israeli settlements are much more generously supplied, they might have swimming pools and green lawns. They are living in such close proximity to each other and this access to water is so inequitable, it really does, I think, fuel some of the tensions between them on the West Bank.

405. concerned - 4/21/2002 1:41:41 AM

Islamic Philippine Terrorists Feel U.S. Presence

I'm waiting for jexster or 'thoughtful' to try to twist this into some sort of malfeasance by the Bush Administration.

406. concerned - 4/21/2002 2:16:30 AM

India to Help Build Afghan Police Force

This intriguing, but incomplete news item does not describe how Russia got India a role in the Afghan police force. This will probably do nothing to defuse the tensions between India and Pakistan, not that that should have any effect on India's qualifications to participate.

407. Andonly - 4/21/2002 12:48:58 PM

Bombs Kill at Least 14 in Philippines

By PAUL ALEXANDER
.c The Associated Press

MANILA, Philippines (April 21) - A bomb killed at least 14 people outside a busy department store in the southern Philippines on Sunday, an hour after a man called in a warning in the name of a Muslim extremist group, officials said.

Two other bombs went off in quick succession near a radio station and a bus terminal in General Santos, a largely Christian city of 800,000 people in a region where Muslim fundamentalists have been seeking an independent homeland. The series of blasts wounded at least 45 people. The dead included four children.

A Radio Mindanao Network office in nearby Koronadal said it received a call an hour before the first blast from a man who had earlier called to complain about police boasts that the city was safe from terrorists. The man asked if the station wanted to cover bombings later that day.

Station manager Elmer Ubaldo said he decided not to air the warning because he did not want to cause panic, but a warning also circulated via cell phone text message that 18 bombs had been planted around the city that would start exploding after lunchtime.

The caller identified himself as Abu Muslim al-Ghazie and said he represented al Harakatul al-Islamiyah, the formal name for the brutal Abu Sayyaf group. Other spokesmen for the group said they had no knowledge of Abu Sayyaf involvement. Police Chief George Aquisap blamed unspecified terrorists.

408. Andonly - 4/21/2002 12:49:22 PM

The Abu Sayyaf, believed to have ties to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, and the fundamentalist Moro Islamic Liberation Front have been blamed for setting off bombs in General Santos in the past.

The city is about 130 miles from Basilan island, where the Abu Sayyaf has been holding American missionaries Martin and Gracia Burnham and Filipino nurse Ediborha Yap for nearly 11 months. About 160 U.S. Special Forces troops are on the island to train Filipino troops assigned to crush the Abu Sayyaf.

The first bomb exploded in a three-wheel motorcycle taxi parked in a line about 30 feet in front of the Gensan Fitmart department store in General Santos' business district.

The blast shattered the store's glass panels. Blood was spattered around the parking area. Most of the casualties appeared to be taxi drivers, shoppers and bystanders.

The second bomb went off 34 minutes later near a radio station, followed several minutes afterward by the bus terminal blast, wounding several people, the city's disaster operations center said.

409. Andonly - 4/21/2002 12:49:36 PM

Bartolome Baluyot, police chief for the central Mindanao region, said two unexploded bombs were discovered under a truck parked in front of the store and were being detonated by the police bomb squad.

The injured were rushed to hospitals and clinics in the city, a little over 600 miles southeast of Manila. Most businesses closed, and checkpoints were set up on major roads as part of a security clampdown.

On Thursday, an Indonesian man believed to be a key leader of the Jemaah Islamiyah, a Southeast Asian-based group with suspected links to al-Qaida, pleaded guilty in General Santos to explosives possession.

Fathur Rohman Al-Ghozi was sentenced to 12 years in prison. He told police he had planned a series of bombings that killed 22 people in Manila on Dec. 30, 2000, and in January, he led police to a buried cache of more than a ton of TNT, detonating cords and M-16 rifles in General Santos.

The U.S. State Department renewed an appeal Thursday to Americans to exercise caution while in the Philippines.

In March, several bombs without triggering devices were discovered in Manila. A rebel group claimed responsibility and has threatened to plant more bombs.

410. Andonly - 4/21/2002 12:50:10 PM

End

411. CalGal - 4/21/2002 2:10:48 PM

That's rather scary. There hasn't been much television coverage of the Philippines, and not more than an article every so often in the Times and the Post.

Colin Powell's Humiliation

For America it has been a disaster. Since September 11 we have wanted to push the Arab world on two fronts: first on internal political reform and second on Iraq. But with tensions sky-high, these issues have been drowned out completely. Now the only conversation we will have with the Arabs is the one they always prefer to have—about Israel and Palestine. The big winners from Israel’s offensive are Iraq and the political extremists of the Middle East. Reform is on the retreat. The head of al-Azhar, the chief Islamic center in Cairo, had condemned suicide bombing in the wake of September 11. Last week he changed his mind. Martin Indyk, former ambassador to Israel, says, “In this climate the notion that we could get even Kuwait and Turkey to agree to an American intervention in Iraq is farcical.”
However we get out of this mess, one thing is clear. The president cannot pursue an effective policy without an undisputed foreign-policy spokesman. If he will not back his secretary of State out of conviction, he should do so out of calculation—or else replace him. For now he is following in the footsteps of another Southern governor with little foreign-policy experience who allowed his advisers to battle perpetually for control of foreign policy. Do we really want to go back to the Carter years?

412. ronski - 4/21/2002 2:22:21 PM

A reasonable answer to that question might be yes.
Carter's few successes included ending the state of war between Israel and Egypt.

413. CalGal - 4/21/2002 2:28:44 PM

Hey, the bombing just did make the news.

Ronski--In the scheme of things, which mattered more to Americans, peace between Israel and Egypt or the Iranian hostages?

414. ronski - 4/21/2002 2:29:59 PM

Clearly, the hostages.

415. Julius Caesar - 4/21/2002 2:59:34