News US wants to pump Iraqi oil to Haifa

[fourier jr]

U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan

By Amiram Cohen

The United States has asked Israel to check the possibility of pumping oil from Iraq to the oil refineries in Haifa. The request came in a telegram last week from a senior Pentagon official to a top Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem.

...

The new pipeline would take oil from the Kirkuk area, where some 40 percent of Iraqi oil is produced, and transport it via Mosul, and then across Jordan to Israel. The U.S. telegram included a request for a cost estimate for repairing the Mosul-Haifa pipeline that was in use prior to 1948. During the War of Independence, the Iraqis stopped the flow of oil to Haifa and the pipeline fell into disrepair over the years.

...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=332835&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

& check this out. Even before the "war", Bill Blum wrote that this would happen!

Israel: The men driving Bush to war include long-time militant supporters of Israel, such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith, who, along with the rest of the powerful American-Israeli lobby, have advocated striking Iraq for years. Israel has been playing a key role in the American military buildup to the war. Besides getting rid of its arch enemy, Israel may have the opportunity after the war to carry out its final solution to the Palestinian question -- transferring them to Jordan, ("liberated") Iraq, and anywhere else that expanded US hegemony in the Middle East will allow. At the same time, Iraq's abundant water could be diverted to relieve a parched Israel and an old Iraqi-to-Israel oil pipeline could be rejuvenated.

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/mafia.htm

 

[vanesch]

The United States has asked Israel to check the possibility of pumping oil from Iraq to the oil refineries in Haifa.

I wonder how many days per year that pipeline will be operational...

What's it made of ? 2m thick armored plate in 20 m thick concrete ?

 

[alexandra]

U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=332835&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

& check this out. Even before the "war", Bill Blum wrote that this would happen!

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/mafia.htm

Thanks for the interesting links, Fourier jr. Israel's role in the current middle eastern conflicts has not been explored as much as it needs to be.

 

[fourier jr]

does bill blum know his stuff or what?!

 

[Yonoz]

There's a very slim chance that pipeline will become a reality any time soon.
Still, that doesn't stop all of you from waving this like it proves Israel has an interest in the war in Iraq and is the cause of it. Had you any insight into the matter you would see not only Israel has gained very little from it, it has also lost much.
Had it been a port in an Arab country assisting the US in the war in Iraq, none of you would have given this matter a thought. However, since this is Israel, I guess it deserves tough scrutiny and criticism. I would just like to remind you Israel gave up its only oil sources in exchange for nothing but peaceful relations with Egypt. That peace is today a very cold one, with the Egyptian authorities doing all they can to prevent any normalisation of civilian and economic contacts with Israel. Also, the treaty was devised and signed by a Likkud (right winged party, currently in power) government, headed by Menahem Begin (called a "big terrorist" in the Rachel Corrie thread).
Anyone who thinks pumping water from Iraq to Israel is a viable concept is a delusional hysteric. You revere this guy like he's an authority, yet if I were to refer you to a symmetrically opposing site you would discard it as "biased".

 

[Pengwuino]

The request came in a telegram last week from a senior Pentagon official to a top Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem.

Telegram? Guess we better get out our muskets in preperation for war with iran!

 

[1123581321]

There's a very slim chance that pipeline will become a reality any time soon.
Still, that doesn't stop all of you from waving this like it proves Israel has an interest in the war in Iraq and is the cause of it. Had you any insight into the matter you would see not only Israel has gained very little from it, it has also lost much.
Had it been a port in an Arab country assisting the US in the war in Iraq, none of you would have given this matter a thought. However, since this is Israel, I guess it deserves tough scrutiny and criticism. I would just like to remind you Israel gave up its only oil sources in exchange for nothing but peaceful relations with Egypt. That peace is today a very cold one, with the Egyptian authorities doing all they can to prevent any normalisation of civilian and economic contacts with Israel. Also, the treaty was devised and signed by a Likkud (right winged party, currently in power) government, headed by Menahem Begin (called a "big terrorist" in the Rachel Corrie thread).
Anyone who thinks pumping water from Iraq to Israel is a viable concept is a delusional hysteric. You revere this guy like he's an authority, yet if I were to refer you to a symmetrically opposing site you would discard it as "biased".

all good points, its like the world is out to get israel. israel is one of the most self reliant nations for its size, due mainly to its millitary and special operations. also, where would gangsters of the world be without the uzi?

 

[Pengwuino]

all good points, its like the world is out to get israel. israel is one of the most self reliant nations for its size, due mainly to its millitary and special operations. also, where would gangsters of the world be without the uzi?

They'd still be using tommyguns WHICH ARE COOL!

DOWN WITH ISRAEL!

 

[SOS2008]

...israel is one of the most self reliant nations for its size, due mainly to its millitary and special operations. also, where would gangsters of the world be without the uzi?

Israel is still very reliant on the U.S. for financial aid and military protection, and the U.S. BTW is the gangster that owns (and sells) the uzi.

 

[Pengwuino]

What do you mean owns and sells it? Arent there dozens of varieties?

Or is it like that type of wine where you can only use the name if its created at a certain winery...

 

[fourier jr]

all good points, its like the world is out to get israel. israel is one of the most self reliant nations for its size, due mainly to its millitary and special operations. also, where would gangsters of the world be without the uzi?

israel has a pretty bad record when it comes to humna rights. hasn't anyone heard of palestinian houses getting bulldozed? some jewish person referred to palestinians as "filthy animals" on msnbc also.
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=8439
some irony there...

 

[Pengwuino]

Who cares what some random guy says. Whats bulldozing a few houses compared to carbombs and pipebombs and suicide bombers? That whole conflict is pretty "N/A" when it comes to human rights because its just insanity going on on both sides with 1 side pretty much fighting for their existence (no, Palestinians can move into one of their loving neighbors territory if worse comes to worse...)

 

[Bilal]

What if majority of Iraqi people do not agree to send their oil to Israel or to recognize this ‘’State’’ which established by destruction of Palestine?

For those American who support the Zionists, why they do not establish Jews State in California or Texas , then they can give them money, oil and ******* to enjoy them?

No for religious Ghettos or ethic cleansing in ME based on biblical myth:
Whether the ‘’Kingdom of Jerusalem’’ 12th century or “Artz Israel” in 20th century. This land belongs to its native people not for selective immigration based on religion.

Peaceful Jews are welcomed in ME, but those Zionists invaders will be defeated as what happen to crusaders in 12the century.

http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Middle_East/Palestine/photo59605.htm

This ancient land
is saturated with sorrow.
Every day adds a brook
to the sea of tears.
Sorrow is like a rain,
it respects no boundaries,
it doesn't ask you
how do you name your God.

(Vera Roeder
Israeli human right activist)

 

[vanesch]

There's a very slim chance that pipeline will become a reality any time soon.

Will they then continue it through Northern Africa and the Atlantic straight to Texas ?

 

[alexandra]

I wonder how many days per year that pipeline will be operational...

What's it made of ? 2m thick armored plate in 20 m thick concrete ?

Good point, vanesch - amazingly, many people (even policy-makers) seem to underestimate the effectiveness of guerrilla tactics and the resolve of people whose countries are being occupied to resist the occupation. I wonder why they don't understand people's resolve to resist occupation and the stealing of their land and resources? Surely anyone can at least understand if they think what they would do if they were put in the same position (being occupied by hostile forces and having their resources stolen)? Perhaps it boils down to racism: perhaps they think that people of Arab descent aren't really 'the same' as them, that they should react differently.

 

[cronxeh]

In other news.. Communists have now been elected to 85% of Canadian government

 

[alexandra]

There's a very slim chance that pipeline will become a reality any time soon.
Still, that doesn't stop all of you from waving this like it proves Israel has an interest in the war in Iraq and is the cause of it.

I personally (after having researched the issue) would not see Israel as the primary cause of the illegal invasion of Iraq – and nor does Bill Blum, actually. It is, however, a major player in the region and if the US is successful in installing a puppet government in Iraq, surely (objectively speaking) this will favour the Israeli administration?

Had you any insight into the matter you would see not only Israel has gained very little from it, it has also lost much.

What has Israel lost from the Iraq occupation, Yonoz? I’m not trying to be ‘funny’ – I’d just like to know (though I probably won’t accept the information uncritically and will investigate it further).

From what I've read, the Israeli administration has thus far indirectly benefited from the mess in Iraq in the following way: world media attention has been focused on what's happening in Iraq and the Israeli administration has taken the opportunity this presents to further its military adventures against the Palestinians (evidence: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4580139.stm) and to build the new 'Berlin War' of our generation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4268079.stm)... which now extends into the sea (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4104774.stm).

Had it been a port in an Arab country assisting the US in the war in Iraq, none of you would have given this matter a thought. However, since this is Israel, I guess it deserves tough scrutiny and criticism.

This is not fair, Yonoz – it’s a ‘victim mentality’, and it is not true. People on these discussion boards have been examining and discussing the Iraq invasion and occupation from many different angles – Israel has not been a particular focus of discussion.

I would just like to remind you Israel gave up its only oil sources in exchange for nothing but peaceful relations with Egypt. That peace is today a very cold one, with the Egyptian authorities doing all they can to prevent any normalisation of civilian and economic contacts with Israel. Also, the treaty was devised and signed by a Likkud (right winged party, currently in power) government, headed by Menahem Begin (called a "big terrorist" in the Rachel Corrie thread).

I thought I’d look this up as it’s been ages since I’ve done any readings on the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict. The Camp David Accords (1978) involved a definite ‘exchange’ (rather than one-sidedly favouring the Egyptians):

According to the Israeli-Egyptian portion of the agreement, Israel had to withdraw both its troops and settlers from the Sinai and restore it to Egyptian control in return for normal diplomatic relations with Egypt, guarantees of freedom of passage through the Suez Canal and other nearby waterways (such as the Straits of Tiran), and a restriction on the number of troops Egypt could place on the Sinai peninsula. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords_(1978)

Anyone who thinks pumping water from Iraq to Israel is a viable concept is a delusional hysteric. You revere this guy like he's an authority, yet if I were to refer you to a symmetrically opposing site you would discard it as "biased".

Labelling someone a ‘delusional hysteric’ is not a good argument against what they’re saying. Also, Israel is the sixth (and last) point on Blum's list – before Israel, he lists the reasons for the invasion of Iraq as being:1. Expansion of the American Empire, 2. Idealism, 3. Oil, 4. Globalization, 5. Arms Industry (http://members.aol.com/bblum6/mafia.htm )

 

[alexandra]

Who cares what some random guy says. Whats bulldozing a few houses compared to carbombs and pipebombs and suicide bombers? That whole conflict is pretty "N/A" when it comes to human rights because its just insanity going on on both sides with 1 side pretty much fighting for their existence (no, Palestinians can move into one of their loving neighbors territory if worse comes to worse...)

As long as it's not your house (or American houses), I guess there must be nothing wrong with it. And think about your proposed solution, Pengwuino - how would you like to move into one of your "loving neighbours' territories" - say Mexico, or Canada - "if worse came to worse" and your country was invaded and your house and where your family had lived for generations was bulldozed! You'd love it, wouldn't you? And, of course, you'd think it's fair and right and basically ok. Why should other people be happy with treatment you would go to war to resist? Or would you just passively allow yourself to be pushed out of America and live as a totally poverty-stricken refugee in Mexico? No, I think you'd fight (but maybe I'm wrong).

 

[alexandra]

For those American who support the Zionists, why they do not establish Jews State in California or Texas , then they can give them money, oil and ******* to enjoy them?

A good quesiton, Bilal! Of course, we all know why: Israel was specifically set up in the Middle East by the US to be its ally in a strategic and oil-rich region!

Also, here's something interesting I found when researching this issue - President Truman was being lobbied by both Zionists and by anti-Zionists within the US to push for the establishment of an Israeli state:

But Truman was concerned about the domestic political implications as well as the foreign policy implications of the partition issue. As he himself put it during a meeting with U.S. ambassadors to the Middle East, according to William A. Eddy, the ambassador to Saudi Arabia, "I'm sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism: I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents."(51) Later, in a 1953 article in the American Zionist, Emmanuel Neumann, president of the Zionist Organization of America, conceded that Truman would not have worked so hard for the creation of Israel but for "the prospect of wholesale defections from the Democratic Party."(52) Truman's decision to support the Zionist cause was also influenced by Samuel I. Rosenman, David K. Niles, and Clark Clifford, all members of his staff, and Eddie Jacobson, his close friend and former business partner. Truman later wrote:

The White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders--actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats--disturbed and annoyed me.(53)

...

Pressure on Truman also came from non-Jewish fundamentalists and politicians.

In some cases, support for Jewish admission to and statehood in Palestine may have had another domestic political angle. That support sidestepped the sensitive issue of U.S. immigration quotas, which had kept European Jews out of the United States since the 1920s and had left them at the mercy of the Nazis. In other words, support for Zionism may have been a convenient way for people who did not want Jews to come to the United States to avoid appearing anti-Semitic. American classical liberals and others, including the American Council for Judaism, opposed the quotas, and it is probable that many of the refugees, given the option, would have preferred to come to the United States. Reference: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html (the Cato Institute)

 

[Yonoz]

all good points, its like the world is out to get israel. israel is one of the most self reliant nations for its size, due mainly to its millitary and special operations. also, where would gangsters of the world be without the uzi?

I don't think there's such a thing as a "self reliant" nation today, especially when discussing a Western nation. Military power and "special operations" do not have anything to do with self reliance. Israel has no energy resources, a strained water supply and does not produce basic things like automobiles or even motors. It is definitely not self-reliant.
What does the Uzi have to do with any of this? Is there some reason why Israel should not have developed it?

 

[Yonoz]

israel has a pretty bad record when it comes to humna rights. hasn't anyone heard of palestinian houses getting bulldozed? some jewish person referred to palestinians as "filthy animals" on msnbc also.
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=8439
some irony there...

OOOOH! "filthy animals"? That's really bad. Yep, that sure qualifies as a human rights violation. You write something like "some Jewish person" and expect us to take you seriously?

 

[Yonoz]

What if majority of Iraqi people do not agree to send their oil to Israel or to recognize this ‘’State’’ which established by destruction of Palestine?

Once again, you lie. There was no Palestine, you could have accepted the UN partition plan and had your own state, but you chose to try to destroy the Jewish state. Why don't you criticize Syria, Jordan and Egypt for not founding a Palestinian state in the territories while they held them? Hypocrite.

For those American who support the Zionists, why they do not establish Jews State in California or Texas , then they can give them money, oil and ******* to enjoy them?

Because we already have a democracy here, thankyou. Of course you see no problem with displacing Jews.

No for religious Ghettos or ethic cleansing in ME based on biblical myth:

Ethnic cleansing? With rubber bullets?

Whether the ‘’Kingdom of Jerusalem’’ 12th century or “Artz Israel” in 20th century. This land belongs to its native people not for selective immigration based on religion.

This is not the 12th century and there are no more crusades. Get over it.

Peaceful Jews are welcomed in ME, but those Zionists invaders will be defeated as what happen to crusaders in 12the century.

You're stuck in the 12th century Bilal. Your people didn't show their welcome to the peaceful Jews that came here before there was Israel and before anyone thought about oil and globalisation. We've been over this, you've shown your "welcome" when it comes to killing children simply because you disagree with where their parents chose to live. Quoting poems doesn't make up for your murderous ideas.

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't get this thread at all. The U.S. considered something that is objectively known to have merit. (why else would there have already been a pipeline there? )

 

[vanesch]

Good point, vanesch - amazingly, many people (even policy-makers) seem to underestimate the effectiveness of guerrilla tactics

Maybe we're deluded and the real reason is to ATTRACT terrorists to it. Maybe it is a fake pipeline with glue on it ?

 

[stoned]

free oil for israel, good job yanks !

 

[Yonoz]

I personally (after having researched the issue) would not see Israel as the primary cause of the illegal invasion of Iraq – and nor does Bill Blum, actually. It is, however, a major player in the region and if the US is successful in installing a puppet government in Iraq, surely (objectively speaking) this will favour the Israeli administration?
What has Israel lost from the Iraq occupation, Yonoz? I’m not trying to be ‘funny’ – I’d just like to know (though I probably won’t accept the information uncritically and will investigate it further).
From what I've read, the Israeli administration has thus far indirectly benefited from the mess in Iraq in the following way: world media attention has been focused on what's happening in Iraq and the Israeli administration has taken the opportunity this presents to further its military adventures against the Palestinians (evidence: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4580139.stm) and to build the new 'Berlin War' of our generation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4268079.stm)... which now extends into the sea (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4104774.stm).

I disagree that the current Iraqi government is a "puppet" government - but that is a whole different argument. Israel would benefit in any case where a dictatorship would become a democracy in the region (except maybe in the case of Jordan). However, as this thread shows, Israel and Jewish populations world wide are currently facing a wave of criticism and hatred, due partially to the "war against terror". Furthermore, to appease the Arab leaderships that supported the US, and to improve its image, it is mounting much more pressure on Israel to provide concessions. That is one of the reasons for Sharon's sudden about-turn with regards to territorial concessions, especially unilateral ones. For that, I am satisfied with the US handling of the situation, as Sharon needs much pressure to carry out such disputed concessions. Of course, you hear nothing of the terrible rift in Israeli society regarding the disengagement plan - it's just too boring to put on news sites and shows, it's much more exciting to show tanks and APCs rolling down streets and Palestinians running for cover.
I object to your phrasing of the term "military adventures". We are not ruthless barbarians. If you have any question as to the reasons for a specific action I would be glad to research it for you. Do not assume the IDF is stalking Palestinian towns in search for innocent victims. The data presented to you on the web and media is very shallow. Of course, there are bad people in the IDF and mistakes are made. I am also unhappy with the mainstream view of Israel's responsibility for the Palestinian problem ("They brought it upon themselves"..."We're at war and they're our enemy, why should we help them?" etc.) but we are far from the way we are portrayed by overzealous activists and media-savvy journalists (and biased forum members )
World media attention may have focused on Iraq, but as you can see Israel is one of the first things to come to mind when discussing the subject. The US's presence in Iraq is synonymous with its support of Israel, especially to the ill-informed. This thread is not at all unique, wherever there is criticism of US foreign policy, Israel is one of the first 'examples' of the US's ill-doings. This is also why I'm less critical of similar mistakes, I simply know there's more than meets the eye. Your research may be very thorough considering your abilities and resources, but as anyone who's been here for a while will tell you, you can spend a week, a month, a year, a decade or your whole life in Israel and still not make up your mind about the conflict.
As for the so-called "wall" (actually almost all of it is a fence, it's a wall only where there's civilian activity too close to the fence for safety): I have yet to research the subject completely, but I am against it. However, I do understand the reasoning behind it. It has also been very successful in preventing the suicide attacks that were the cause for its erection. I find it very hard to argue against the wall with other Israelis. The argument usually ends in me saying it is making life harder for the Palestinians, but I cannot deny it saves Israeli lives. In most Israelis' eyes, the Palestinians are paying a fair price, and I can't say I don't understand them.
Side note: It is very hard to be candid about these matters when people like Bilal, who cannot admit to their own side's faults, are about. Any recognition by myself of wrongdoing by Israel will be perceived as a sort of small victory in this apparent battle between Israeli supporters and bashers. This conflict is characterised by many shades of gray and I'm trying to provide you with some insight, but when I see lies and rewritings of history I cannot stay silent. I am still an Israeli and a Zionist.
As for the "sea" remark - that is a very typical mistake of an uninformed critic. There is no territorial link between Gaza and the West Bank. These two barriers are not connected in any way. I actually know a bit about this issue as I have dealt with that area during my service. This barrier is between Israel and Gaza, it does not limit legitimate Palestinian movement at all. I can only say there is a serious problem with regards to seaborne threats from Gaza. I have personally dealt with 2 cases where terrorists evaded our land barriers by diving in the sea, a case where they tried swimming but grew too tired and were shot by snipers, and 2 more cases where Palestinians fishing boats were blown up on the navy vessels that regularly apprehend them when they enter the restricted zone between Israel and Gaza. There were also cases where fishing boats moved to draw our vessels further out and then one would scramble towards a nearby powerplant, though those were just probes to check our response. In short, the IDF has a problem defending Israel from seaborne threats from Gaza and they are examining several options of closing that hole, and that is something Israel has a right to do.

This is not fair, Yonoz – it’s a ‘victim mentality’, and it is not true. People on these discussion boards have been examining and discussing the Iraq invasion and occupation from many different angles – Israel has not been a particular focus of discussion.

Still, any hint of something good happening to Israel as a result of this conflict is perceived as proof that pro-Israeli (Jewish?) officials manipulated the US to enter a war for Israel's sake, which in my opinion is antisemitism, plain and clear. I know I'm opening a Pandora's Box but what the heck, I'm too busy during the week to look at all the responses and by the time the weekend comes this thread will once again change topic.

I thought I’d look this up as it’s been ages since I’ve done any readings on the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict. The Camp David Accords (1978) involved a definite ‘exchange’ (rather than one-sidedly favouring the Egyptians):

The Egyptians are very good at following the Accords to the letter, but not their spirit. There is very strong opposition from the government, as well as government-supported opposition, to any normalisation with Israel. For example, establishing business contacts with Egypt is impossible for Israeli businessmen - any Egyptian dealing with Israelis is ostracised. TV shows such as "A Knight Without a Horse" are produced and popularly received. I'd refer you to MEMRI for more examples but that site is "biased". Yeah I know we've been over that, but I'm still not over it. Anyway, they do what they can to avoid true peace.

Labelling someone a ‘delusional hysteric’ is not a good argument against what they’re saying. Also, Israel is the sixth (and last) point on Blum's list – before Israel, he lists the reasons for the invasion of Iraq as being:1. Expansion of the American Empire, 2. Idealism, 3. Oil, 4. Globalization, 5. Arms Industry (http://members.aol.com/bblum6/mafia.htm )

That statement still lights a big red lightbulb in my head. I really don't think this guy is reliable in any way, having said something like that. Just open an Atlas and see why.

 

[Hurkyl]

free oil for israel, good job yanks !

I don't follow.

I disagree that the current Iraqi government is a "puppet" government - but that is a whole different argument.

Yes, a different argument. *sigh* I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds it very disrespectful to make such contraversial comments as off-handed remarks.

 

[Yonoz]

A good quesiton, Bilal! Of course, we all know why: Israel was specifically set up in the Middle East by the US to be its ally in a strategic and oil-rich region!

1) Israel was not set up by the US. As a matter of fact, the major supporter of Israel until the Arab oil embargo was France. Only after France caved into Arab pressures did the bond between Israel and the US become firm - and this bond is responsible for things like the Camp David Accords, many Israeli-Palestinian agreements and the current road map.
2) There's no oil in Israel. The US has plenty of support from Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Currently the US cannot make any use of Israel in regional conflicts as it would just create more antagonism.
We weren't "set up" by anyone but our parents, grandparents and their predecessors, thankyou very much. Those were not US marines that planted the Eucalypts outside my window, where there used to be swampland, and the USAF did not parachute Rangers to make the dead sea alive with grass and palm trees on its shores. The fields in the Negev desert were not plowed by Sharman or Patton tanks, and Jaffa oranges did not come out of US Army battle rations. The men and women who built this country did not receive help from anyone, and with all due respect to US support, this nation is more than the sum of its weapons and whatever else you may "research".

Also, here's something interesting I found when researching this issue - President Truman was being lobbied by both Zionists and by anti-Zionists within the US to push for the establishment of an Israeli state:

So you see, alex, Israel is the only solution to the Jewish problem. We have no other home, and no one but us can guarantee our safety. Since this is our only home and since it is so fragile, but especially since there are those who still do not accept our right to a national home, everyone here will go to extraordinary lengths to do what is necessary in their view to preserve it. That is something most foreigners can not understand. It is also why simple research will not reveal the essence of the conflict. You need to experience it in the first person. While everyone is very passionate about our home, we disagree as to how to keep it in safe. We are nearing the climax of this disagreement:
The disengagement plan has caused a spur of emotions in the Israeli public - the settlers have much support. They have chosen orange as their color, and it is everywhere - ribbons on cars, flags and backpacks, armbands, shirts, bumper stickers. There are posters against the plan everywhere, some calling out for those called for reserve service to not show up. Some protesters have even resorted to unnecessary means - blocking highways during rush hour with burning tyres, locking schools and public offices with locks and by gluing keyholes, disabling heavy machinery meant to pave new roads for the evacuation. They have stated they will block roads all over the country for 15 minutes some time this week. The Police is helpless, as they are very organised. The ones who are caught, often minors, refuse to identify, and so remain in custody without contact with anyone, to avoid detection. The peak of the resistance will be during the actual evacuation of the settlements, when the entire police force (which has recruited new policemen just for this), backed by the army, will have to evacuate by force entire settlements full of families. Some of the policemen and soldiers will have to tear their own neighbours from their homes. It's very hard to remove your own family and friends from their homes, especially when they are resisting. I don't need to describe what sort of historical memories this raises for some of the settlers. The security forces are preparing for the worst scenario of all - live weapons and group suicide, such as the one that nearly occurred during the evacuation of the town of Yamit in the Sinai Peninsula in 1982.
This is definitely causing a tear in the nation. Israel is paying a grave price for this disengagement. I cannot think of any other nation that would displace its sons and daughters as a unilateral move towards peace.
Have a look at the responses to a typical editorial about the pullout: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/588918.html to get an idea of the intensity of the public debate.

 

[Yonoz]

Yes, a different argument. *sigh* I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds it very disrespectful to make such contraversial comments as off-handed remarks.

No disrespect meant.
What should I have done instead? I can not think of any other way of answering the question without making that remark, and don't have time to start discussing this topic.

 

[Hurkyl]

Ack, my comment was aimed at alexandra, not you! I was trying to echo your sentiment, since her remarks had really turned me off.

 

[Yonoz]

Ack, my comment was aimed at alexandra, not you! I was trying to echo your sentiment, since her remarks had really turned me off.

Oh sorry.
I'm too used to the critical line being so dominant here...

 

[Bilal]

The three Zionists who planned the war on Iraq : Wolfowtiz, Fieth, and Richard Perle, already considered granting Israel the oil and water of Iraq as one of strategic goal of this invasion.

Such ‘’hidden’’ goals are the reason that USA will never succeed in Iraq and they will leave after a lot of pains and blood from both sides.

 

[fourier jr]

In other news.. Communists have now been elected to 85% of Canadian government

um yeah... paul martin, stephen harper & monte solberg are communists. they're all tommy douglas clones. that's a good one pal. tell me there's more where that came from.

 

[cronxeh]

I don't know... but there sure are a lot of 'shocking' news in the 'World' and sure as heck some are borderline above-top-secret

 

[russ_watters]

I don't get this thread at all. The U.S. considered something that is objectively known to have merit. (why else would there have already been a pipeline there? )

There's always a way to assign a nefarious motive to anything the US does, no matter if other people actually think its a good idea or not. See: tsunami relief.

 

[russ_watters]

The three Zionists who planned the war on Iraq : Wolfowtiz, Fieth, and Richard Perle, already considered granting Israel the oil and water of Iraq as one of strategic goal of this invasion.

Such ‘’hidden’’ goals are the reason that USA will never succeed in Iraq and they will leave after a lot of pains and blood from both sides.

That's 3. Lotta entertaining stuff in politics today, lol.

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe we're deluded and the real reason is to ATTRACT terrorists to it. Maybe it is a fake pipeline with glue on it ?

Ya know, a lot in the military actually agree with that idea. Regardless of how we got there, the fact of the matter is that we are now fighting mostly terrorists in Iraq - a significant number of them al Qaeda terrorists. That means today the war in Iraq is a major front in the war on terror. And that's a good thing.

Do I actually think that Bush intended to invade Iraq for the purpose of bringing the terrorists to us? No - but that's not the first time a President has accidentally done something good.

 

[Curious6]

alexandra, your comments are biased.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

YES! What a great idea! What better way to wage the war on terror than by... CREATING MORE TERRORISTS! Because it doesn't matter how the terrorists got started (motives, etc) as long as we're killing them, or at least catching them and whipping their gonads with electrical cables. The more we create, the more we catch, the more we win! The logic is airtight. Now, how to create them. I have a plan...
1) choose a country no-one likes very much;
2) bomb the ---- out of it, particularly targetting weddings, schools, hospitals, hotels and medicine factories (better shoot down a few friendlies for fairness sake, but preferably foreign friendlies);
3) overthrow the government and put a friend in power... someone who will ensure conflict of interest prevails... someone from Unical maybe;
4) now a state of turmoil has been created, make sure you don't help until the entire country has been turned into hell on Earth - let people smash and grab whatever they like, thus turning brother against brother...
5) now we've successfully split the country in twain, democracy will be about as far away as alpha centauri - perfect time to HOLD AN ELECTION;
6) take something precious to the people... a valuable resource maybe, and give it to a friend of yours... Israel maybe;
7) that done, decide which people are the goodies and which are the baddies, and whenever the baddies do something we don't like, fighting for their country back for instance, we call them the terrorists. Catch them and torture them and everyone's happy. Well... everyone who matters.

Coming soon: how to help the police's war against crime - CREATE MORE CRIMINALS!
- how to help doctors in their war against disease - CULTIVATE NEW VIRUSES AND RELEASE THEM IN HOSPITALS!
- how to help the firemen in their war against fire - SET YOUR NEIGHBOUR'S HOUSE ABLAZE!

 

[Art]

Good post El Hombre. A basic error by Bush and his acolytes is an assumption that there are a finite number of 'terrorists' (by their definition) in the world and therefore by killing and capturing some there are fewer remaining. What they fail completely to realize is that the manner in which they have chosen to wage their 'war on terror' is resulting in several new recruits for each 'terrorist' slain.

 

[vanesch]

Coming soon: how to help the police's war against crime - CREATE MORE CRIMINALS!
- how to help doctors in their war against disease - CULTIVATE NEW VIRUSES AND RELEASE THEM IN HOSPITALS!
- how to help the firemen in their war against fire - SET YOUR NEIGHBOUR'S HOUSE ABLAZE!

I almost literally was rolling on the floor laughing !

Great post !

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Good post El Hombre. A basic error by Bush and his acolytes is an assumption that there are a finite number of 'terrorists' (by their definition) in the world and therefore by killing and capturing some there are fewer remaining. What they fail completely to realize is that the manner in which they have chosen to wage their 'war on terror' is resulting in several new recruits for each 'terrorist' slain.

Oh, even I don't think Bush is that dumb. I'm sure his administration know too well that their chosen method of battling terror is none too effective, and that their more and more shocking foreign policies only serve to create a world in which terror thrives. This is because the war on terror is a war for television audiences only. To fight it effectively would be like Dr Who beating all of his enemies in the first episode - where's the series going to go after that?!? No, the war on terror, or some other way of distracting audiences and fueling paranoia, must continue. The show must go on. Just make sure to repeat again and again that these people we're fighting are evil, and so DESERVE to be sexually humiliated by us: the good guys, the heroes, the peace-lovers, the ones God's cheering for, the one and only true way.

And like any other good TV show, the episode we'll remember most is the one where the hero's two most lethal enemies team up. Could it be that most of the 'terrorists' in Iraq are actually AL-QAEDA OPERATIVES?!? Find out next week on-

 

[alexandra]

Greetings Yonoz

First, I want to apologise if any of my statements were taken as personal attacks by anyone; they weren't meant to be because I just don't do that sort of analysis. I do not think any 'people' or any 'race' is 'bad' or 'evil'. I am truly an internationalist - totally anti-patriotism, anti-racist and anti-nationalist in any shape and form; I think the only real solution to the world's social problems is if we ever manage to adopt an internationalist, pro-human way of thinking and living.

When I make statements about countries, I always mean the adminstrations'/governments' policies in those countries. Most of the individuals caught up in the madness (soldiers, for example) are not (as far as I am concerned) to blame. They are simply doing what they are told to do in some cases, and in others they're just trying to stay alive. In some countries there are conscription laws, and so people have no option but to be in the army. In other situations, people are forced by poverty to join organisations such as defence forces that open up opportunities for them that they would not have otherwise. Having clarified my position, I'll respond to your points in detail.

I disagree that the current Iraqi government is a "puppet" government - but that is a whole different argument.

Ok, as you say - it is a whole other argument. Nevertheless, it seems to me that only a 'cooperative' government will be allowed to come to power in Iraq. I could provide plenty of historical evidence of other countries where this is a precondition for survival in government - but this has been done on other threads. I do have one new source of information to add to this debate, however... Has anyone heard of/read John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hit Man I heard a radio interview with Perkins, and he said that he decided to 'spill the beans' as a result of 9/11 - anyway, here's an excerpt from a review:

Publisher Comments:
In his controversial book, John Perkins tells the gripping tale of the years he spent working for an international consulting firm where his job was to convince underdeveloped countries to accept enormous loans, much bigger than they really needed, for infrastructure development — and to make sure that the development projects were contracted to U. S. multinationals. Once these countries were saddled with huge debts, the American government and the international aid agencies allied with it were able, by dictating repayment terms, to essentially control their economies. It was not unlike the way a loan shark operates — and Perkins and his colleagues didn't shun this kind of unsavory association. They referred to themselves as "economic hit men."

This is a story of international political intrigue at the highest levels. For over a decade Perkins traveled all over the world — Indonesia, Panama, Ecuador, Columbia, Saudi Arabia, Iran — and worked with men like Panamanian president Omar Torrijos, who became a personal friend. He helped implement a secret scheme that funneled billions of Saudi petrodollars back into the U. S. economy, and that further cemented the intimate relationship between the Islamic fundamentalist House of Saud and a succession of American administrations. Perkins' story illuminates just how far economic hit men were willing to go, and unveils the real causes of some of the most dramatic developments in recent history, such as the fall of the Shah of Iran and the invasions of Panama and Iraq. Reference: http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=8-1576753018-0

The thing is, it's all connected - and we cannot hope to understand what is happening if we try to examine everything in isolation. We have to study history (including recent history) if we are to have any hope of understanding what's going on. The events recounted in Perkins' book help shed light on what's happening now.

Israel would benefit in any case where a dictatorship would become a democracy in the region (except maybe in the case of Jordan). However, as this thread shows, Israel and Jewish populations world wide are currently facing a wave of criticism and hatred, due partially to the "war against terror".

I think the Israeli government has been facing criticisms for several years, though, Yonoz - regarding their armed forces' actions in the zones where they are active. I know that in their simplistic way, many ordinary people (whose views are moulded by the media) not directly involved in the conflict have also expressed anti-semitic views. They are wrong. On the other hand, I can understand the ordinary members of Palestinian populations who have had actual bad experiences involving members of the IDF being racist; one has to expect that (perhaps you disagree? It would just seem logical to me that if your relative has been maimed/killed by someone you may hold a grudge against them).

Furthermore, to appease the Arab leaderships that supported the US, and to improve its image, it is mounting much more pressure on Israel to provide concessions. That is one of the reasons for Sharon's sudden about-turn with regards to territorial concessions, especially unilateral ones. For that, I am satisfied with the US handling of the situation, as Sharon needs much pressure to carry out such disputed concessions.

This situation is unfolding at the moment, and one can't yet say where it will go...

Of course, you hear nothing of the terrible rift in Israeli society regarding the disengagement plan - it's just too boring to put on news sites and shows, it's much more exciting to show tanks and APCs rolling down streets and Palestinians running for cover.

I don't know what's happening elsewhere, but the radio and TV news here does cover this issue consistently, and I am also reading about it online. I understand that the issue is very divisive.

I object to your phrasing of the term "military adventures". We are not ruthless barbarians.

I did not mean to imply that the Israeli people are ruthless barbarians when I used that term - I used it as a blanket term because I could not list all the separate incidents that would be relevant (there are too many of them). And again, I must emphasise that I do not blame the Israeli people, not even the soldiers. The IDF is a conscript army, right? And also, I have in the past read reports of a number of conscientious objectors who refuse to serve in the IDF - because it generally takes a very brave person to stand up and be counted publicly on issues such as conscription, I imagine there are other IDF members who aren't entirely happy with some of the situations they are put into (but I'm only guessing).

If you have any question as to the reasons for a specific action I would be glad to research it for you. Do not assume the IDF is stalking Palestinian towns in search for innocent victims. The data presented to you on the web and media is very shallow. Of course, there are bad people in the IDF and mistakes are made.

Yonoz, I did not imply this at all. I believe that armies act on orders they are given; whenever I analyse a situation, I hold governments responsible for what their armies do; I do not hold the individuals comprising the armies responsible (although, as you point out, there are probably some bad people in all armies - these would be a very tiny minority, I imagine).

I am also unhappy with the mainstream view of Israel's responsibility for the Palestinian problem ("They brought it upon themselves"..."We're at war and they're our enemy, why should we help them?" etc.) but we are far from the way we are portrayed by overzealous activists and media-savvy journalists (and biased forum members )

Hmm, but again I must insist that I do not hold the Israeli people responsible. But Yonoz, this situation must be addressed - surely you agree? See, I would hope that if I had been alive during WWII I would have fought against the atrocities being carried out against the Jewish people. In fact, it was the book 'The Diary of Anne Frank' (that a marvellous English teacher introduced me to when I was in high school) that aroused my passionate hatred of injustice - in fact, I could say without exaggeration that reading this book changed the course of my life. I don't think you really understand what I'm on about - I just can't be silent when a situation is not right because I believe that silence is complicity and is unforgivable. I am a humanitarian-type person - I cannot stand suffering and injustice - now please, hear me out (I haven't finished my response yet)...

World media attention may have focused on Iraq, but as you can see Israel is one of the first things to come to mind when discussing the subject. The US's presence in Iraq is synonymous with its support of Israel, especially to the ill-informed.

I stressed that I did not think that the US presence in Iraq has anything to do with Israel. However, I do think that Israel is part of the bigger political picture, especially concerning the US administration's strategic aims in the middle east - but this is completely different to saying that the US and its allies invaded Iraq in order to help Israel. I doubt the US administration would ever do that (not unless it suited other important US administration aims as well).

This thread is not at all unique, wherever there is criticism of US foreign policy, Israel is one of the first 'examples' of the US's ill-doings. This is also why I'm less critical of similar mistakes, I simply know there's more than meets the eye. Your research may be very thorough considering your abilities and resources, but as anyone who's been here for a while will tell you, you can spend a week, a month, a year, a decade or your whole life in Israel and still not make up your mind about the conflict.

Yonoz, believe me - I know exactly how complex the situation is for people living in Israel. Honestly, I grew up as a privileged white person in South Africa (with legislated racist policies - the infamous 'apartheid'). The inner conflict I felt the more and more I learned about the system there does, I believe, match the complexity of the situation in Israel. I had to learn all about what was being done 'in my name' and with my tacit approval. It was really ugly. It was a very hard lesson - and it took me a long, long time to figure out what was really going on and to figure out exactly why I was not to blame. Of course, that involved my deciding to no longer be silent and complicit (and therefore supporting the 'Nazis' in power at the time).

As for the so-called "wall" (actually almost all of it is a fence, it's a wall only where there's civilian activity too close to the fence for safety): I have yet to research the subject completely, but I am against it. However, I do understand the reasoning behind it. It has also been very successful in preventing the suicide attacks that were the cause for its erection. I find it very hard to argue against the wall with other Israelis. The argument usually ends in me saying it is making life harder for the Palestinians, but I cannot deny it saves Israeli lives. In most Israelis' eyes, the Palestinians are paying a fair price, and I can't say I don't understand them.
Side note: It is very hard to be candid about these matters when people like Bilal, who cannot admit to their own side's faults, are about. Any recognition by myself of wrongdoing by Israel will be perceived as a sort of small victory in this apparent battle between Israeli supporters and bashers. This conflict is characterised by many shades of gray and I'm trying to provide you with some insight, but when I see lies and rewritings of history I cannot stay silent. I am still an Israeli and a Zionist.

Yonoz, this is precisely the complexity I understand at a deep level because it's the kind of complexity I've had to sort through myself. I haven't given you any of the details (it is the details that make up a person and a life) - all I can say is that I really empathise with you and that it matters to me that you not misinterpret what I was saying. I have to admit, now, that I didn't take enough care in the post that prompted this response from you; I should have known better and crafted my response much more carefully.

As for the "sea" remark - that is a very typical mistake of an uninformed critic. There is no territorial link between Gaza and the West Bank. These two barriers are not connected in any way.

I am notoriously bad at geography - I just know what I read in the BBC article about this, then I carelessly (perhaps thinking it was poetic ) linked it to my previous point about the fence/wall.

I actually know a bit about this issue as I have dealt with that area during my service. This barrier is between Israel and Gaza, it does not limit legitimate Palestinian movement at all. I can only say there is a serious problem with regards to seaborne threats from Gaza. I have personally dealt with 2 cases where terrorists evaded our land barriers by diving in the sea, a case where they tried swimming but grew too tired and were shot by snipers, and 2 more cases where Palestinians fishing boats were blown up on the navy vessels that regularly apprehend them when they enter the restricted zone between Israel and Gaza. There were also cases where fishing boats moved to draw our vessels further out and then one would scramble towards a nearby powerplant, though those were just probes to check our response. In short, the IDF has a problem defending Israel from seaborne threats from Gaza and they are examining several options of closing that hole, and that is something Israel has a right to do.

Ok, thanks for the information. Umm - but blowing up fishing boats? Sorry, Yonoz - but perhaps they were just trying to make a living? The complexity again, I know... 'Rights' are a very complex matter too; what happens to the fishermen - how do they make a living? Do they have other options? Can they fish in other waters? As I admitted earlier, I don't know much about the geography and sea resources etc in that area.

Still, any hint of something good happening to Israel as a result of this conflict is perceived as proof that pro-Israeli (Jewish?) officials manipulated the US to enter a war for Israel's sake, which in my opinion is antisemitism, plain and clear. I know I'm opening a Pandora's Box but what the heck, I'm too busy during the week to look at all the responses and by the time the weekend comes this thread will once again change topic.

Well, I hope you read this Yonoz.

That statement still lights a big red lightbulb in my head. I really don't think this guy is reliable in any way, having said something like that. Just open an Atlas and see why.

Do you mean regarding the Gaza thing? Blum didn't say that - that was me

 

[alexandra]

alexandra, your comments are biased.

Yes, Curious6 - they came across that way, I'm afraid. I'm not retracting what I wrote, but I have explained further what I meant because my initial statements were very open to misinterpretation. I have responded at length to Yonoz on each point he raised and I hope this clarifies my position which (I hope) is not biased (or at least less biased?). I think this is the value of the discussion boards - even though one starts off with 'short-hand' statements of one's position, it is possible to elaborate and address misunderstandings. I do appreciate it, though, when my errors are pointed out - thanks for the little (deserved) 'slap on the hand', Curious6

 

[russ_watters]

Coming soon: how to help the police's war against crime - CREATE MORE CRIMINALS!
- how to help doctors in their war against disease - CULTIVATE NEW VIRUSES AND RELEASE THEM IN HOSPITALS!
- how to help the firemen in their war against fire - SET YOUR NEIGHBOUR'S HOUSE ABLAZE!

You do know that police fight crime by going under-cover with criminals, vaccines are viruses, and forest fires are fought by setting controlled fires, right?

 

[vanesch]

Oh, even I don't think Bush is that dumb. I'm sure his administration know too well that their chosen method of battling terror is none too effective, and that their more and more shocking foreign policies only serve to create a world in which terror thrives. This is because the war on terror is a war for television audiences only.

It is clear that towards the end of his first mandate, that had become the tactics: scare the hell out of people, there are terrorists everywhere around the corner, buy a bunker and shoot first because your kids are at danger. It even worked to get him a second mandate. But do you think that it was the plan INITIALLY ?

 

[Smurf]

Coming soon: how to help the police's war against crime - CREATE MORE CRIMINALS!
- how to help doctors in their war against disease - CULTIVATE NEW VIRUSES AND RELEASE THEM IN HOSPITALS!
- how to help the firemen in their war against fire - SET YOUR NEIGHBOUR'S HOUSE ABLAZE!

I almost literally was rolling on the floor laughing !

Great post !

You do know that police fight crime by going under-cover with criminals, vaccines are viruses, and forest fires are fought by setting controlled fires, right?

BURN!

What an entertaining chain of posts there. Ah, I'll be laughing about this one for a while.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

It is clear that towards the end of his first mandate, that had become the tactics: scare the hell out of people, there are terrorists everywhere around the corner, buy a bunker and shoot first because your kids are at danger. It even worked to get him a second mandate. But do you think that it was the plan INITIALLY ?

Not sure what you're asking. Initially as in since the war on terra (I mean, terror) began? Yes, of course I do. Terror has been used as a hook for TV since 9/11. No sensible, objective person would ever conceive that overthrowing the Taliban was an effective move on the war on terror. No sensible, objective person would ever assume Bin Laden and Saddam were bum pals just cos Bush said 'Saddam' and 'terror' so many times in the same sentence. Just like no sensible, objective person would believe other great TV moments such as Bush justifying the war in Iraq with emotional li(n)es such as "After all, this is the man who tried to kill my Dad." However, fans of the show swallow all this because they have the benefit of suspension of disbelief. It is, after all, a great, great show. I, for one, am anxiously awaiting the DVD.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

You do know that police fight crime by going under-cover with criminals, vaccines are viruses, and forest fires are fought by setting controlled fires, right?

You do know that being an undercover cop doesn't make you a criminal, that vaccines aren't released in the open, and your neighbour doesn't live in a forest, right? Unless, that is, you are a squirrel. Are you a squirrel, Russ?

 

[vanesch]

No sensible, objective person would ever conceive that overthrowing the Taliban was an effective move on the war on terror.

That, on the other hand, was a good thing if you ask me: after all, the Taliban REALLY were a terrorist-supporting regime with a direct link to 9/11. Of course, it was a failure in that they didn't find OBL in the end, but that's more a technical failure than anything else. The US was actually quite friendly towards Afghanistan ; after all, to play for sure, they could have nuked out the entire country too - that way they would have really eliminated OBL without any question. I still wonder why they didn't do that.