[excon]

Hello Mag:

The video is only several whacko anti-Semites like yourself. THAT'S your proof?? You're dingy.

You are blinded by anti-Semitism. Poor, poor fellow.

excon

[ETWolverine]

It is ethnic cleansing plain and simple.

Ethnic cleansing, huh?

Exactly how many Palestinians have been killed by Israel since 1967 when the West Bank and Gaza fell into Israeli hands? Or forget "exactly". A rough estimate would be nice.

Don't you think that if Israel were engaged in "ethnic cleansing" there would be a lot fewer Muslims living in the West Bank and Gaza? Israel is the most technologically advanced country in the Middle East with the most powerful military in the Middle East. If they were engaged in "ethnic cleansing", don't you think that they would have carpet bombed the West Bank and Gaza by now? They haven't done so.

Let me tell you what an ethnic cleansing looks like. It looks like 2,000,000 dead Sudanese over a 20 year period. It looks like 6 million dead Jews in a period of 7 years. It looks like 1,000,000 Tutsis murdered by the Hutus of Rwanda. It looks like 200,000 murdered in East Timor. It looks like 100,000-200,000 dead Kurds in Iraq. It looks like 100,000 dead Bosnians and Serbs in 3 years.

Ethnic cleansing does not look like 700 or so dead Palestinians civilians over a period of 10 years.

I highly suggest that you review your definition of "ethnic cleansing" before we continue this conversation.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Well Rabbi, if he is your best friend why is he aiding and abetting the enemy of Israel?

Excellent question... and frankly, that is the point of this letter: to point out the fact that Bush is getting bad advice, and needs to look at other points of view.

Still, I would argue (as I always have regarding Bush), watch what he DOES not what he says. So far, the only pressure he has put on Israel is verbal pressure. He hasn't done anything monetary, economic, diplomatic, etc. to apply any further pressure against Israel.

Elliot

[Dark_crow]

Elliot, what I had in mind was the arms and money America is giving to the Palestinians.

I agree, in the Middle East, facts mean nothing to some people.

[ETWolverine]

I am not going to condone the outright slaughter of the palestinian people.

Neither does anyone else... including Israel. Can you show me where such "outright slaughter" has taken place by Israel?

That makes you a sociopathic piece of **** in my book.

Uh... your books is a very short pamphlet. Lots of pictures, very few words, none of them more than one syllable. I suggest you find a new book.

Let them fight for their land and let it piss you off that you can't just steal it by other sneaky means.

STEAL THEIR LAND!!

Can you name two countries that have given up land that they won in a war started by their enemeies who wanted to wipe them off the face of the world? Can you name two countries that have given up land mass that equates to half of their territory to their enemies on the HOPE that there might some day be peace? Israel has done so not once, not twice but THREE TIMES now... two of those times while still under attack from the very people they were giving the land up to. First there was Sinai, then there was Lebanon, and now there is the West Bank and Gaza. The Sinai deal has worked out fairly well until now... Egypt continues to be a non-enemy (friend is hardly an accurate description). But Lebanon is controlled by Hezbollah and Syria, and continues to attack Israel 7 years after Israel exited Lebanese teritory. And the West Bank and Gaza have been in a constant state of war against Israel since 1987... despite Israeli pullouts of 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza.

And you say that Israel is stealing THEIR land?

What color is the sky on the planet you live on?

For all your talk about how Israel should have been created via a "Democratic Process" rather than a "mandate", the fact is that it WAS a democratic process which created the State of Israel. The UN membership VOTED on UN Resolution 181 (128th Plenary Meeting of the UNGA, November 29, 1947). The results were:

In favour: 33
Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian S.S.R. Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian S.S.R. Union of South Africa, U.S.A. U.S.S.R. Uruguay, Venezuela.

Against: 13
Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

Abstained: 10
Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

So excuse me if I dismiss your argument about Israel STEALING the land as pure BS. Because that is EXACTLY what it is. Not only did they not steal it, they have done more to give up land that is rightfully theirs than any other country in history... all 5,678 years of it.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Elliot, what I had in mind was the arms and money America is giving to the Palestinians.

I agree, in the Middle East, facts mean nothing to some people.

Good point. But I think that Bush feels that he can do business with Abbas and Fatah, but can't with Hamas. So he's supporting Fatah and Abbas in their fight against Hamas.

From a purely STRATEGIC point of view, it's the right move. Best case scenario (though highly unlikely) is that Fatah wins the battle, Abbas makes peace with Israel, and we all live happily ever after. Worst case, Hamas wins and Israel goes back to open war with Hamas. Somewhere in the middle is the possibility that Fatah wins and doesn't make a permanent peace with Israel... but in that case, he or his successor will know who to hold responsible in the PA. If the fighting continues indefinitely between Fatah and Hamas, Israel benefits from weaker opponents on BOTH sides. So from Bush's point of view, there's no reason NOT to support Fatah in order to keep Hamas from winning. And it is in Israel's short-term benefit as well. (Longer term is a different story.)

Yes, from the point of view of a supporter of Israel, to see the USA support Fatah hurts. But from a purely strategic point of view, it really is the right move, and it really does help Israel's interests.

Pressuring Israel to sit back down at the negotiating table with its enemies who continue to attack them.. That most certainly is NOT in Israel's best interests. And that is exactly the reason that Rabbi Weiss wrote this letter.

When all is said and done, Bush really is the best friend Israel has had since Reagan. His actions now do not negate all the good he has done over the prior 7 years... marginalizing Arafat, letting Israel do what needed to be done to protect itself, maintaining a hands-off policy toward Israel, allowing Israel to build the security walls to protect themselves and stop 99% of terrorist bombings inside of Israel, etc. Bush, until now, has been an excellent President for Israel. Anything he does from this point on doesn't negate that.

Elliot

[Dark_crow]

Good point. But I think that Bush feels that he can do business with Abbas and Fatah, but can't with Hamas. So he's supporting Fatah and Abbas in their fight against Hamas.
Elliot

Elliot
We as a Nation have been down that road in times past with other leaders in other parts of the world before, (supporting Fatah and Abbas in their fight against Hamas.) and how often did we regret it. If you look at the statistics Fatah has committed more terrorism than Hamas. I don’t think we should support either except for private humanitarian aid to the camps. From what I read the peaceful Palestinians want nothing to do with either.

[ETWolverine]

DC,

Hey, I didn't say I thought he was right... just that I understand his reasoning and that it makes strategic sense from a logical point of view. The one thing that I know about the Middle East is that the usual logic doesn't work there. While Bush's logic is good, it will ultimately fail (as similar logic always has) because logic doesn't operate there as it does elsewhere.

Elliot

[Dark_crow]

I understand now Elliot, and yeah, I don’t understand their logic either; but what is most puzzling is how they got our oil under their sand!:D

[ETWolverine]

That's the point that so many people miss about the concept of "going to war for oil". It is completely unnecessary for the USA to go to war for oil. You see, while other countries produce most of the crude oil, WE produce 80% of the world's REFINED oil. Eventually, 80% of the crude oil in the world will have to come to us in order to be refined. We don't ever have to worry about getting oil, because nobody else has the capacity to refine it, and we could just simply keep what we need, while selling the rest on the open market. If other countries don't like it, they can build their own refineries... but they won't.

So when I hear people say that Bush went to war for oil, I just laugh, because that statement makes absolutely NO SENSE.

People always talk about how the Arabs control the oil market. But the fact is that they only control the CRUDE OIL maket. Iran exports huge amounts of crude every year, but they are also one of the world's largest importers of refined oil... and guess who they buy that from? If we decided to stop buying Iranian oil, and stop exporting refined oil to them, they would drown in their crude and they would freeze to death from lack of heating oil. The Arabs don't control the oil market. We do. It's just that so few people recognize that fact.

So if we control the refined oil market, why are gas prices so high?

Good question. Glad you asked it.

The fact that we refine 80% of the world's refined oil doesn't decrease the demand for that oil. We lack the capacity to refine more than we currently do, but demand is increasing. Same level of supply with increased demand means that prices are driven upward. We refine more than anyone else, but we need to do more than we currently are. And that means two things: 1) we need to build refineries and 2) we need to build them HERE, not overseas.

Now... does this mean that I don't want to see us make strides in alternative fuels? No. I think we should do that anyway, because I hate the idea of paying our enemies billions of dollars for oil, which they then use to buy the weapons that they use to attack us. I think we need to invest in alternative fuel sources, including shale oil, digging in ANWAR, renewable fuels like grain-based fuels, bio-diesel, hydrogen fuel, magnetic propulsion systems, electric vehicles, etc. But we are not in the crisis that so many people think we are.

Elliot

[Skell]

DC,

Hey, I didn't say I thought he was right... just that I understand his reasoning and that it makes strategic sense from a logical point of view. The one thing that I know about the Middle East is that the usual logic doesn't work there. While Bush's logic is good, it will ultimately fail (as similar logic always has) because logic doesn't operate there as it does elsewhere.

Elliot

So if you understand that normal logic doesn't work in the middle east, and everyone else understands it, then why doesn't the man you put in charge understand it? Is it just because he doesn't really understand much at all? I think so!

[George_1950]

Skell writes: "Is it just because he doesnt really understand much at all? I think so!" I am no expert! However: International affairs is sort of like gang ethics. We pay non-allies to listen to us, and not listen so much to others. We pay for access. Most every country in the world has its hand out for payola when dealing with the US. Diplomacy has always been this way and always will. Woodrow Wilson wanted to clean up world diplomacy and where did he get? Isolationists have resented dealing with the world and where have we gotten?

[ETWolverine]

Skell,

The answer to your question is that Bush has to play politics instead of actually acting according to what he knows to be right. Why? Because for the past 7 years, Libs have been doing nothing but pressuring him to do exactly that. Remember all that stuff about "unilateralism" and "acting without international approval"?

Seems to me that in the eyes of Libs like you, Bush is NEVER right, no matter what he does. If he acts according to what he knows (or even just believes) is right, he's accused or unilateralism. If he tries to act through diplomacy, he's being a fool who doesn't know anything.

I hate to say this Skell, but NOBODY is either right or wrong 100% of the time. But Libs try to portray Bush as being wrong 100% of the time. The law of statistical averages says that Bush has to be right at least ONCE in a while. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Elliot

[excon]

Bush has to play politics instead of actually acting according to what he knows to be right. Why? Because for the past 7 years, Libs have been doing nothing but pressuring him to do exactly that.

Hello El:

So, the libs are forcing him to fail. I understand now.

excon

PS> (Bwa, ha ha ha ha ha!)

[Dark_crow]

Actually I believe Bush has been convinced that the weapons will only be used against Hamas. It's a gamble to avoid Hamas taking over completely. What is the alternative?

[ETWolverine]

Hello El:

So, the libs are forcing him to fail. I understand now.

excon

PS> (Bwa, ha ha ha ha ha!)

Uh... pretty much, yes.

These are the same Libs who pushed the idea of diplomacy to Clinton... remember the failed talks with Arafat at Campt David, after Ehud Barak offered him over 95% of what he was looking for?

These are the same Libs who convinced Bush the Elder that the Oslo and Whye accords were "a pretty neat idea", despite 6 years of Intifada that preceded it.

These are the same Libs who have convinced Carter that Israel is a criminal state and the Palestinians are as pure as the driven snow.

So, yeah, it is the liberals who are pushing this agenda, and pressuring every administration to follow it. That Bush has resisted doing so for so long is practically a miracle, and is evidence of his personal moral fortitude. But even the strongest man only has so much strength.

What... you thought that conservatives were pushing an anti-Israel agenda?

Elliot

[magprob]

Hello Mag:

The video is only several whacko anti-Semites like yourself. THAT'S your proof?????? You're dingy.

You are blinded by anti-Semitism. Poor, poor fellow.

excon

An anti-semite is not someone who hates Jews; it is someone the Zionists hate.

Thank you Rob