[ambrose]

bump

[MJY1288]

I agree 100%, just Global politics at it's best, or worst. Depends how you look at it.

[mercy]

****All this diplomacy by deflection is too clever by three-quarters. Just as corrupt Arab potentates try to protect themselves from the fury of their downtrodden subjects by fanning hatred of the U.S. and the West, we are trying, through our charade of selective antiterrorism, to deflect that hatred over to Israel exclusively. (Don't blame us, it goes — see how we're pressuring the Jews on your behalf?)****

How can so many freepers not wonder at the Bush administration when it acts this way? It is just so gutless.

[Kay Soze]

Piss on the Coalition!

The coalition prevented the US from taking out Saddam in '90

The Coalition prevented Israel from retaliation on Iraq when Saddam launched scuds into Israel

The coalition will not feed and protect me an my kids!

Go Israel and help us stop this nonsense! Israel alone could take out Saddam, the Iraqis, Syrians, Iranians and in less than one month!

[veryconernedamerican]

this is simple, everyone can say whatever they want israel doesn't act militarily without our blessing, they are working up one side of the terrorism list and we are working down the other, israel won't withdraw until they are sufficiently satisfied that they have made their statement, and bush is telling these guys behind closed doors to go get them. terrorists as an organized group are finished, the shroud of them being other than special forces funded and trained by foriegn governments has been lifted and countries engaging in terrorist tactics are being singled out one by one. iran has moved out of palestine, syria and egypt will be out before israel withdraws, or they will be killed. it is their right to protect themselves against attacks from foriegn governments

[alley cat]

Safire must lurk on FR. I said over a week ago that we were winking at Israel while criticizing them.

[mmmmmmmm....... donuts]

I think I have as good pro-Israeli credentials as anyone around here, but in Dick Cheney's famous words, Sharon screwed up 'big time.'

The big fault of Sharon in reaction to the assassination is that he obviously acted with his heart and not his head. He never declared what the IDF was doing in the first place. Was it to end the PA, now and forever, as Ghandi's assassination was the last straw? No, he didn't say that. Was it a preventative act--in other words, we're so sure that the Palestinians are about to go and assassinate more ministers, I have to do this to protect my buddy Shimon Peres. No, he didn't say that either.

This 'we will treat the PA as a terrorist organization' unless the assassins are handed over implies that, according to the IDF rules of engagement, Arafat is a legitimate target. But, right after the PA tells the Israelis to go screw themselves, the whole government tells the whole world that, no, Arafat is not a target.

In fact, it's pretty clear that he's backing away from the whole extradition concept in any event. Now, they're going after the killers, which is fine, and I'm totally happy with the action last night. But why wasn't that the goal in the first place? Why give Arafat time to meet a demand he wasn't going to meet?

As the IDF tanks inevitably withdraw tomorrow, Sharon will have to eat many words--not good, for Israel's deterrent capability. The Arabs--correctly--will realize the IDF can be held in check by a few well placed phone calls to Foggy Bottom. Since the Palestinians act in one-day attacks, and not sustained movements, this gives them yet another leg up on Israel in the assymetric warfare.

Sharon must be the worst chess player in the world, he doesn't even think one move in advance. LIke the Chamberlain comment. If he felt compelled to say it publicly, why did he back away the very next day? Did he think Bush would appreciate the comment? Or, if he really doesn't want to tick off Bush, then why say it in the first place?

This is why the last election featured one of the worst turnouts in Israeli history. It's obvious the vote was, 'Get rid of Barak,' and not, 'Bring on Sharon.' Because Sharon's leadership skills are pretty horrible.

[livius]

Yes and no. The problem is that each country has its own agenda, as well it should. Israel's agenda is the protection of Israel (which is why it has spied on us - remember Pollard?) and ours is the protection of the US. Most often, these interests will coincide, if only because Israel is the most "European" of the Middle-Eastern countries and is not a Muslim country. However, there are times when they don't, and unfortunately, Israel seems to be unable to understand this.

[tonycavanagh]

For all freepers having trouble with understanding what the American government is up to, first work out why America has a presence in the Middle East, then you will understand the reasoning behind the present Middle East policy.

Tony

[DrunkenDotter]

This is all so complicated. I hope that the Bush Administration, and those that follow, can find the way through the thickets.