QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 2 2006, 05:11 PM)
America?
We are talking about Israel!!!!!!
The fact that you cannot see the link means you have not researched this topic from an objective enough perspective, or from objective enough sources. Two obvious reasons spring to mind, and i will expand upon them in relation to other questions you asked in the prior post.
1. The US has stood alone in vetoing the International Resolutions that condemn Israeli actions and the occupation (from the ICJ, the General Assembly and the Security Council), and additionally they have vetoed many plans to 'talk' or start a peaceful resolution. I will provide examples in a second, but the point is that not only is it incorrect to state that Israel has never had the option to resolve the situation by non-aggressive means, but that the US has stood out against the International CONSENSUS against Israeli behaviour. Like I said, examples in a bit - but this begs the question why the unwavering support.
2. So the US has provided political support to Israel, a 'nation' that is crippled at the International level due to its status - that seems reasonable enough at first glance, they are protecting a nation that is impotent within the international negotiating arena. But unwavering Military support is unacceptable, and places the US undeniably in the same boat as Israel - this has led to a widely known branding of the country as the 51st US state - this is especially true given when and where some of this support has occurred. All Im trying to show you here is that its not as simple as you might think, and its certainly not as simple as self defence. Take the beginning of the 2nd Intifada: There was, and this is undisputable, NO fire from palastinian forces, rock throwing outside a Mosque in an area under a military occupation, yes, but no gun fire: and yet the response was an Apache one aimed at civilian complexes. If it helps hunt down the example Im fairly sure this occured on the 29th sept 2001 (could have been 2000). In anycase, not a month after this happened Clinton provided the Israelis with the biggest shipment of Apaches and spares yet, with NO restrictions on use (which they would have been well within their rights to dictate). If this was not the outrageous act that I (and many authors within respectable Journals - Current History is a good one) claim it to be it would not have raised an official protest from Amnesty International (US actions, not those of the Israelis).
In anycase the US provision of Arms regardless of use, and in fact with full knowledge of intended use (it was, for example, well known that political assassinations - inherently an act of international terrorism - were carried out by US donated Apaches - in fact the FIRST were carried out by the Israelis against Hussein Abayat on the 9th of November 2000) links the US too closely to Israel to be impartial or any sort of moral judge: they are certainly closer than mere allies. If you don't believe that the relationship is more unusual than most alliances, consider why the US removed their 6th fleet from Tunisia, THEIR ALLY, just prior to an Israeli airforce attack that killed 75 civilians? Perhaps because they might well have had to inform Tunisia? Obviously the US rates some allies over others....... (incidently that was unanimously denounced as an 'act of armed aggression' by the Security Council - look it up, it was in 1985 - 'armed aggressor' is actually one step worse than an 'international terrorist' by definition.)
There are many valid arguments FOR military support, but to suggest that we are talking about Israeli action and that in no way involves America is a very selective way of looking at the arab/israeli conflict. Israeli behaviour would certainly have been altered minus US backing. Even without military support, it is the action of the US via veto, that enables/has enabled Israel to act without fear of international repraisal.
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 2 2006, 05:11 PM)
Wrong....
America cannot be viewed as a Terrorist organization in the same way that Hezbollah can...
Actually 'Right':
The ICJ in 1986 (humourously two yrs after Regan came into office and announced a war on 'state sponsored' terror) condemned America for 'international terrorism' and the unlawful use of force against Nicuragua. In fact they were being generous, I can see no reason why it was not an act of aggression, which is in fact a war crime under the Geneva conventions. The ICJ ordered a halt to the military action and remuneration of billions of dollars. Congress reacted by pumping more money toward the war, Nicuragua took the US to the Security Council (US vetoed decision) and then the General Assembly, with the same outcome. It was widely known that the State Department also authorised attacks on what they called 'soft targets' - including civilian agricultural cooperatives. ( I think one major mainstream proponent of this action was Michael Kinsley, then editor of the 'New Republic' - can't remember if that is its exact title, but its close)
For further acts (that should well be denounced as acts of aggression, but were covered by 'the threat of communism') see the Nationalisation of the Gutamalan Fruit Company, and of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Both sparked CIA incursions under the guise of the spread of communism (yet both leaders were strong proponents of democracy) - and unsurprisingly, in the former, Allan Dulles was the former CEO of the Fruit firm, and John Dulles a major shareholder (or vice versa). In anycase given the official US definition of terrorism (taken from the 1984 US army manual)
"the calculated use of violence, or threat of violence, to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature"it seems difficult to understand how America cannot be classified in the same light; international terrorist (as stated by the highest international legal body, the ICJ) maybe, but I would argue a state of that type is far more dangerous than an 'individual terrorist'. Don't get me wrong, BOTH SHOULD BE CONDEMNED, but in the West we should at least realise the hypocritical nature of our governments claims.
However, Israel in itself is certainly a different case:
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 2 2006, 05:11 PM)
Terrorist is perhaps the wrong word....but it is commonly used in reference to violent negotiations.....
America has never kidnapped people and held them for ransom
Part of Hezbollah is non-terrorist....however, kidnapping soldiers and requesting prisoner exchange is a non-negotiable position. No country on the face of the earth is going to negotiate in that situation
In 1985 the TWA flight 897 Hijackers claimed, correctly, that Israel was regularly hijacking ships in International waters, in transit between Lebanon and cyprus. Occupants were killed and kidnapped. If you look in certain journals you will be able to find evidence of this (unlikely to be US based of course, but I do appreciate the link to Foreign Affairs, a good journal). I think Noam Chomsky for one has raised this issue, whether you value his viewpoint or not, he is certainly thorough (and from an Israeli background.)
This does not justify the TWA hijackers, but indicates that it is a two sided conflict.........
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 2 2006, 05:11 PM)
Just out of curiosity...could you give me an example???
gladly.
Examples of US vetos (or abstentions) of International Consensus:
1976, January - A political settlement of the conflict upon the Internationally recognised borders, with regard to Resolution UN242 (which is the main point of contention between the US/Israel and the rest of the world because it would inherently acknowledge Palestinian rights.) UN242 is supported by all states and the PLO, but is vetoed by the US.
UN 242:
"with appropriate arrangements to guarantee the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all states in the region and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised borders"
An acceptance of this would have to lead to an acceptance of both a palastinian and Israeli state, and as Shlomo Ben-Avi noted in 98 the Oslo process was founded upon the principle that Palestinians should become a permanent neo-colonial dependency of Israel (Chomsky again, I think, Distorted Morality?)
1980, (not sure of the date) - Security Council Resolution - condemning illegal population settling and the breaking of the 4th Geneva Convention. US 'abstains' this time.
1982, Israel invaded Lebanon, around 20000 killed + the US had to veto several Resolutions of the SC this time to enable the Israelis to keep fighting without retaliation from the rest of the World.
1985, The Iron Fist Operations in Southern Lebanon - UN Security Council ordered the Israeli's to leave, but they had US authorisation, so they stayed. There was no pre-tense of self-defense, this was not even brought up.
1985, As mentioned, Israelis bomb Tunisia, condemned by rest of the world. 'Armed Aggression'.
1987, UN General Assembly Resolution - denounced terrorism in all its forms and called for all states to fight against it - fair enough? 2 countries vetoed.... Why? This paragraph (and this was explicit):
"nothing in the present resolution could in anyway prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence as derived from the United Nations Charter of peoples forcibly deprived of that right, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation."
1. 'colonial and racist regimes' refers to S.Africa and their government's ( the US' Ally) abuse of the African National Congress
dubbed terrorists2. Foreign Occupation is obvious. In anycase my point is that as in the African example, friends that behave badly are seen as defending themselves, enemies that behave badly are 'terrorists'.
Either way the US vetoed the Resolution: And none of the above paragraph attacks or disadvantages the Israelis: The solution to the above paragraph is known as the two state settlement and has been around since the 70s, holds international consensus and is accepted by the former Israeli foreign Minister, Shlomo Ben-Avi.
2001, 5th Dec - Meeting of the 114 High Contracting Parties of the Geneva Convention.
This is important because, as you are probably well aware, the Geneva Convention was a response to the actions of the Nazis and allows for crimes, such as those tried in Nuremburg, and those responsible, to be held accountable. The 114 nations 'unanimously' decided that the 4th convention applied to the occupied territories, thus making the actions within War Crimes. The 4th Convention specifically protects civilian populations with regards deportation, torture, illeagal settlements and willful destruction of property. The Nations 'unanimously' decided because the US boycotted the conference. Why? Because not even the US press could ignore their nation so blatently vetoing such important legislation - where as SC Resolutions are far more easy to ignore; hence why I get the feeling you were a little disbelieving of my claims that the US continually flies in the face of international opinion - Western Press gives it little coverage 2001, 14th Dec - UN Security Council Resolution for sending International Monitors to the region (effectively what the Israeli troops are claiming will cause their withdrawal from Southern Lebanon currently.) US Vetoed: It was well known that President Bush disliked Palastinian approval of proposals.
Examples of Israel and US rejecting Peace Proposals from the Arabic side:
1970: President Sadat offered Egypt a complete peace treaty (in compliance with US terms/policy) in return for Israeli withdrawal from N Eastern Sinai (nothing to do with Palestinians); Both Kissenger and Carter rejected it, which led to the 1973 War, and then Carter suddenly recognised Sadat's offer and framed the agreement as a great triumph - but both Israel and the US were prepared to allow the war in the first place.
2002 March, The Saudi Plan - accepted by the Arab league and supported by the majority of the US population. The New York Times called it "a historic offer of full peace and recognition of Israel in exchange for Israeli withdrawal"
This was a proposal throughly supported by the PLO (a terrorist organisation by US definition since the late 80s) - therefore its not as simple as claiming that neither nations will negotiate with terrorists, nor that terrorists will offer peace. Interestingly only the Boston Globe managed to point out that this Saudi Plan was not new, but merely a reiteration of the 1981 Saudi Plan that was halted by the US (under duress from the Israelis, who flew helicopters over the Saudi oil fields to show the US that accepting the offer was not wise.) However, between 76 and 2002 Peace proposals similar to that of the Saudi Plan were reiterated frequently.
Obviously the Plan was never adopted.
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 2 2006, 05:11 PM)
They are fighting a fairly conventional war...last time i checked firing rockets into a country and having ground assault forces attack their troops is "conventional warfare"
no, conventional is state versus state, and thus can be regulated to some extent (or at least punished retrospectively, hence Geneva)
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 2 2006, 05:11 PM)
This link might be helpfulbasically...it isnt an issue of "not willing" it is an issue of the technology being so antiquated that it makes modern defense difficult
Fair enough, but Im surprised to say the least. I personally think Foreign Affairs (being based in DC) might have a certain tint to its perspective; but maybe Im being sceptical. And to be honest I only read the first 3 paragraphs.... got the idea, but am running out of energy.... will read it though
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 2 2006, 05:11 PM)
Hmm...THEY ARE...
BLOWING THE CRAP OUTTA THEIR COUNTRY
In all honesty...it is a new solution.
You basically agreed with my point.
They have tried appeasement...
They have tried negotiations...
They have tried carefull targeted attacks...
They have tried counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism
Now...they are going to go with...blow you up till you stop or die
no, 1982 and 85 prove that this tactic has been tried many a time.
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 2 2006, 05:11 PM)
I believe he was trying to make the point that when dealing with a terrorist enemy who is Muslim
I dont believe he was trying to characterize ALL Muslims
He also might have been referring to Muslims opposed to Israel....
He might have been, but its very important to be careful:
so let me get my views straight.
Both sides when killing civilians are effectively terrorists as far as Im concerned. When committing such acts neither has had the backing of the International community. Maybe the Israelis look less so, but then history has conveniently forgotten how many times they have been branded as such by the highest international organisations, and have behaved as such. In anycase, both sides are right and both sides are wrong, and both are often hugely immoral (look at the Qana massacre of 100 Lebanese in a UN refugee camp if you still cannot believe there is wrong on both sides)
so therefore you are right:
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 2 2006, 05:11 PM)
The way in which you operate 'defines' you as a terrorist.
Therefore the US has also sailed very close to the edge in the Israeli case, and as the ICJ noted, in others it has gone over.
Nick
PS: might take a while to reply, going to sleep for a couple of days....
HAHA, page 4 is mine
Author
Topic: Do You Think WWIII Is Coming? (Read 311 times)