posted on April 15, 2003 04:03:06 PM new
JERUSALEM (April 15) - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, calling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad dangerous and prone to risky mistakes, has urged the United States to turn up the heat on Damascus.
Sharon's fiery comments in a newspaper interview published Tuesday were accompanied by a surge of violence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in which three Palestinian gunmen, two Israeli civilians and an Israeli army officer were killed.
The bloodshed, including shootouts in a freight terminal on the Israel-Gaza border and at a hide-out used by Hamas militants in the West Bank, cast a shadow on U.S. hopes of implementing a new plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace following the Iraq war.
"Bashar Assad is dangerous. His judgment is impaired," Sharon told the Yedioth Ahronoth daily, adding his voice to a chorus of U.S. allegations that Syria is harboring Iraqi leaders, developing chemical weapons and supporting terrorism.
"In the Iraq war (Assad) proved he was incapable of drawing conclusions from very obvious facts," Sharon said.
"Anyone with eyes in his head would have known that Iraq was going to be on the losing side. But Assad thought the United States was going to fail."
Syria's cabinet on Tuesday denounced the accusation that it was developing chemical weapons as "threats and falsifications" designed to further Israeli "goals and expansive greed."
On the diplomatic front, the United Nations top human rights body urged Israel to start dismantling Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza and condemned Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territories as "an offense against humanity."
Israel and its main ally, the United States, said the resolutions issued in Geneva were biased and failed to address the "terrorist" threat to the Jewish state.
SYRIA CHARGE
In the Yedioth interview, Sharon called on the United States to put "heavy pressure" on Syria, the main power broker in Lebanon, to oust Hizbollah guerrillas from southern Lebanon and Palestinian militant groups from Damascus.
Sharon repeated charges he made before the start of the U.S.-led Iraq campaign that Baghdad had moved military equipment to Syria on the eve of the war, either to hide the weapons from U.S. forces or to transfer them to Hizbollah.
But he stopped short of urging military steps against Syria, saying it could be influenced by diplomacy or economic sanctions.
Hizbollah, an Islamic group backed by Syria and Iran, carried out daily guerrilla attacks that led the Israeli army to withdraw in 2000 from a south Lebanon zone after 22 years.
In the Gaza Strip, a Hamas gunman hurled hand grenades and sprayed automatic weapons fire in the Karni freight terminal on the border with Israel, a key crossing for commercial and agricultural goods and humanitarian aid, the army said.
Two Israeli workers were killed and three wounded before soldiers and armed guards shot the attacker dead. An army commander said the gunman managed to pass through Palestinian security before reaching the Israeli side of the terminal.
Hamas's armed wing called it a revenge attack for the killing of one of its leaders, Sa'ed al-Arbeed, and six other Palestinians, a week ago in an Israeli air raid in Gaza.
Hamas, a fundamentalist Islamic group which opposes Israel's existence, has killed dozens of Israelis in suicide bombings during the 30-month Palestinian uprising for statehood.
Earlier Tuesday, Israeli soldiers killed a Hamas gunman when he shot at troops who came to arrest him and two other militants hiding in a building in the West Bank city of Nablus. An army lieutenant was shot dead in the incident, the army said.
In other violence, a militant from the Islamic Jihad group was killed by rockets fired from an Israeli army watchtower in the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafah, witnesses said.
At least 1,993 Palestinians and 732 Israelis have been killed since the uprising began in September 2000.
posted on April 15, 2003 04:25:10 PM new
Why are we supporting thi country? Is our guilty really this strong?
If any other country put Isreal went in and made bombing attacks on another county we would be calling them to the mat.
Have you notived that our media never says "supposed" or accused" when referring to the targets or Isreali attacks? They are never the accused suppliers, or supposed supporters... withing 24 hours of a Palestinian suicide bombing, the body is identified, their family friends and supporters are identified, tried and sentanced and Isreali forces are in destroying, the neighborhood they have deemed guilty.
I have have no faith in the posibility of peace in the middle east and the only people NOT to be blamed for that are the arabs. A guilty world made the largest and most potentially deadly political mistake ever by the formation of Isreal. I would love to go back in history and ask these people what they hell they were thinking. Who in the world believed that setting the Jewish people down in the middle of their historical enemies was a good idea? These people have hated each other since the beginning of time, why on earth did anyone think that was suddenly going to change?
Don't get me wrong, I do not hate, dislike, distrust, or otherrwise harbor ill will toward jewish people. I am just sick and tired of Isreal. I am tired of making excuses and justifications for their acts and I am disgusted by Sharon egging us into further conflicts.
posted on April 15, 2003 04:25:13 PM new
It's long been my opinion that if only the terrorists would stop their 'human bombings' there possibly could be a return to the peace talks. But, again imo, because the Palestinians continue with these terrorist acts...this is NEVER going to come close to peace talks. Each time the Palestinians have held back on their suicide bombings Israel backs off, and the two countries get closer to working this out.
I'm aware many blame Israel for their acts....but I'm not one of them. To me they've acted with great restraint, much greater restraint than I believe we would have under the same situation.
Maybe now that Saddam might not be financially able to support the Hamas terrorists with huge payments for there won't be as many of them doing so.
And it's not news that the Syrians have long harbored terrorists. Now with the possiblity they are harboring Saddam and his cohorts.....we'll see. But I'm with the group that feels since we're there, let's take care of the problem now.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 15, 2003 04:54:55 PM new
Linda, the blame lies on both sides, I think the difference is, Palestinian suicide attacks are the act of an indivudual, not of a government. The acts of retribution on the part of the Isreali military, where entire neighborhoods are flattened to punish the acts of dead individual do not help the matter, they merely inflame it. When there are no acts, when there are short periods of peace, the Isrealis do something so blatantly inflamatory that you have to wonder what they are thinking.
Much was made of the death of the american girl at the hands of the bulldozer driver.... why wasn't anyone appalled that this act happened because the Isreali military decided that the homes that the girl was trying to protect were too close and so should be destroyed. That was an inflamatory act.
Maybe I am missing it but I don't see a real desire on Isreals part for peace, what I see is a desire for demonination thru intimidation. I also find it patently ridiculous that Isreal would complain about WOMD in the middle east considering that they themselves are the larges possesor of them and the best equiped to utilize them.
posted on April 15, 2003 05:04:20 PM new
Just out of curiosity, since both both of you (Linda and Twelve) feel that we should invade Syria now, where is the finish line?
As soon as we finish there, someone is going to bring up Palestine, then Iran.... when do you think we should stop? Which countries are entitled to their soverenty?
I'm pretty sure you'll vote to leave Kuwait and Egypt alone, I think you'll disagree that Saudi rabia should be left alone but will acknowledge that we will not invade them. The Emerates should remain safe but what about Yemen? What about Jordan and Lebanon?
posted on April 15, 2003 05:21:44 PM new
neonmania - Well, you're tired of Israel and I'm tired of actions by all these terrorists. I personally don't care if some judge Israel to be coming down too heavy handed on these terrorists. I personally feell sad a young woman chose to put her life on the line to defend them. But I also accept the fact that that was HER choice. She chose wrong.
Bush is a politician who has to work to appeal to all American's. He couldn't be aggressive enough for my liking. I believe we have to hit these threats face-on. Looking the other way has only led them to believe they are stronger than they are, and to encourage them to believe we are weaker than we are.
As far as the who's next question. For me personally any country who acts as Syria is currently acting. I don't think we can say 'this one's next and then that one'. Syria supports terrorists, do you deny that? Why leave them alone until they get strong enough to be more prepared to fight us? I can't think of a reason.
Look at Iran's reaction to this Iraqi war. I've read where they've made it very clear they are not allowing terrorists or anyone from the Saddam regime to enter their country. If they find they have, they have stated they will be arrested. Why do you think they're taking that stand now? I believe it's because they don't want to 'be next'. Power is the only thing some people/countries understand, neonmania.
IMO, the only way there's ever going to be any peace in the Middle East is if they're all afraid they 'may be next'. Does it bother me that they hate America? Not at all. I could care less. Do you really believe if we don't attack, or work to get rid of these terrorist, they're just going to go away...or say 'gee what nice people the American's are?' No, that won't happen anyway...no matter what we do or don't do. So I say....show them force.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 15, 2003 05:23:53 PM new
Finish line for what? I think this is what is needed, a strong hand willing to kick some butt if they don't play nice...
If they want to not play nice, well we can fix that too...
posted on April 15, 2003 05:26:41 PM new
I think Jordan and Saudi Arabia are pretty much okay
"Be kind. Remember everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Harry Thompson
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it." - A Few Good Men
posted on April 15, 2003 05:39:58 PM new
::Bush is a politician who has to work to appeal to all American's. ::
Um, are you saying that we should continue to mow our way thru th middle east because it will increase Bush's appeal? I could have sworn that the goal was supposed to be peace in the middle east, not higher approval ratings. I gotta say, that is the strangest statement I've seen to justify further acts of aggression.
:: I believe we have to hit these threats face-on. ::
Neither Palestine nor Syria present a a threat to us.
::For me personally any country who acts as Syria is currently acting.::
What HAS Syria done? Not put armed militia at every foot of their border? Their border is much like our with Mexico and Canada. Iraq was not their enemy so it is not a gated border. I don't think we can invade them simply because they are as ineffectual at controling their border as we are ours. I guess you are ignoring the statements from CIA officials that attest to Syrias cooperation with us in our tracking of Al Queda.
::Why leave them alone until they get strong enough to be more prepared to fight us? I can't think of a reason. ::
So we are going to start preventative invasions. They might become dangerous so lets just kill them now?
posted on April 15, 2003 05:56:18 PM new
neonmania - Before answering your questions I want to make a comparison that I find valid for my personal experience.
My husband and both our sons were born and raised in LA Co. CA. When we lived there it was a wonderful place to raise a family. What's it like now? The gangs rule and own the streets of LA. A beach my husband and I used to meet friends and enjoy the sunsets with are now owned by the gangs. No one goes there after dark....hell last time we visited there we didn't feel safe enough to get out of our car during the day time. Regular citizens live in constant fear...both the poor and the well-to-do. I see these gangs the same way I see the terrorists. They start out in small packs and before you know it they've grown into gangs with a lot more power, and they're now harder to control.
So...yes, when Bush made his 'war on terrorism' statements I was thrilled. Thrilled we finally have a President who's willing to do something NOW, not wait until the terrorists groups like Hamas who are growing strong under Syria's protection continue to grow more powerful.
You misunderstood my statement about Bush being a politician....totally. I was trying to say that he is more 'limited' in continuing this fight on terrorism that I would like him to be, BECAUSE he's a politician and has to appease a large group of people...American's. I don't I can wish we'd take them all on....until they get the idea we're not putting up with this BS anymore.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 15, 2003 06:06:51 PM new
And feeling a need to add [before leaving for the night] I would support a democratic president who was doing the same thing. For me, this has NOTHING to do with whether it's a rep or a dem...it's about what I believe in my heart is in our country's best interest. Period....not politics. Working towards ridding the world, as much as possible, of these people who don't want peace.....the terrorists.
nite
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 15, 2003 06:11:54 PM new
Linda, I can honestly say, you scare the hell out of me. You don't invade sovereign nations based on fringe groups within. That would be like turnin Idaho into a police state because of the proliferation of extremist survivalist groups and their potential danger. San Diego has a large arab population and two of them were involved in 9/11 - should we lock down San Diego?
If we are in a war against terorism, then we go after terrorists, not sovereign nations and certainly not nations that trying to help us. Again you ignored that intellience officials within our own government say that Syria is help us with intelligence.
From AP:
Other U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Syria had been helpful quietly in the war against the al-Qaida terror network and there was no evidence that help was abating.
If yo u have an arab nation helping you, why would you then invade them. What stimulous does that give other nations to cooperate?
posted on April 15, 2003 06:36:48 PM new
Most of the people on the left that are anti-Sharon/Israel do so because Sharon calls Arafat and Assad barbaric murdering terrorists, thereby "hindering" the "peace process."
For years American Presidents have paraded these monsters around inviting them to tea at the White House or attempting to broker peace with them. But they ARE murdering terrorists.
For thirty years we've been getting agreements with these people, all the while they are actively undermining any chance for peace in the background.
I do not think the Iraq war was about oil, or "liberation." I think THIS administration is finally fed up and determined to fix the Middle East. Iraq was a big supporter of terrorists with training, support, weapons and money. Hell, they even grabbed Abu Abbas there today. Well, IRAQ is fixed. We have now put Syria and Iran on notice to knock it off. Syria is probably THE biggest haven and supporter of terrorism on the planet, but we had no way to "get" to them. With American bases in the area we do now.
Iran has a significant moderate movement and will probably move toward more normal relations. Syria, on the other hand, better make some dramatic changes. One of the retired military talking heads on the news was saying the saber-rattling directed toward Syria is meant for the generals: ie: knock off Assad and be "friends."
One thing is for sure, the next round of peace talks is sure going to be interesting and very likely to make headway.
posted on April 15, 2003 07:01:28 PM new
::Most of the people on the left that are anti-Sharon/Israel do so because Sharon calls Arafat and Assad barbaric murdering terrorists, thereby "hindering" the "peace process." ::
In my case, as an individual tht tends to lean more towards the left, it's not so much the accusations that Sharon makes toward Arafat that annoy me, it's that I don't see Sharon as being that different. Sharon is just as guilty of hideous acts, he is just wrapped in legitamacy given to him out of guilt.
Please note that in the numbers given at the end of the article I opened this thread with, there are nearly 3 times as many Palestinian death at the hands of this legitimate leader than Isreali deaths at the hands of terrorists.
posted on April 15, 2003 07:16:09 PM new
I can see your point neon, but by killing more palestinians, they are trying to send the message that it is not healthy to continue with the terrorist attacks.
posted on April 15, 2003 07:55:11 PM newYou don't invade sovereign nations based on fringe groups within
The h*ll you don't. Any country that harbors without recourse those who have committed crimes or terrorism can be invaded to resolve the issue.
We did it to Mexico nearly a century ago. It has always been legitimate to go after criminals inside a coutry when that country does nothing to apprehend them or cooperate in capturing the criminals.
We have not invaded Pakistan or Saudi Arabia because they have cooperated in arresting terrorists.
Israel should have our undivided support because it is the only western democrcy in the region.
Israel is also blameless for any violence in the region. It was the surrounding Arab nations that attacked Israel (and lost), and it is the Arabs that pledge the destruction of Israel.
Israel has shown remarkable restraint. If Canada and Mexico had pledged America's destruction and had attacked us several times, do you think we would allow Canada and Mexico to exist after we defeated them ? No country would be asked to show the restraint that Israel has shown.
posted on April 15, 2003 08:24:22 PM new
Reamond “Israel is also blameless for any violence in the region. It was the surrounding Arab nations that attacked Israel (and lost), and it is the Arabs that pledge the destruction of Israel.
Israel has shown remarkable restraint.”
Is that before or after those with a Zionist (not recognised by MSword spellcheck but Marxist is) pledge, attacked, bombed, and ‘terrorised’ (and won) an area inhabited by and surrounded by Muslims.
posted on April 15, 2003 08:57:28 PM new
neonmania - Linda, I can honestly say, you scare the hell out of me.
LOL....well there..... You have something to be thankful for. [That I'm not running the show, that I'm not President. ] Just one American citizen [well... two... my husband agrees] who feel this way. Just one voice on a chat board who's thankful Bush was the one in office when 9-11 came down on our country, and that he's taken the actions he has. The majority of our nation appears to feel the same way. So....there's hope.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 15, 2003 09:09:27 PM new
::The h*ll you don't. Any country that harbors without recourse those who have committed crimes or terrorism can be invaded to resolve the issue. ::
Did I use an invisble font when I quoted the US Official that stated that Syria has helped us and continues to do so? It seems that two people now have completely ignored that fact and even argued to the opposite which surprises me but I'm thinking that our intelligence agencies know more about who aids us and who doesn't than the posters here do. Did you just miss that or does it not fit in to your desire for continued miltary action so you are selectively forgetting it?
posted on April 15, 2003 09:15:10 PM new No, neonmania you didn't. I didn't respond because I would think anyone should be able to see, from past history, that there are those countries who talk out of both sides of their mouths. Take Saudi Arabia....they pay to support terrorism and act as our friends. Many ME countries do that. I thought you would have realized that too.
I think it's what you anti-war folks call diplomacy.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 15, 2003 09:51:32 PM new
desquirrel - Just finished reading the same thing. Looks like taking away 1/3 of Syria's oil supply just might have an effect.
Tuesday, a U.S. official told Reuters that former Iraqi spy chief Farouk Hijazi was believed to be in Syria, which would be an especially serious charge. Hijazi was director of external operations for the Iraqi intelligence agency in the mid-1990s, when it allegedly tried to assassinate President Bush's father during a visit to Kuwait.
Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Army Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said U.S. forces had killed a large number of foreign fighters who had come to Iraq to aid President Saddam Hussein, most of them from Syria.
The article also says: There are allegations that Syria has been receiving up to 200,000 barrels of oil a day through a pipeline in violation of UN sanctions against Iraq.
Yep, they've been talking out both sides of their mouths.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruski
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 15, 2003 09:56 PM ]
posted on April 15, 2003 10:10:47 PM new
Linda, Syria has consistantly helped us in many matters, the most serious accusation being held against them right now is that they are "harboring" former Irai officials.
As I have stated, the Syrian/Iraqi border is much like our border with Mexico. It is large and expansive, patroled in only a few areas and has large sections which are unmanned and ungated. It is well known that more than some of Mexicos most sought after drug trafficers and crime lords are now living in the United States after crossing illegally. Does this mean the Mexico would be correct in accusing us of "harboring" their criminals?
We have no proof the Syria is giving the sought after Iraqi officials safe haven, we mere suspect that they have fled into Syria (a very logical assumption I will grant given the alternatives).
Now consider that even we acknowledge that Syrias military forces are not in the vacinity of the Iraqi borders, that they are still stationed in their usual locations near the Isreali border. How do you think that they were supposed to stop the immigration of fleeing Iraqis and don't you think that it just may take more than a week to start finding them? Also, we don't know how many merely used Syria as a starting point on their escape route.
Voluntary cooperation among arab nations is not the easiest thing to come by, should we really start casting stones so quickly and fervently at those that are giving it, even if it is being dished out in smaller doses than we would like? Trust is a hard earned quality and considering our consistant and vocal support of Syrias sworn enemy, we should nurture what we are given rather than pound our chest and demand more.
Remember, we are supposed to be a world POWER, not bully.
Many believe that we should continue on our path of military domination to serve our best interest. The flip side to that is perhaps now we sit back, finish our stated purpose in Iraq, we show with our actions rather than merely insisting with our words that our goal is noble. We earn respect not fear.
Saddam ruled the people of Iraq..... they voted for his continued rule, they sung his praises in the street but it was a merely a veneer of respect built from fear and intimidation and when given the chance, they turned quickly and violently and fed upon the symbols of his rule like carion.
Is that the type of respect you want other nations to have for us?
posted on April 15, 2003 10:21:33 PM newthe most serious accusation being held against them right now is that they are "harboring" former Irai officials. Not to me, neonmania. The most serious FACT is that their people have gone to the aid of Saddam's regime and were doing their best to kill our soldiers.
Remember, we are supposed to be a world POWER, not bully.
You must have a different defination of the word 'bully' than I do. A bully picks on people FOR NO REASON. We aren't picking on anyone for no reason.
We earn respect, not fear. It's hard for me to believe people think like this. I know they do, and I know you are one of them. Obviously, your right. But those people are NEVER going to 'respect' us. They hate us, they hate everything we stand for. But they do understand power and strength.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 15, 2003 11:11:18 PM new
Linda. “I would think anyone should be able to see, from past history, that there are those countries who talk out of both sides of their mouths. Take Saudi Arabia…. Many ME countries do that”
Both sides of their mouth, Linda???
Have you forgotten who gave Saddam the anthrax etec etc, USA USA USA, Have you forgoten who trained Alqaida. But naturally, in your repetitive and boring quoted words, you “can love, and value, and appreciate” that.
Linda “We earn respect, not fear. It's hard for me to believe people think like this. I know they do, and I know you are one of them. Obviously, your right. But those people are NEVER going to 'respect' us. They hate us, they hate everything we stand for. But they do understand power and strength.”
Linda, US, it seems, rarely gets its way from it’s respect, it increasingly buys it’s way or uses it’s strength.
Now, in spite of what you may think because your wrong, with growing disrespect for USA it will make it more necessary for USA to flex it’s strength or buy it’s way.
And that will cost you more, ‘friends’ and ‘money’.
I think most lower cla$$ people like to think themselves middle class, but one thing you should probably realise is that even in Australia we know that you ‘middle class’ are not one of the demographic to which Bushes tax cuts are aimed.
You, the lower classes, the vast majority of people, $ for $, are the ones to bear the tax burden.
That’s Bush’s way of encouraging ‘important’ campaign fund $upport to give him the best democracy money can buy.
Not to mention that the good’oll’boys and he will no doubt get some good tax cuts too.
But the COUPLE OF BILLION DOLLARS, set aside for Israel ‘’’’’AID’’’’’’ in 2004 will no doubt still get there.
Meanwhile the September 11th inquiry has run out of it’s frivolous $3Mill.
You gota respect that
Now Iraq’s war reparation to America can go straight to Israel and save on some extra duties.
“The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate.”
posted on April 16, 2003 02:55:06 AM newI'm so tired of Isreal......
and I am SOOOO sick of Palestine....
Reuters
Wednesday, April 16, 2003; 3:33 AM
GAZA (Reuters) - The Palestinian Authority demanded the release of veteran Palestinian guerrilla leader Abu Abbas on Wednesday, saying his detention in Iraq by U.S. forces violated an interim Middle East peace deal.
"We demand the United States release Abu Abbas. It has no right to imprison him," Palestinian cabinet minister Saeb Erekat told Reuters.
"The Palestinian-Israeli interim agreement signed on September 28, 1995 stated that members of the Palestine Liberation Organization must not be detained or tried for matters they committed before the Oslo peace accord of September 13, 1993," he said.
"This interim agreement was signed on the U.S. side by President Clinton and his secretary of state, Warren Christopher," Erekat added. There was no immediate Israeli comment on Abbas' arrest by U.S. special forces.
Abbas masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship in the Mediterranean.
"Be kind. Remember everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Harry Thompson
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it." - A Few Good Men
posted on April 16, 2003 05:34:02 AM new
Yo wgm, are you bowling for the same team.
During the Six Day War, Israel ordered repeated attacks on the undefended USS Liberty that killed 34 American sailors and wounded 171 and included the machine-gunning of life rafts. This massacre was neither investigated nor punished by the U.S. government.
posted on April 16, 2003 08:06:46 AM new
12pole "USS Liberty incident was a tragic event, but we were trying to spy during a war..."
So you are saying that America got what it deserved???
] Just one American citizen [well... two... my husband agrees] who feel this way. Just one voice on a chat board who's thankful Bush was the one in office when 9-11 came down on our country, and that he's taken the actions he has. The majority of our nation appears to feel the same way. So....there's hope.
