Sanskrit is the mother of all lauguages.
So what?
A "Wild" by any other name is just a "cut and waste" bandwith artist.
POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq
- Thread starter candletrader
- Start date
Sanskrit is the mother of all lauguages.
So what?
A "Wild" by any other name is just a "cut and waste" bandwith artist.
I just heard that old woman speaking on CNN. This woman is jew and was under the menace of the Nazi regim in Budapest during WWII.
She said I DON'T WANT THE IRAQI PEOPLE TO SUFFER LIKE I SUFFERED OR "EVEN WORSE". THIS IS WHY I AM PROTESTING TODAY. ALL OVER THE WORLD JAPAN, RUSSIA, EUROPE, MANY PEOPLE ARE PROTESTING. HOPE IT WILL PUT PRESSURE ON THAT MORON BUSH AND STOP the war and avoid what could be a drama for our planet.
She said I DON'T WANT THE IRAQI PEOPLE TO SUFFER LIKE I SUFFERED OR "EVEN WORSE". THIS IS WHY I AM PROTESTING TODAY. ALL OVER THE WORLD JAPAN, RUSSIA, EUROPE, MANY PEOPLE ARE PROTESTING. HOPE IT WILL PUT PRESSURE ON THAT MORON BUSH AND STOP the war and avoid what could be a drama for our planet.
Was the old woman you are referring to fully or only partial engulfed in either Alzheimer's disease, dementia, or just your basic senility?
So basically for you a jew could either be a zionist anti arab or senile with alzheimer disease??? ie ill either ways????
Extremists of any kind are ill.
http://www.seruv.org.il/signers/GilNemesh.asp
Iâve seen my friends humiliating people, treating them as I would not treat an animal. My friends, forcing an elderly man to do disgrace himself, hurting children, abusing people for fun, and later bragging about it, laughing about this terrible brutality.
I am not sure I still want to call them my friends.
Why? What leads a human being to treat another like this?
In the army we are taught better, I though. I believed that an army that dedicates so much to educate and build morals and ethics, is a good army, as good as an army can be. But I was wrong. All this, like so many other things in enforced education, was brushed off, shoved into a dark drawer, ignored.
Those no-longer-friends of mine let themselves to lose their humanity, not out of pure viciousness, but because dealing with it in any other way is too difficult. How can a man say âI do terrible wrongsâ and continue doing it? Lying to himself, twisting reality.
I could not do that.
Nor could any of the petitionâs signers.
I believe that peace is possible, but Israel is on the wrong tracks, occupying the territories.
Yes, this is a political opinion. But I signed the petition because of ethical opinion. I could not lie to myself. We should not be there, we have nothing to do there. Those terrible things happening in the territories have little to do with the security of Israel and stopping terror. It is all about the settlements. Choking and starving and humiliating millions of people, to provide safety to the settlements.
I should be there, force ethics to my fellow soldiers? It does not work like this. In this nightmare reality in the territories, reason cannot be heard. The voices of hatred and senselessness are to loud to be overcome by a still sane minority.
Our soldiers are numb, they do not see any false in their acts. In this brutal occupation, a solider can brag about shooting a child, can stop ambulances and still believe in his righteousness, can kill without feeling.
You say there is no other choice, that this occupation is forced upon us, that no other way is possible?
The occupation itself is unethical, wrong, and must be ended. So another way should be found. What is such a way? This is the realms of politics, Iâll share here my political opinion.
I believe in peace.
I include here an article I wrote explaining this. It is a very general opinion, it purpose is one â belief in peace.
One vote for peace.
âPeace is a state of being all human communities should strive for, a state in which everyone works and lives together in harmony and co-operationâ. Sounds reasonable. But is it really necessary? I hear voices saying peace is not an option nowadays, Israelis/Palestinians do not want peace, and so peace is not desired.
Lets check this.
Situation as it is now is not acceptable. Life of fear and terror for both sides, anger, hate.
Lets examine different solutions as they are perceived from different points of view.
Some Palestinians suggest to continue armed resistance, to build up military power and force Israel to withdraw its occupation. To answer this I point out Israelâs extensive military experience, and also point to statistics of the recent years concerning territories, casualties and economics. Armed resistance against Israel means completely destroying the land, with little or no progress to freedom.
Some Israeli people suggest to transfer of Palestinian population or to continue the attempt to eradicate all terror. But to this I answer, wherever the Palestinian might be, their ambitions will not be suppressed, and they will fight for their causes. No fence nor border will ever protect Israel from this, and it is shown time and time again. Transfer means perpetuating Palestinian actions against Israel. Continued clashes will worsen the Palestiniansâ life and thus strengthen the armed resistance / terror.
Only a peace agreement will eventually lead to true safety. Any other âsolutionâ means either hiding behind an illusion of safety or perpetuating the dangers through endless conflict, where no side can âwinâ.
The peace agreements.
But how shall we decide what is the desired fair peace? Who gets what and why? Many would clearly say that the right thing to do in order to judge this is to go to history books and see EXACTLY what happened, and rule according to this information. That is the right thing to do, many say.
But is it really so?
There is no one history. This is easily seen in the vast cyberspace of the web, where all points of views are mixed, not bound by any border. Studying the available histories can create some confusion. There are extreme differences between histories as each âsideâ portrays it.
Can we reach a mutual decision about one âtrueâ history of the conflict? Is there such a thing, âtrue historyâ?
I suggest studying the present as the only link to the past. What does it matter why a person feels âhistorical connectionâ to a specific land? The feelings are there, and that is what matters. Trying to justify/disprove the connection does not change those feelings.
So what should be addressed is the current feelings, current desires, current ambitions. We live in the present, and we try to create a future. We should remember the past and learn from it, but not worship it.
So what is the present situation?
Some Israelis might say âa war is going on, the Palestinians do not desire peace, are not ready for self-governing, will never abandon the way of terrorâ
Some Palestinians might say âwe are occupied by vicious army, and though the Israeli government claims to be âpeacefulâ it really desires surrender, not peaceâ
On both sides you can find people saying âthey seek to completely destroy usâ.
Even agreeing on the present is not simple. Except, maybe, that things should not continue as they do.
Obviously there is clash between different desires, concerning territories and governing, concerning rights and obligations, concerning limits and borders. But there is a middle point that both leaderships can agree on. And once this is found, things will be different.
How different? Peace and love and dancing of happiness? Flowers and understanding? Freedom and security?
Honestly, unlikely.
Even then, there will be along road ahead of us. The change will be that things could finally start, slowly and with great effort, to be better, bit by bit. Change will not be immediate, and this will be frustrating.
But, as things are today, we are surely, and not quite slowly, going downhill, dipper, into an abyss we will not be able to get out from. More destruction, more bitterness, more death. Less understanding, bigger gaps to bridge.
There must be a change.
Iâve seen my friends humiliating people, treating them as I would not treat an animal. My friends, forcing an elderly man to do disgrace himself, hurting children, abusing people for fun, and later bragging about it, laughing about this terrible brutality.
I am not sure I still want to call them my friends.
Why? What leads a human being to treat another like this?
In the army we are taught better, I though. I believed that an army that dedicates so much to educate and build morals and ethics, is a good army, as good as an army can be. But I was wrong. All this, like so many other things in enforced education, was brushed off, shoved into a dark drawer, ignored.
Those no-longer-friends of mine let themselves to lose their humanity, not out of pure viciousness, but because dealing with it in any other way is too difficult. How can a man say âI do terrible wrongsâ and continue doing it? Lying to himself, twisting reality.
I could not do that.
Nor could any of the petitionâs signers.
I believe that peace is possible, but Israel is on the wrong tracks, occupying the territories.
Yes, this is a political opinion. But I signed the petition because of ethical opinion. I could not lie to myself. We should not be there, we have nothing to do there. Those terrible things happening in the territories have little to do with the security of Israel and stopping terror. It is all about the settlements. Choking and starving and humiliating millions of people, to provide safety to the settlements.
I should be there, force ethics to my fellow soldiers? It does not work like this. In this nightmare reality in the territories, reason cannot be heard. The voices of hatred and senselessness are to loud to be overcome by a still sane minority.
Our soldiers are numb, they do not see any false in their acts. In this brutal occupation, a solider can brag about shooting a child, can stop ambulances and still believe in his righteousness, can kill without feeling.
You say there is no other choice, that this occupation is forced upon us, that no other way is possible?
The occupation itself is unethical, wrong, and must be ended. So another way should be found. What is such a way? This is the realms of politics, Iâll share here my political opinion.
I believe in peace.
I include here an article I wrote explaining this. It is a very general opinion, it purpose is one â belief in peace.
One vote for peace.
âPeace is a state of being all human communities should strive for, a state in which everyone works and lives together in harmony and co-operationâ. Sounds reasonable. But is it really necessary? I hear voices saying peace is not an option nowadays, Israelis/Palestinians do not want peace, and so peace is not desired.
Lets check this.
Situation as it is now is not acceptable. Life of fear and terror for both sides, anger, hate.
Lets examine different solutions as they are perceived from different points of view.
Some Palestinians suggest to continue armed resistance, to build up military power and force Israel to withdraw its occupation. To answer this I point out Israelâs extensive military experience, and also point to statistics of the recent years concerning territories, casualties and economics. Armed resistance against Israel means completely destroying the land, with little or no progress to freedom.
Some Israeli people suggest to transfer of Palestinian population or to continue the attempt to eradicate all terror. But to this I answer, wherever the Palestinian might be, their ambitions will not be suppressed, and they will fight for their causes. No fence nor border will ever protect Israel from this, and it is shown time and time again. Transfer means perpetuating Palestinian actions against Israel. Continued clashes will worsen the Palestiniansâ life and thus strengthen the armed resistance / terror.
Only a peace agreement will eventually lead to true safety. Any other âsolutionâ means either hiding behind an illusion of safety or perpetuating the dangers through endless conflict, where no side can âwinâ.
The peace agreements.
But how shall we decide what is the desired fair peace? Who gets what and why? Many would clearly say that the right thing to do in order to judge this is to go to history books and see EXACTLY what happened, and rule according to this information. That is the right thing to do, many say.
But is it really so?
There is no one history. This is easily seen in the vast cyberspace of the web, where all points of views are mixed, not bound by any border. Studying the available histories can create some confusion. There are extreme differences between histories as each âsideâ portrays it.
Can we reach a mutual decision about one âtrueâ history of the conflict? Is there such a thing, âtrue historyâ?
I suggest studying the present as the only link to the past. What does it matter why a person feels âhistorical connectionâ to a specific land? The feelings are there, and that is what matters. Trying to justify/disprove the connection does not change those feelings.
So what should be addressed is the current feelings, current desires, current ambitions. We live in the present, and we try to create a future. We should remember the past and learn from it, but not worship it.
So what is the present situation?
Some Israelis might say âa war is going on, the Palestinians do not desire peace, are not ready for self-governing, will never abandon the way of terrorâ
Some Palestinians might say âwe are occupied by vicious army, and though the Israeli government claims to be âpeacefulâ it really desires surrender, not peaceâ
On both sides you can find people saying âthey seek to completely destroy usâ.
Even agreeing on the present is not simple. Except, maybe, that things should not continue as they do.
Obviously there is clash between different desires, concerning territories and governing, concerning rights and obligations, concerning limits and borders. But there is a middle point that both leaderships can agree on. And once this is found, things will be different.
How different? Peace and love and dancing of happiness? Flowers and understanding? Freedom and security?
Honestly, unlikely.
Even then, there will be along road ahead of us. The change will be that things could finally start, slowly and with great effort, to be better, bit by bit. Change will not be immediate, and this will be frustrating.
But, as things are today, we are surely, and not quite slowly, going downhill, dipper, into an abyss we will not be able to get out from. More destruction, more bitterness, more death. Less understanding, bigger gaps to bridge.
There must be a change.
Traderfut....another fine job of cut and paste.
Here are my thoughts. Maybe I am inaccurate about some issues, but at least they are my own thoughts. I do know, however, that Israel would pull back to the "green line" if that would accomplish lasting peace. But so far, it seems "peace" is NOT an objective of the "palestinian" leaders.
before the 6 day war in which the only objective of the arab nations was to destroy Israel (force it into the sea), Gaza was part of Egypt. And the West Bank was part of Jordan.
So there were no Palestinians. Just arabs who lost a war they started.
Then, 30 years later, Arafat says getting 95% of his demands met is not enough. So instead of having their own country (including a partitioned Jerusalem, with total access to the entire city), they have nothing.
Why? Because of the "right of return". So because the arabs that were encouraged to leave their homes in what is now Israel in 1948 left, believing their "brothers" (who would not accept them except to be second class refugees), they lost their homes.
Arafat is holding out for the return of all Palestinian refugees from the 1948 founding of Israel, as well as their descendants, which would result in the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
Golda Meir said: "National suicide is not an option".
The Palestinians will NEVER achieve their dream of an independent state as long as they have leaders unwilling or unable to outlaw their terrorist organizations.
That is just reality. The Palestinians can blow up themselves till doomsday (which may be sooner than anyone wants with maniacs like this being encouraged and even their families compensated). But this is not how to establish a country. Or how to achieve credibility in a civilized world.
Traderfut...I agree with some of what you say. But that is all emotionally charged stuff. How about just taking into consideration the FACTS? Isreal did not start any wars. Israelis do not target innocent children and non-combatants in pizza joints and discos. Hamas is not ever going to achieve being a part of a world that abhors violence. They think that their tactics are going to garner support? From whom?
In what way did Al Qaeda gain from 9/11? Still doesn't even openly take responsibility. All these leaders that send their brainwashed followers to their deaths (as martyrs with promises of 70 virgins, etc.) are the worst kinds of cowards and hypocrites the world has ever seen.
Peace,
rs7
Here are my thoughts. Maybe I am inaccurate about some issues, but at least they are my own thoughts. I do know, however, that Israel would pull back to the "green line" if that would accomplish lasting peace. But so far, it seems "peace" is NOT an objective of the "palestinian" leaders.
before the 6 day war in which the only objective of the arab nations was to destroy Israel (force it into the sea), Gaza was part of Egypt. And the West Bank was part of Jordan.
So there were no Palestinians. Just arabs who lost a war they started.
Then, 30 years later, Arafat says getting 95% of his demands met is not enough. So instead of having their own country (including a partitioned Jerusalem, with total access to the entire city), they have nothing.
Why? Because of the "right of return". So because the arabs that were encouraged to leave their homes in what is now Israel in 1948 left, believing their "brothers" (who would not accept them except to be second class refugees), they lost their homes.
Arafat is holding out for the return of all Palestinian refugees from the 1948 founding of Israel, as well as their descendants, which would result in the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
Golda Meir said: "National suicide is not an option".
The Palestinians will NEVER achieve their dream of an independent state as long as they have leaders unwilling or unable to outlaw their terrorist organizations.
That is just reality. The Palestinians can blow up themselves till doomsday (which may be sooner than anyone wants with maniacs like this being encouraged and even their families compensated). But this is not how to establish a country. Or how to achieve credibility in a civilized world.
Traderfut...I agree with some of what you say. But that is all emotionally charged stuff. How about just taking into consideration the FACTS? Isreal did not start any wars. Israelis do not target innocent children and non-combatants in pizza joints and discos. Hamas is not ever going to achieve being a part of a world that abhors violence. They think that their tactics are going to garner support? From whom?
In what way did Al Qaeda gain from 9/11? Still doesn't even openly take responsibility. All these leaders that send their brainwashed followers to their deaths (as martyrs with promises of 70 virgins, etc.) are the worst kinds of cowards and hypocrites the world has ever seen.
Peace,
rs7First of all,
Happy new year my friend. By the way, the cut and paste was a text written by a jew serving the israeli army not a fanatic or a leftist.. Moreover, it shows your bias since on the last 10 articles I posted it was the only cut paste.
So basically, you are a New yorker calling for war from his couch and you imply that a courageous guy that served the Israeli army and said no more injustice and killings of innocents is lying.
Implying that israeli soldiers did not kill innocent children and people means that you did not even took the time to read the text written by one of the 512 ISRAELI that do not want to serve anymore this criminal army.
Shalom my friend
Happy new year my friend. By the way, the cut and paste was a text written by a jew serving the israeli army not a fanatic or a leftist.. Moreover, it shows your bias since on the last 10 articles I posted it was the only cut paste.
So basically, you are a New yorker calling for war from his couch and you imply that a courageous guy that served the Israeli army and said no more injustice and killings of innocents is lying.
Implying that israeli soldiers did not kill innocent children and people means that you did not even took the time to read the text written by one of the 512 ISRAELI that do not want to serve anymore this criminal army.
Shalom my friend
512 out of how many over how many years?
You will always find some small percentage who doesn't like the way things are.
Does that make them right?
You, like others, will always seek out the websites and articles that support your personal bias.
That gives you some degree of credibility, being able to find critics who are in the minority?
When I see you, Wild, and others post from "opposing" points of view, then and only then will have any sense that your own thoughts are worth listening to.
Balance, listening to both sides of arguments, then thinking to your own conclusions based on your own life experiences are a sign of adulthood and maturity.
When someone has reached their own conclusions, based on logical thought and their own life experiences, need no longer rely on the words of others to make their arguments strong and credible. They can simply reason from reason, and present an argument that anyone of balanced thought can see and appreciate.
Cutting and pasting to support an agenda is a sign of extremist and unbalanced thinking.
Israel 's right-wing Likud party dominates U.S. Mideast policy through a powerful lobby in the American Congress
Who really is running America 's Mideast policy? Last week, the astounded world saw the grotesque spectacle of President George W. Bush pleading in vain with Ariel Sharon, leader of a nation of only 6.3 million people which receives almost $5 billion in annual U.S. aid, to cease laying waste the Occupied West Bank.
Ignoring worldwide condemnation and demands from the UN Security Council, Sharon ordered his armour, much of it American-supplied, to accelerate shooting up and bulldozing Palestinian towns, refugee camps and all symbols of Palestinian identity or statehood. Twenty years ago, Sharon invaded Lebanon , "to crush Palestinian terrorism." His big guns and warplanes blasted Beirut for three weeks, killing 17,000 civilians. Today, he remains determined to hold Arab lands Israel conquered in 1967 and to destroy any hopes or vestiges of a viable Palestinian state.
President Bush and senior aides Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell were left looking weak, indecisive, and inept. Bush clearly is a political soulmate of ultra-hawk Sharon ; they share a mutual detestation for Yasser Arafat and, it would seem, for Arabs in general.
Bush has been encouraging Sharon 's attacks on Palestine for months. But Israel's invasion of the West Bank - reminiscent of Soviet tanks crushing Hungary in 1956 - gravely threatened America's Mideast client regimes, so Bush had to demand Sharon relent.
SHEER FARCE
In an act of sheer farce, Powell was sent on a slow boat to Israel , via Madrid and Morocco . Before Powell even arrived, former Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu summoned fawning U.S. senators and arrogantly informed them Powell's mission would fail.
While the rest of the world condemned Israel 's invasion and destruction of the Palestinian ghettos, not a peep was heard from the White House, Congress or America 's media about Israel 's violation of U.S. law in using U.S.-supplied armour and warplanes against civilians. Nor about Israel 's violation of the Geneva Conventions and other international laws. There were no protests when Israel 's Shimon Peres described massacres of Palestinian civilians by Israeli soldiers.
Nor even a tut-tut when Sharon named to his cabinet a fanatical right-wing general who advocates ethnic cleansing of Palestinians - the same crime for which the U.S. pursued Serbia 's Slobodan Milosevic.
To be sure, there is deep and justified sympathy in the U.S. for the frightful suffering Israel has endured at the hands of suicide bombers, and its need for self-defence.
Still, why was America alone in defending Israel 's ruthless punishment of the Palestinians?
How could Bush, only a few weeks ago, still bathing in the bogus glory of a military "triumph" against a few thousand medieval tribesman in Afghanistan , be so suddenly made to look foolish and impotent by events in the Mideast ?
Simply put, Sharon 's right-wing Likud party has come to dominate U.S. Mideast policy through its powerful American lobby, which "guides" Congress.
Under pressure from the Israel lobby, 89 out of 100 senators and at least 280 congressmen recently demanded Bush give Sharon carte blanche to crush Palestine . As the Israeli writer Uri Avnery wryly noted, if the Israel lobby gave orders to repeal the Ten Commandments, Congress would vote in favour.
America 's media is strongly pro-Israel and averse to dissenting views. A coterie of hawkish, Israel-first neo-conservatives dominates media opinion-making and the Pentagon, leading the charge for a war against Iraq , Iran , and Syria . One even helped to write Bush's foolish "axis of evil" speech.
Tight U.S. mid-term elections are approaching.
Bush does not want to anger American Jewish voters who believe Israel is in mortal danger.
GEORGE SR. ROASTED
Bush obviously recalls that when his father sought to pressure Israel to halt building illegal settlements, Bush Sr. was unfairly roasted by the media as an anti-Semite and forced to back down. No wonder Sharon can thumb his nose at the White House.
Bush likes to talk tough, but this crisis has shown him to be the exact opposite. In Texas , they'd say, "big hat, no land." Bush has so far failed to take any real action to halt America 's Mideast interests being undermined by the bloodbath in Palestine and Israel .
The best way to protect Israelis from terror attacks is to withdraw their 200,000 illegal settlers and end their colonial rule over the West Bank, Gaza and Golan; divide East Jerusalem into Jewish, Muslim, and Christian sectors, have NATO troops police peace accords and either normalize relations with the Arabs, as the Saudis propose, or build a wall to isolate Israel from its neighbours. This cannot be done so long as settlements remain.
Sharon is dead set against this sensible idea. He needs to be pushed the way Dwight Eisenhower ordered Israel, in 1956, to get out of the Sinai, which it had invaded and occupied - or else. Had Bush Eisenhower's integrity or genuine patriotism, he would compel Sharon to accept the wise Saudi peace plan and forget dreams of recreating biblical Greater Israel. This would be a boon to Jews and Arabs alike.
But Bush junior is no Eisenhower. His dithering over the Mideast has made the United States appear both helpless and a tacit supporter of Israel 's West Bank repression - and made America the potential target of more terrorist attacks from the enraged Arab world.
Who really is running America 's Mideast policy? Last week, the astounded world saw the grotesque spectacle of President George W. Bush pleading in vain with Ariel Sharon, leader of a nation of only 6.3 million people which receives almost $5 billion in annual U.S. aid, to cease laying waste the Occupied West Bank.
Ignoring worldwide condemnation and demands from the UN Security Council, Sharon ordered his armour, much of it American-supplied, to accelerate shooting up and bulldozing Palestinian towns, refugee camps and all symbols of Palestinian identity or statehood. Twenty years ago, Sharon invaded Lebanon , "to crush Palestinian terrorism." His big guns and warplanes blasted Beirut for three weeks, killing 17,000 civilians. Today, he remains determined to hold Arab lands Israel conquered in 1967 and to destroy any hopes or vestiges of a viable Palestinian state.
President Bush and senior aides Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell were left looking weak, indecisive, and inept. Bush clearly is a political soulmate of ultra-hawk Sharon ; they share a mutual detestation for Yasser Arafat and, it would seem, for Arabs in general.
Bush has been encouraging Sharon 's attacks on Palestine for months. But Israel's invasion of the West Bank - reminiscent of Soviet tanks crushing Hungary in 1956 - gravely threatened America's Mideast client regimes, so Bush had to demand Sharon relent.
SHEER FARCE
In an act of sheer farce, Powell was sent on a slow boat to Israel , via Madrid and Morocco . Before Powell even arrived, former Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu summoned fawning U.S. senators and arrogantly informed them Powell's mission would fail.
While the rest of the world condemned Israel 's invasion and destruction of the Palestinian ghettos, not a peep was heard from the White House, Congress or America 's media about Israel 's violation of U.S. law in using U.S.-supplied armour and warplanes against civilians. Nor about Israel 's violation of the Geneva Conventions and other international laws. There were no protests when Israel 's Shimon Peres described massacres of Palestinian civilians by Israeli soldiers.
Nor even a tut-tut when Sharon named to his cabinet a fanatical right-wing general who advocates ethnic cleansing of Palestinians - the same crime for which the U.S. pursued Serbia 's Slobodan Milosevic.
To be sure, there is deep and justified sympathy in the U.S. for the frightful suffering Israel has endured at the hands of suicide bombers, and its need for self-defence.
Still, why was America alone in defending Israel 's ruthless punishment of the Palestinians?
How could Bush, only a few weeks ago, still bathing in the bogus glory of a military "triumph" against a few thousand medieval tribesman in Afghanistan , be so suddenly made to look foolish and impotent by events in the Mideast ?
Simply put, Sharon 's right-wing Likud party has come to dominate U.S. Mideast policy through its powerful American lobby, which "guides" Congress.
Under pressure from the Israel lobby, 89 out of 100 senators and at least 280 congressmen recently demanded Bush give Sharon carte blanche to crush Palestine . As the Israeli writer Uri Avnery wryly noted, if the Israel lobby gave orders to repeal the Ten Commandments, Congress would vote in favour.
America 's media is strongly pro-Israel and averse to dissenting views. A coterie of hawkish, Israel-first neo-conservatives dominates media opinion-making and the Pentagon, leading the charge for a war against Iraq , Iran , and Syria . One even helped to write Bush's foolish "axis of evil" speech.
Tight U.S. mid-term elections are approaching.
Bush does not want to anger American Jewish voters who believe Israel is in mortal danger.
GEORGE SR. ROASTED
Bush obviously recalls that when his father sought to pressure Israel to halt building illegal settlements, Bush Sr. was unfairly roasted by the media as an anti-Semite and forced to back down. No wonder Sharon can thumb his nose at the White House.
Bush likes to talk tough, but this crisis has shown him to be the exact opposite. In Texas , they'd say, "big hat, no land." Bush has so far failed to take any real action to halt America 's Mideast interests being undermined by the bloodbath in Palestine and Israel .
The best way to protect Israelis from terror attacks is to withdraw their 200,000 illegal settlers and end their colonial rule over the West Bank, Gaza and Golan; divide East Jerusalem into Jewish, Muslim, and Christian sectors, have NATO troops police peace accords and either normalize relations with the Arabs, as the Saudis propose, or build a wall to isolate Israel from its neighbours. This cannot be done so long as settlements remain.
Sharon is dead set against this sensible idea. He needs to be pushed the way Dwight Eisenhower ordered Israel, in 1956, to get out of the Sinai, which it had invaded and occupied - or else. Had Bush Eisenhower's integrity or genuine patriotism, he would compel Sharon to accept the wise Saudi peace plan and forget dreams of recreating biblical Greater Israel. This would be a boon to Jews and Arabs alike.
But Bush junior is no Eisenhower. His dithering over the Mideast has made the United States appear both helpless and a tacit supporter of Israel 's West Bank repression - and made America the potential target of more terrorist attacks from the enraged Arab world.