War Without End

Guest

U.S. Criticizes Israelis for Siege
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 2:53 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House said Sunday that Israel's assault on Yasser Arafat's compound did not help the Middle East peace process and that Palestinian hopes for an independent state are greatly harmed by suicide attacks.

``Israel's actions in and around the (Arafat compound) are not helpful in reducing terrorist violence or promoting Palestinian reforms,'' White House spokeswoman Jeanne Mamo said on the third day of the Israeli operation at Arafat's once-sprawling headquarters, where the sole building left standing was the one housing Arafat.

Advertisement

``We urge Israel to continue considering the consequences of its actions on progress'' toward reaching goals President Bush has set: Palestinian elections next year, Arafat's removal as leader of the Palestinians and creation of a Palestinian state within three years to exist peacefully with Israel.

Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said his country remains committed to Bush's ideas but insisted: ``The Palestinian fate is in the hands of the Palestinians.''

``We are still for peace,'' Peres said. ``We have accepted the vision of President Bush. We didn't change our mind.''

Mamo added that ``it is also important for Palestinians to understand that terrorist violence does grave damage to Palestinian aspirations for a Palestinian state.''

``We condemn in the strongest possible the terrorist attacks that occurred in Israel last week,'' Mamo said.

A suicide bombing Wednesday killed an Israeli policeman, ending a relative lull that lasted six weeks and raised hopes that two years of violence might be winding down. Five Israelis and a Scottish seminary student were killed in a Thursday suicide bombing on a Tel Aviv bus, claimed by the Islamic militant Hamas group.

A top Arafat aide, Nabil Abu Rdeneh, told CNN he feared ``a real massacre'' if the standoff at the compound should erupt into a confrontation. ``We are in need of an immediate American intervention to stop this, because if this happens, this will reflect negatively on us and on Israelis and on the Americans themselves,'' he said.

Mamo said the White House saw progress in recent months toward Bush's goals. But renewed Israel-Palestinian violence complicates the administration's effort to rally world opinion for the ouster of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

The White House's words of warning to Israel were also notable because during other recent waves of violence, the Bush administration has generally criticized Palestinian suicide attacks far more sharply than Israeli retaliations.

The Israeli assault on Arafat's compound left him surrounded, and some U.S. officials worried that it could allow him to cast himself as a victim and a hero.

Sen. Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said such standoffs tend to raise Arafat's profile.

``It makes it harder for the end result that we're looking for, which is to marginalize him by bringing Palestinians into the governance that are willing to make peace, which Arafat's not,'' Biden, D-Del., told CNN's ``Late Edition.''

Four Palestinian demonstrators were killed by army fire in Gaza and the West Bank on Sunday, and a Palestinian teenager was killed in Nablus, residents said.

Israel got a firm expression of support from Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., chairman of the House International Relations Committee.

``Suicide bombing is a weapon that is pretty hard to deter,'' he said on CNN. ``If someone has a better idea than what the Israelis are doing, I'm sure (Prime Minister) Ariel Sharon would listen to it, but right now, I would find it hard to criticize them, although I would caution for both sides to stop the killing.''

The White House would not respond publicly Sunday to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's plea that Bush intervene immediately to stop the Israeli operation. Bush ignored a reporter's question about the Israeli assault as he returned to the White House on Sunday from Camp David.

Guest

Thousands of Palestinians Protest Israeli Assault
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 4:34 p.m. ET

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) -- Thousands of Palestinians marched Sunday to protest Israel's siege of Yasser Arafat headquarters, and Israeli soldiers opened fire on Palestinians who defied curfews. Four Palestinians were killed the demonstrations and fifth died later in the day.

Palestinian leaders declared a general strike for Monday, appealed to the Arab world for help and called on their people to resist the Israeli operation..

Guest

http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/bruce_anderson/story.jsp?story=335736

This is the Muddle East with its theatre of the absurd, enacted with tank rounds

We're a long way from even a distant prospect of peace. Threats abound in the interim, though in the midst of tragedy there is farce
Bruce Anderson
23 September 2002

This is the Muddle East with its theatre of the absurd, enacted with tank rounds

The stupidity of this very public humiliation
It just seems to go on and on, indefinitely, relentlessly, unstoppably: an endless cycle of suicide bombers, retaliation, funerals and wailing relatives. The Holy Land is an unholy mess. Yet there is a paradox. Though peace may be further away than ever, more potential consensus as to the nature of that peace is apparent than has ever been throughout the entire history of the state of Israel.

In Washington, London, Jerusalem, Amman – and in other Arab capitals when they are speaking in private – there is a surprising amount of agreement as to the broad outlines of a peace deal. The Palestinians must have a state more or less equal in area to the territories the Israelis overran in 1967, so that they can take their place among the nations. The Israelis must have secure borders, recognised as such by the new Palestinian state and by Israel's Arab neighbours.

That all sounds reasonable enough. But in the Muddle East, anything which sounds reasonable ought to arouse immediate suspicion. If it is reasonable, it will not be workable.

The problems are manifold. In the first place, any viable Palestinian state would require the evacuation of large numbers of Israeli settlers. That would neither be an easy nor a peaceful process. The settlers include some of the most extreme elements of Israeli society. Many of them are Jewish fundamentalists, who believe that they are in the West Bank by divine right, to ensure that Judaea and Samaria regain their rightful place as part of the promised land of Eretz Israel.

These characters are not going to go quietly. When the Israelis handed back the Sinai to Egypt, they also had to evacuate a small number of Jewish settlers. Though they were few in number, in a region to which Israel had no historic claims, the television pictures of their forcible removal caused a lot of pain in Israel. The West Bank settlers would be a far more formidable obstacle. Their eviction could impose a breaking strain on Israel's political system.

Not that the Israelis are the only problem. If a peace deal were made, the Palestinians would have to renounce any hope of recovering the land they lost in 1948. Many of them are still reluctant to do this. Even many non-militant Palestinians would view a peace deal on the West Bank and Gaza as a mere stage one, creating a launch pad for a campaign to reverse the injustices of the Balfour Declaration and the 1948 war.

Then there is the little question of Old Jerusalem, captured by the Israelis in 1967, and venerated by the Jews for millennia. Temple Mount symbolises the difficulty. Buried within it, the foundations of Solomon's Temple: at its crest, the domes of the great mosque. In Jerusalem, archaeology is politics, and bloodletting.

With the maximum resources of goodwill, there could be a complicated arrangement on Jerusalem, with both sides poring over the A-to-Z of the Old City in order to reach some just-about-acceptable compromise. But there is not enough goodwill. There have been far too many disappointments, and too much blood. Not nearly enough people on either side are prepared to respect the other lot's case or to regard those opposite them in negotiations as persons of equal moral worth.

All this has led many observers to conclude that peace will require an international dimension. A surprising number of people in the Middle East itself – world-weary Arab ministers, liberal-minded Israelis – also despair of an internally generated peace deal and their fervent, closet hope is that an American administration will simply impose peace.

This might seem a tempting prospect. But the nearer one gets to the realities of implementation, the more remote it seems, for it is flawed by a misleading assumption. Almost all Arabs – and continental Europeans – believe that Israel is America's creature and that if any administration were firm enough for long enough, the Israelis would come grumbling into line. This view is shared by a good few older-generation Israelis, increasingly out of sympathy with current Israeli public opinion.

But that is the problem. Israel has changed. The economy is stronger, and therefore less dependent on US aid, which before the recent troubles in any case amounted to only 3 per cent of GDP. Moreover, the control of Israeli society has now passed from the old Israeli Labour Party-Ashkenazi, founding-father elite to Jews from the Arab lands and Russian Jews. These tend to be deeply sceptical about the possibility of reaching any accommodation with the Arabs and much more inclined towards the view that "what we have, we hold". Nor are they as Washington-oriented as their predecessors. Though they would be reluctant to risk a breach with the US, they would not rush to do an American President's bidding. Faced with pressure, they would procrastinate, and manipulate.

The American political system could have been expressly designed to maximise the power of lobbies. Congressmen, constantly in search of votes, are constantly vulnerable to pressure. Only a brave or foolhardy congressman would dare to incur the wrath of the Israeli lobby. Even if there were no Jewish voters within 500 miles of his district, he would suddenly discover that all of his electoral opponents had bulging bankrolls.

This is not to say that all American Jewish voters support Mr Sharon. On the contrary: in recent years, there have been several occasions when the Jewish lobby has divided against itself. But if it were ever to feel that Israel's vital interests were threatened, it would unite in an instant. If a substantial majority of Israelis rejected a proposed American peace deal, the Israeli lobby in the US would deploy all its resources to fight against it.

This means, in effect, that America could never impose a peace deal unless there were considerable support for that deal within Israel. That would already be hard to achieve. For every Israeli in whom bloodshed has induced war-weariness, there are at least two in whom the bloodshed has only inflamed intransigence and the desire for yet tougher measures against Israel's murderous foes.

Nor is the bloodshed likely to diminish. Those who are orchestrating the suicide bombings are not doing so in order to protest against Israel's presence in the West Bank. Their protest is against Israel's presence. The nearer the region came to a peace deal which guaranteed Israel's boundaries, the harder Hamas would try to bomb that deal off the table. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq will hardly encourage them.

We are a long way from even a distant prospect of peace. In the interim, threats abound, though in the very midst of tragedy there is farce. The lengths to which the Israelis will go to blast Yasser Arafat's house around him while not actually killing him is the theatre of the absurd enacted with tank rounds. But there could easily be an error. The whole area is beset by error and by terror. So it will continue.

Also from the Bruce Anderson section.

Guest

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=335769

West rebukes Israel for demolition of Arafat's compound
By Justin Huggler in Ramallah
23 September 2002
Internal links

West rebukes Israel for demolition of Arafat's compound

The stupidity of this very public humiliation
Condemnation poured in from around the world yesterday after the Israeli army demolished almost all of Yasser Arafat's presidential compound, on a day when Palestinians defied the Israeli army as they have not done for months, storming on to the streets in protest.

Last night, the United States repeated the concern it had raised when the demolitions began three days ago, saying: "Israeli actions are not helpful in reducing terrorist violence or promoting Palestinian reforms."

Britain lodged a formal diplomatic protest. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said: "I am deeply concerned by the continuing deployment of Israeli troops in Ramallah and have today instructed our ambassador to raise my concerns directly with the Israeli government. This blockade and damage to President Arafat's compound is not justified.

"We all understand Israel's paramount need for security and to protect itself from terrorist attack. But it is hard to see how the action in Ramallah will solve the problem of Palestinian violence."

The Israeli government said last night that it was halting demolition, but it had already demolished all but one building, where Mr Arafat was still under siege. Israel said it had no intention of demolishing that building.

In the early hours, hundreds of Palestinians defied a near-constant curfew in a way they have not dared to before, and stormed on to the streets, facing bullets. Protests spread into Gaza, Bethlehem, Tubas, Salfit and Hebron.

Four Palestinians were killed by the army as it broke up the protests. And all for a leader whom, only weeks ago, many Palestinians were turning against, amid demands for reform. Mr Arafat cannot have dreamt of such support.

Abd al-Rahman Awad, who was at the Ramallah protest, said: "We were shouting 'Blood sacrifice for the president'." Yet many were saying that, if he got this crisis wrong, Mr Arafat, the great survivor, could be finished. If he capitulates to Israeli demands, he could be discredited among his people. If he defies Ariel Sharon, no one is sure how far the army will go.

The Israeli government is demanding that Mr Arafat hand over 19 alleged militants it says are inside the presidential compound in Ramallah. Palestinians have said that is a pretext for the destruction of the compound.

We drove through the Manara, Ramallah's main square, where Issa Hraish, 27, died in the protests, shot by the army. Whether he was armed was not clear. Further down the road lay Mr Arafat's presidential compound, reduced to rubble. We got within 200 metres before Israeli soldiers forced us back, saying it was a "closed military zone". Some buildings were no more than piles of smashed up concrete.

For four days, the army has been dynamiting and bulldozing the compound. With Mr Arafat, trapped in the only building still standing, were some 200 aides and guards, we were told. The stairs in the building have been blocked; the Palestinian leader cannot go up or down. The entrance has been smashed. The water and electricity were cut and the army was reported to have shot a water tank on top of the building. Palestinians fear the building may collapse.

At midnight on Saturday, the word had gone around Ramallah that the Israeli soldiers had given Mr Arafat an ultimatum: leave the building in 10 minutes or they would dynamite it. Announcements went out from the loudspeakers of the city's mosques calling people on to the streets. The churches rang their bells.

Hassan Ismail said: "We heard on Al-Jazeera [Arabic television] that the Israelis had given Arafat an ultimatum. About 300 of us went out. It was our intention to surround the Israelis who are surrounding Arafat's compound, but they stopped us in the square."

It is hard to believe this is the same leader about whom many Palestinians were bitterly grumbling a few days ago. In April, when Mr Arafat was last confined to his compound, his popularity soared, but Palestinians were disappointed when he made deals, surrendering wanted men to end his ordeal and agreeing to the exile of others to end the siege of the Church of the Nativity.

Mr Sharon's government may be banking on Mr Arafat making another deal. An Israeli minister reopened an offer he made to Mr Arafat in April: a "dignified" passage into exile, but on a "one-way ticket". If Mr Arafat refuses to back down, it is not clear what the Israeli government will do. Killing Mr Arafat would bring international condemnation. Forcing him into exile has apparently been rejected by the cabinet, although Mr Sharon is said to favour it.

Guest · Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2002 12:38 pm Post subject:

The American political system could have been expressly designed to maximise the power of lobbies. Congressmen, constantly in search of votes, are constantly vulnerable to pressure. Only a brave or foolhardy congressman would dare to incur the wrath of the Israeli lobby. Even if there were no Jewish voters within 500 miles of his district, he would suddenly discover that all of his electoral opponents had bulging bankrolls.

This is not to say that all American Jewish voters support Mr Sharon. On the contrary: in recent years, there have been several occasions when the Jewish lobby has divided against itself. But if it were ever to feel that Israel's vital interests were threatened, it would unite in an instant. If a substantial majority of Israelis rejected a proposed American peace deal, the Israeli lobby in the US would deploy all its resources to fight against it.

This means, in effect, that America could never impose a peace deal unless there were considerable support for that deal within Israel. That would already be hard to achieve. For every Israeli in whom bloodshed has induced war-weariness, there are at least two in whom the bloodshed has only inflamed intransigence and the desire for yet tougher measures against Israel's murderous foes.

And that just about says it all. End of story.

America has no choice but to do its apprentacies bidding.

This would be just as unhealthy if the American society of warthogs had as much power to wield.

America is not as independant and free to as it would like to believe.

Guest · Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2002 12:43 pm Post subject:

And now watch the replies, we support Isreal and always will, and the rest.

The truth is you have no choice so its easier to just come out with statements like that then to face up the fact you are not in control of your own country.

Its far harder to face the facts and do something about it.

Jefferson Davis · Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2002 4:06 pm Post subject:

Guest · Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2002 5:06 pm Post subject:

Another good response Jeff, I put em up in a rather agressive way maybe, but its not meant that way, just want to know..

But I will say this, doesnt your media show the same pics our media show over here, theres lots of Pals with Video cameras and lots of videos on our news services, by journalist teams and others, at road blocks at home destructions, lots of pics of stone throwing settlers mixed with a few gun shooiting settlers, we see tons on the stuff almost on a daily basis.

And yes we also see the masked Pal gunmen too.

There are lots of these films but if your own media over there doesnt show em then your argument although rationale does not work.

I watch Fox on occasions as well as CNN and never see any of this.

Unless your media is willing to show this now, what makes you think they would show it in the future?

Jefferson Davis · Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2002 7:36 pm Post subject:

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

U.S. Criticizes Israelis for Siege