----- Original Message ----- From: "Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLWPD/RZO/BOZO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 7:11 AM Subject: RE: Fwd: CNN Breaking News
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Verzonden: zondag 20 januari 2002 23:40 > > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Onderwerp: Re: Fwd: CNN Breaking News > > > > >Let me understand this. If a suicidal terrorist is sent it to kill > > > >Jewish people, Israel should be content with just that guy dying and > > > >not worry about who sent him? Did I read you correctly? > > > > > > I can understand that they would worry about who sent him. But: > > > > > > How could Israel know so quickly who sent him? > > > > Well, they could have accepted that the group that claimed > > responsibility actually was responsible. Out of curiosity, do you know > > who claimed responsibility. > > According to CNN, responsibility was claimed by the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, > Fatah's militant wing. > > But then, although Al Aqsa probably *is* responsible, I believe that the > only right way to go is to find, arrest and try the people responsible. That would be the right way to go about it. But, the problem is, since Arafat has administrative control over the area they live in, its his job to arrest and try them. But, they are part of his organization. The government of Israel has been asking Arafat's government to arrest the individuals responsible for the suicide bombings for months. Sometimes they are arrested, but then slip out the back door of the prison a couple of weeks later. The assumption of Israel is that Arafat knows and approves of these attacks. There is significant evidence that he does. But, putting that discussion aside for a moment, if Arafat does know of these actions, and refuses to stop them, what is Israel to do? Isn't this an act of war on Israel by the Palestinian authority. And, given the act of war, and given the relative military strength, isn't some restraint being shown in fighting this war by Israel. Is Arafat wrong if he fights a war with Israel by looking the other way when bombers are sent to kill kids at pizza parlors and families at Bat Mitzvas? > Blowing up radio stations and sealing off an entire city (Tulkarem; complete > with a strict curfew that forbids the entire population to leave their > homes) is not the appropriate response. So, what does Israel do when Arafat refuses to abide by the Oslo treaty? It seems as though you are saying that the only moral course is to accept the bombings as part of their life. > The Palestinian Authority is obligated to refrain from incitement to > violence, but Israel claims the PA uses the "Voice of Palestine" radio > station to call for Jihad, praise Palestinian terrorists and encourage acts > of violence against Israel. Right, as well as broadcasting anti-Semitic lies such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. If an entire generation is being raised on lies, then aren't the people who tell the lies responsible for the actions people make based on that false information. > Some justification. I believe it is as valid as justifying blowing up the > CNN building because the US government is responsible for civilian deaths > caused by the bombing raids on Afghanistan. Did I miss something? When did the US government buy CNN? The way I see this discussion The Palestinian stage attacks on civilians, who are in the middle of very normal non-violent activities Israel holds the leadership of the Palestinian responsible, and blows up some of their infrastructure in retaliation. They also use their military to search for the perpetrators. During this time, they enforce a curfew. You side with the Palestinians in this matter. > > A ridiculous vantage point, IMO. It assumes (a) that the Palestinian Authority is able to control the actions of each and every individual, No. It assumes that the attacks were not made by lone, crazy people, but by well know established organizations. The last attack was made by Arafat's own organization, for goodness sakes. Do you actually think he doesn't know who ordered the attack? How could he not know, they acknowledge responsibility. and > (b) that the PA is not at all interested in stopping the attacks. The Israelis gave Arafat a list of individuals they considered responsible for the attacks. They gave evidence supporting their claims. A reasonable government would have extradited the individuals. They didn't. Thus, they exhibit no interest in stopping the attacks. Further, Arafat called for the attacks 1 year ago. > Israel's vantage point makes as much sense as saying "the US government > fails to arrest every single drugs dealer in the country, so the US > obviously has no interest in fighting drug-related crimes". No, its saying if Walgreens were selling cocaine out of their stores, and everyone knew it, and the president, who happened to own Walgreen stock, said that he was trying his hardest to stop it and just couldn't. Remember, Arafat _did_ stop the attacks for about 9 years, then restarted them. I would like to see any facts you have supporting the contention that the attacks were the work of unknown individuals acting on their own. > > > If I understand your suggestion, Israel should retreat to the 1967 > > boundaries and hope to be left alone. Do I misunderstand your ideas? > > You do, somewhat. As I have posted earlier, I believe Israel should stick to > the borders it was given when the State of Israel was founded. IOW, the 1948 > borders, not the 1967 borders. Oh my. Have you seen those borders? They are absolutely indefensible. >The It would be too much for Israel to expect to be left alone then, but I think > it would greatly stimulate the peace process if Israel would cease the > occupation and oppression of the Palestinians and retreat to its original > (1948) borders. Look at the map: http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/100/maps/index.html Those boundaries are indefensible. Why, after 4 attacks, shouldn't the Israelis expect the Arabs to attack again. Why didn't Jordan, Egypt, and Syria forfeit their right to claim the land when they attacked again, again, again, and again? >The current situation (and the current Israeli regime) are doing more damage than good to the peace >process. So, your suggestion is for Israel to retreat to indefensible boundaries and hope that the Arabs will have pity on them? Given this history of the last 50 years, isn't it probable that this would result in them being overrun? Remember, they almost lost the Yom Kipper war. If you want to hold that position, you need to accept one realty. You are suggesting a course that would probably result in massive deaths Israelis. BTW, that reminds me of a decision that the US made to defend the Netherlands. We threatened WWIII if Europe was overrun. Was that wrong? Should we have let the Soviet Union take Europe over before using nuclear weapons to defend Amsterdam? Dan M.
