Re: [Futurework] Because We Can

Mon, 09 Jun 2003 09:48:16 -0700

Harry,
 
I believe the following statement is unfair:
 
        the seemingly universal condemnation of
        Sharon and therefore of Israel.
 
It would be the same as saying condemning Bill Clinton is condemning the US.  There are a lot of fine people in Israel. One who tried to find solutions, Rabin, paid for it with his life. I felt that Barak was on the right track but was undone by Sharon. Now, if he can be trusted, perhaps Sharon is working to change his place in history.
 
Here is a selectively chosen paragraph from a biography:
 
        September 1982: Sharon - still in command of the Israeli Army's operations in Lebanon- let Israel's
        Lebanese allied Christian militias (the Phalangists) massacre thousands of Palestinian civilians in the
        refugee camp of Sabra and Chatila in Lebanon. He was later accused of indirect responsibility by an
        Israeli investigation committee and had to resign.
 
 
Bill

 
       
 
On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 07:51:22 -0700 Harry Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bill, Karen,
>
> Something that has bothers me over the seemingly universal
> condemnation of
> Sharon and therefore of Israel.
>
> If you were Sharon and your men, women, and children are being
> slaughtered
> in the streets - what would you do?
>
> Nothing?
>
> Something?
>
> Karen says talk, talk, talk - with which I agree - but with whom?
>
> Arafat smiles but does nothing about the instigators of the crimes.
>
> Should you go after those responsible for the bombings? When Israel
> does
> that, she is condemned - mostly I would say by people who don't fear
> being
> blown up in Safeways, or Costco, or Sainsbury's.
>
> Well, Palestine innocents are killed. If I were an Hamas leader, I
> would
> fill my car with women and children, so if the Israelis found me, I
> would
> die - but I'd leave behind a propaganda success.
>
> So, if you were Sharon, what would you do?
>
> Harry
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Bill wrote:
>
>
> >Karen,
> >
> >My guess is that it is:
> >
> >         just realized that all the pressure applied to the
> Palestinians
> > to change their stripes and demote Arafat         will have the
> end
> > result of exposing Israel�s feet in concrete attitude since the
> > Palestinians are moving         ahead
> >
> >However, to move ahead, he is going to need to jettison his links
> with the
> >Israeli far right and hook up with the Israeli center. If he
> doesn't move
> >to do this, not much will happen. Also, while Hammaas made some
> >conciliatory remarks, the Islamic Jihaad has not.
> >
> >Bill
> >
> >On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 07:18:03 -0700 "Karen Watters Cole"
> ><<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >Friedman is quite honest here, both in trying to �separate the
> wheat from
> >the chafe� and in his attempts to cover his previous commentary
> where he
> >was more approving of the Bush2 stated reasons for going to war. 
> It�s
> >been said that before a war there are some believed good
> >reasons.  Afterwards, there are never any good reasons.  You always
> wonder
> >if another way would not have been more productive and less
> costly.
> >
> >
> >
> >However, this is not just about one local neighborhood, Iraq, it is
> about
> >Israel and Palestine, the best case study for human ineptitude and
>
> >institutionalized politics, historical animosity and historical
> >opportunity as we have in prima geopolitics today.
> >
> >
> >
> >Since I�ve posted many times here about the need for some heroic
> >self-sacrifice on the part of the political leadership in Israel
> and
> >Palestine, let me share that I am cautiously optimistic and holding
> my
> >breath regarding recent developments.  I am waiting to see if
> Sharon has
> >had a midnight �legacy conversion experience� or just realized that
> all
> >the pressure applied to the Palestinians to change their stripes
> and
> >demote Arafat will have the end result of exposing Israel�s feet in
>
> >concrete attitude since the Palestinians are moving ahead.  Lots of
> corny
> >photo cops abound, but I am waiting to see not the Kodak moments,
> but the
> >WYSIWYG, or What you see is what you get moments. - KWC
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Because We Could
> >
> >
> >
> >By Thomas L. Friedman, NYT, June 4, 2003
> >
> >
> >
> >The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass
> destruction
> >(W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real
> story
> >we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the
> war,
> >and it's the wrong issue now.
> >
> >
> >
> >Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the
> real
> >reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.
> >
> >
> >
> >The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that
> after
> >9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world.
> Afghanistan
> >wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there �
> a
> >bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West
> and
> >needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing
> airplanes
> >into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say
> it was
> >O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such
> things
> >"martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for
> such
> >"martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a
> feeling
> >among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance
> of
> >power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft
> and
> >their activists were ready to die.
> >
> >
> >
> >The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men
> and
> >women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to
> house, and
> >make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our
> open
> >society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing
> Saudi
> >Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one
> simple
> >reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he
> was
> >right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense
> that this
> >had no effect. Every neighboring government � and 98 percent of
> terrorism
> >is about what governments let happen � got the message. If you talk
> to
> >U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was
> about.
> >
> >
> >
> >The "right reason" for this war was the need to partner with
> Iraqis,
> >post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the real
> weapons
> >of mass destruction that threaten us were never Saddam's missiles.
> The
> >real weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry,
> humiliated
> >young Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing Arab
> states
> >� young people who hate America more than they love life. Helping
> to build
> >a decent Iraq as a model for others � and solving the
> Israeli-Palestinian
> >conflict � are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass
> >destruction, which are what really threaten us.
> >
> >
> >
> >The "moral reason" for the war was that Saddam's regime was an
> engine of
> >mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his own
> people,
> >and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.
> >
> >
> >
> >But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason
> for the
> >war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world
> support
> >for the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the
> stated
> >reason: the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that
> posed
> >an immediate threat to America. I argued before the war that Saddam
> posed
> >no such threat to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that
> we
> >couldn't take the nation to war "on the wings of a lie." I argued
> that Mr.
> >Bush should fight this war for the right reasons and the moral
> reasons.
> >But he stuck with this W.M.D. argument for P.R. reasons.
> >
> >
> >
> >Once the war was over and I saw the mass graves and the true extent
> of
> >Saddam's genocidal evil, my view was that Mr. Bush did not need to
> find
> >any W.M.D.'s to justify the war for me. I still feel that way. But
> I have
> >to admit that I've always been fighting my own war in Iraq. Mr.
> Bush took
> >the country into his war. And if it turns out that he fabricated
> the
> >evidence for his war (which I wouldn't conclude yet), that would
> badly
> >damage America and be a very serious matter.
> >
> >
> >
> >But my ultimate point is this: Finding Iraq's W.M.D.'s is necessary
> to
> >preserve the credibility of the Bush team, the neocons, Tony Blair
> and the
> >C.I.A. But rebuilding Iraq is necessary to win the war. I won't
> feel one
> >whit more secure if we find Saddam's W.M.D.'s, because I never felt
> he
> >would use them on us. But I will feel terribly insecure if we fail
> to put
> >Iraq onto a progressive path. Because if that doesn't happen, the
> >terrorism bubble will reinflate and bad things will follow. Mr.
> Bush's
> >credibility rides on finding W.M.D.'s, but America's future, and
> the
> >future of the Mideast, rides on our building a different Iraq. We
> must not
> >forget that.
> >
> ><http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/04/opinion/04FRIE.html>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/04/opinion/04FRIE.html
>
>
> ****************************************************
> Harry Pollard
> Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles
> Box 655   Tujunga   CA   91042
> Tel: (818) 352-4141  --  Fax: (818) 353-2242
> http://home.attbi.com/~haledward
> ****************************************************
>
>
 

Reply via email to