US, Israel prepare mass killings in Iraq

[Resistance]

interesting analysis here...

By Bill Vann, World Socialist Web Site

In preparation for the new counterinsurgency campaign, the US military has brought urban warfare specialists from the Israeli Defenses Force (IDF) to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the headquarters of the US Special Forces. They are training assassination teams in methods that the IDF has used to suppress Palestinian resistance to the Israel occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

There is an unmistakable irony in Washington’s turn to the Israeli “experts” on repression. Within the last month, four former heads of Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security agency that directs so-called anti-terrorist operations, as well as the current chief of staff of the Israeli military have all warned that the iron-fisted repression employed in the occupied territories by the right-wing Zionist regime of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is preparing a social and military catastrophe.

There is no reason to believe that the deployment of Israeli-trained US military death squads in Iraq combined with the other illegal means of repression already in use by the occupation authorities will not generate a similar increase in support for the resistance among broad layers of the Iraqi population. Far from extricating American troops from the quagmire created by Bush’s policy, the resort to these murderous tactics will only deepen the conflict in Iraq.

Many of the leading figures in the Bush administration, who planned the Iraq war and continue to direct the occupation, have the closest political connections to the right-wing Likud government in Israel and are politically blind to the bankruptcy of Sharon’s strategy of repression.

[Muddleoftheroad]

1. Ah, WSWS

The Mad Magazine of political commentary. Ever the incendiary just to score whacko points.

[drdon326]

2. "The Mad Magazine of political commentary"

now thats really funny.

[Resistance]

27. so, mass killings don't bother you

but the existence of a website with socialist outlook does?

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. I don't see plans for mass killings, I see mass marketing

And I don't care if they want to call themselves socialists or communists or Ralph Laurenists, but when they run ridiculous and offensive headlines and create news through inference, then I care.

[bluesoul]

31. I find a lot of offensive headlines

from Jpost and other RW sources here aimed at Arabs (Palestinians) too...

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. Then feel free to comment on them

I used to read WSWS to get a take on how folks further to the left were thinking, but I found much of it so whacko I couldn't stomach it. This article and headline fall into that category.

[Resistance]

33. well now you know what 'further left folks' think

congratulations.

What about this particular article is so whacko that you can't stomach?

Most is based in truth; although I can understand that the truth is difficult to stomach.

[Blitz]

46. "Most is based in truth"

LOL

[Resistance]

51. Did you think some parts were false?

Which ones

[Violet_Crumble]

34. What did you find so whacko in this particular article?

n/t

[sushi]

43. So you think the headline

is offensive. Is everything in the article untrue?

[number6]

3. will see, ..I hope not.

but I wouldn't be suprised by it.

and I like Mad Magazine there's alot of satirical truth in it.
:smoke: like J.I. Joke, seen that ??

[Gimel]

4. Source in question

Is this article from an approved source?

[bluesoul]

5. LOL

Jpost, Fox&Corkum and all those RW sources are "approved" yet you question a one from the left?

[Gimel]

6. It's a little

far left from left. Like way out there. LOL yourself

[bluesoul]

7. So?

Sometimes that's a good thing, considering the mainstream has moved to the right! That's the whole problem! And then you're "far to the left" for not agreeing with the RW position that dominates the big media. No wonder the situation is as it is in the USA. I guess as a European liberal, I must be "far to the left" considering what the left is considered in some cases. Ah well...

[Resistance]

23. truth is bias, bluesoul

bias is truth. war is peace.

So many of us Americans don't have much of a clue what is going on in the world, I am sad to say.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. We Americans might not be so far gone

We recognized biased in this article for example.

[Resistance]

36. congratulations

you recognized a bias towards human rights, justice, and peace.

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. More like a bias toward propaganda

"US, Israel prepare mass killings in Iraq"

What BS.

[Resistance]

53. actually it's the truth

It has been widely reported; much less so in the American elite news, of course.

[Gimel]

28. You can say that

again. To make a claim like the title of this article is to play right into that naivety.

[Resistance]

37. what is wrong with the title of the article?

[Resistance]

38. Gimel

I'm offering you a chance to explain, thanks.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

52. The Weakness Of the Headline Is Simple, Mr. Resistance

"Assassination" and "mass killing" are seperate and contradictory concepts. The one is retail and the other wholesale, so to speak. A person who conflates the two is a muddled thinker for certain, and almost as certain is attempting to inflame rather than inform. That latter motive is often encountered in the World Socialist publication: it is a mere propagandist's rag, and not even particularly good at its chosen vocation. Its efforts will never persuade anyone who does not already agree wholly with its views, and will convince a great number of readers who incline somewhat towards the left that they are in the presence not of fellow-spirits but of mindless rotters who give the left a bad name.

[Resistance]

55. Look

Are there mass killings going on? (yes)

Is Israel involved? (yes)

The headline states exactly what is taking place, unlike the real propagandist's publications and sources you find in the news of American elites.

[Muddleoftheroad]

56. What a joke

Israel is there as a U.S. ally helping train some U.S. soldiers. The headline of "mass killings" is both offensive and outlandish -- exactly what the world has come to expect from WSWS.

[drdon326]

58. Aw c'mon Muddle...

lets just move on to Rachel....hell, we're going to get
there anyway.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Can you please stop speaking for the entire world?

I actually think WSWS at times provides some very good articles. While I think some are silly, I in no way have come to expect offensive and outlandish from WSWS, but what would I know being a socialist and all, hey? When it comes to outlandish and offensive, I don't have to go any further than some of the right-wing rags that I see touted as being credible sources...


Violet...

[bluesoul]

60. You can say that again

Violet!

[Muddleoftheroad]

62. Credible sources

I never see anything here LESS credible than the crap at WSWS.

[Violet_Crumble]

64. And yr entitled to YOUR opinion...

Just please stop trying to portray it as the opinion of the entire world, because it's not. You think Gamla and Arutz Sheva are less credible than WSWS? Got lots of examples to offer up of why it's less credible than those sites?


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

65. I said nothing is LESS credible than WSWS

Didn't say it was worse than them.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. Okay...

Care to provide some examples of why they're not less credible than WSWS? Actually, I'm a tad surprised that you've got time to read WSWS on any sort of regular basis to be making these sorts of critiques of it. There ya go! Learn something new every day! ;)

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

69. I used to read WSWS all the time

It is useful to know where a segment of the population stands.

But it reached a point where I couldn't stand it any longer.

[Resistance]

70. The headline "mass killing" is appropriate

are there mass killings going on?

Yes or no.

[The Magistrate]

78. Hyperbole Does Not Help You, Mr. Resistance

"Mass Killing", as most people would understand the term, is in fact not going on in Iraq, unless you wish to count some of the attacks of the resistance fighters that have killed large numbers at once, such as at the United Nations headquarters. Incidents of combat, in which more than a few persons are killed, are a different concept: death in battle may be of massive quantity, but the term has a perjorative and criminal meaning in general usage and understanding, denoting the killing of a great number all at once, in close physical proximity, and usually for no purpose but cruel sport. It is a common propagandist's technique to attempt such semantic blendings; it is one of the pug-marks by which they can be recognized.

An assasination team, by definition, does not engage in mass killing, but in attempts to kill a single person, in theory at least selected as an important element of an enemy force, whether military or political. Such actions are wholly legitimate in a state of war, amounting to nothing more than sniper fire deployed more widely. The training involved, in this instance, will amount to nothing more than cultural familiarization, for the Israeli services have a good deal more practical knowledge of Arab situ than those of the U.S. do. The idea U.S. forces need instruction in killing itself is humorous in the extreme; they probably can use some coaching in insertion in this particular venue.

We may leave for later consideration what need there is to see a particular and egregious evil in "Israeli training", for that would tread onto interesting ground indeed. Israel is, after all, hardly synonomous with Satan and his legions....

[bluesoul]

80. And Palestinians

are also hardly synonomous with Satan and his legions as some would like us to believe (Islamofascist rant)

[Gimel]

114. There are none

There are no mass killings going on. The correct answer is no. There are many deaths reported, individual deaths. This article points to training for a future operation. Therefore, there is no relevance to the present nature of the conflict.

Israel was not involved in the "Operation Phoenix" assassination program in Viet Nam. Israel had nothing to do with the Viet Nam conflict, so those deaths could in no way be traced to Israel, or the methods used be traced to Israel.

The Israeli assistance in training is aimed at limiting collateral damage. Assassination itself implies a single death.

Therefore, the title is misleading and inaccurate.

[Come Together]

134. The links to the Socialist Website

keep providing a 404, so I decided to go to the Communist Website...I mean, I didn't misunderstand; you weren't referring to National Socialism, were you?...here's a story you'll all just love:

"...helicopters were heard overhead as Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) entered neighborhoods here and curfews continued in Ramallah and Bethlehem..."

those wouldn't be the black helicopters so bothersome to US militia members, would they?



“For the first time on a concerted level you are hearing people reporting on the ground back to the media outlets in the U.S. reaching greater numbers of what’s really happening here from eyewitnesses,” Shapiro told the World.

what a surprise; the ISM's Adam Shapiro is here, too!


http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/1032/1/75/

[bpilgrim]

105. "a mere propagandist's rag" - what's your favorite?

and i would like to point out that coke sells ONE can at a time for only a BUCK but accounts for MASSIVE CONSUMPTION.

since know one can know the future for certain lets examine the past for guidance shall we?

how many KILLS did the TARGETED assasination program of the PHONEIX operation add up to in the end?

or how bout some recent history... how many iraqs have we killed in the past 6 months?
























who knows? no one is ALLOWED TO count.

as you were...

peace

[bpilgrim]

106. let's not forget the well known Mukhabarat

Iraqis plan to revive Mukhabarat
... Iraqis plan to revive Mukhabarat. ... Saddam's Mukhabarat is largely held
responsible for the disappearance and execution of about 780,000 Iraqis. ...
www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg04997.html

...


FOREIGN DESK | July 22, 2003, Tuesday
AFTER THE WAR: INTELLIGENCE; U.S. Said to Seek Help of Ex-Iraqi Spies on Iran

By NEELA BANERJEE with DOUGLAS JEHL (NYT) 1091 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 8 , Column 4

ABSTRACT - US reportedly is trying to resurrect parts of Iraqi intelligence service, particularly branch that monitored Iran; Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi says party officials have met with senior figures from Iran/Turkey branch of Mikhabarat, with full knowledge of US officials; Chalabi photo; regional experts question approaches, especially given US effort to de-Baathify Iraqi society (M)

more...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30911FB3D5B0C718EDDAE0894DB404482

peace

[The Magistrate]

108. This Tid-Bit, My Friend

Merely shows there are at least a few people involved competent to do their jobs. This is true on two levels.

First, Hussein had excellent intelligence concerning Iran, of necessity, for it was deeply hostile to him. Adding this knowledge to the assets of U.S. intelligence services would be of some benefit, as the Iranian regime is rather hostile to the U.S. as well. You will doubtless be aware the original East European and Soviet assets of the fledgling C.I.A. were those of the former Sicherheitdienst, cultivated during the war. It saves a lot of time.

Second, the members of Hussein's intelligence services possess the skills needed to make real trouble for the occupation. If left with time on their hands and no income, they will be more likely to turn these skills to doing just that. From the point of view of the occupier, it is much better to have them on the payroll, and to know where they might be found at any given moment in consequence --- provided of course no degree of trust whatever is reposed in them. It not only keeps them busy, it makes it easier to round them up at need.

[bpilgrim]

118. yeah, partnering up with the evil doers have served us well over the years

but my main point is the number of DEATHS their targeted onesie twosies caused over the years.

peace

[The Magistrate]

127. Those Are The Rules Of The Game, My Friend

Whether it is a good game, or one worth playing, are seperate questions: my own view, on both, is that it is not. Still, being familiar with the rules, it seems worth recognizing when it is being done well as well as when it is being done poorly. In this sort of thing, incompetence generally does the most harm.

[bpilgrim]

129. yeah, some game

i'm sure the folks on the front line don't see it as such.

talk about poor choice of words.

i'm just glad this stuff is getting reported and discussed.

:hi:

peace

[The Magistrate]

107. "Skeptic" Magazine, Mr. Pilgrim, Is About My Favorite Journal

My knowledge does not extend to the degree of vertical integration maintained by the Coca Cola company, but it would surprise me very much if the product was not out of the firm's hands several steps before it appears in your neighborhood soda outlets.

"Pheonix" accounted for thousands of deaths over the years of its implementation; it was a very poorly aimed effort, as much of the intelligence it acted on was provided by the Viet Cong itself.

In the period since last June, there have doubtless been several hundred Iraqis killed by U.S. forces in varying circumstances, ranging from fire-fights to road-block incidents to sweeps against the guerrilla opposition.

Precision in language, my friend, is admittedly something of a hobby-horse of mine, but it is a thing that seems of real importance to me. Deliberate blurring of meaning is invariably the product of intent to deceive, and cannot contribute anything good. It is dangerous, in the long term, to win people to your side by deception, for they may well come to see through it eventually, and react vigorously against you. Further, people learn to recognize the form of deception, and can often perceive a speaker is attempting to decieve them even about a thing they know little of themselves, and when speech displays the common traits of deception, will simply reject without any further thought all the speaker says. Nothing, therefore, can really be gained by the attempt, except perhaps applause from the like-minded. This ought not to form much of the motivation for radical discourse.

[bemildred]

109. Indeed Sir.

Precision in language is one of the glories of English.
He who strives to blur the meaning of words only strives
to make himself stupid. Since words are what we think
with, if they are dull, so are we.

Edit: It is still, for the most part, a dumb thing to do.

[bpilgrim]

119. evil DU'ers favorite - good choice

and the apropriate mindset to have regarding everything comming from this admin.

and my point above was that TARGETED killing doesn't mean it won't be on a massive scale as history has shown, CONTRARY to the one you were making indignantly.

the PHONEIX program racked up over 40 thousand and the Iraqi Secret Police racked up hundreds of thousands.

though as to how many currently we are KILLING no one can say fer sure because we don't do body counts so you and i have NO CLUE whats REALLY going on now do we.

so, i guess we will just have to wait and see.

peace

[bemildred]

122. 2c

The headline does, IMHO, indulge in a bit of hyperbole,
unnecessary hyperbole at that, in that the implication of
"mass killing" is dragged into the discussion by a (not
entirely inappropriate) comparison with things done in
VietNam. They would be better off to focus on the intent
of the thing as it stands.

The underlying theory of these things is decapitation, that
is, that there is an small control apparatus to the resistance
and that it can be decapitated, thus immobilizing the
resistance. That the Phoenix program wound up killing as many
as it did is an indication of just how flawed that theory is
and just how badly it failed and just how clueless and desperate
the military planners in Iraq are at this point. In a way, it
is not their fault, this is all they know, and they have been asked
to fix a problem for which they are not the appropriate tool.

None of this is to be taken as an indication that I approve of
any of this stupidity, it's just that the article would make it's
case better to the unconvinced if it skipped "mass killing", as
it is a wave-the-bloody-shirt kind of thing in the context.

Of course, if their intent is propaganda for the faithful then
it is fine.

[Gimel]

123. I like your honesty

You always give an honest analysis, bemildred. Although I don't always agree with you, you at least are not prone to propagandize every bit of data.

[bemildred]

124. Aw shucks.

(kicks a pebble)

[The Magistrate]

126. Mr. Mildred Is An Excellent Fellow, Ma'am

Wise and subtle....

[Gimel]

128. Blush

I hope I haven't violated any rules in my comment. It pays to be subtle sometimes.

[drdon326]

8. Like this one, bluesoul??

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000236.html

[bluesoul]

9. Oh yes, your beloved

Fox&Corkum... When did they ever show any Arab in a positive light? Probably never,since they'r as anti-Arab and anti-Muslim as possible. Like their friends LGF, same old ....

[drdon326]

10. My bad....

I *REALLY* thought you would like it. Sorry.

[bluesoul]

12. I have no love for Sadam

but then I don't have any love for an illegal war based on lies led by the Bush gang either that killed several thousand innocent Iraqi civilians. Or for people like Sharon for that matter...

[Blitz]

47. I like this one

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000227.html

[Blitz]

49. This one is also good

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000216.html

BTW, have you noticed that Cox & Forkum skewer Bush with some regularity?

[Resistance]

131. thanks for posting the right-wingnut cartoons

It's really, uh, appreciated here.

[JohnLocke]

133. Heh-heh. Great link, Don.

:toast: :toast:

[Gimel]

11. The use of terms such as

"Zionist regime" are specifically forbidden by the rules for I/P. Of course, the Mods may approve this, so I'll leave it to them.

This line I view as blatantly false also:
"used to suppress Palestinian resistance to the Israel occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip".

The "methods" that are used in the West Bank are to combat terrorism, and to arrest terrorists. With all the errors that have been made, the deaths of innocents in collateral effects has harmed Israel's image, and complicated the task at hand. The task is not to maintaim an occupation, as the quoted phrase implies, but to root out terrorism.

The title of the piece:
"US, Israel prepare mass killings in Iraq" is further indication of it's extreme bias.

[VT70]

13. Well,

nothing much to add here, Gimel, you summarized it pretty well. I concur.

[bluesoul]

14. Just as much as branding every Palestinian

as a terrorist, a common practice among some, right?

[GabysPoppy]

15. Of course you have proof of this - n/t

[bluesoul]

16. Enough proof

worldwide...

[GabysPoppy]

17. Sorry, not good enough

You have made a statement, now please stand by it.

[bluesoul]

18. Gee do I really have to explain

There are people worldwide (bigots) that consider any Palestinian a terrorist or any Arab for that matter and think they should be delt with nuking. Ever heard of them (freepers and their likes elsewhere) You're surprised to know there are such people around in not so small numbers?

[GabysPoppy]

19. So then you exclude anyone on DU?

[bluesoul]

20. I don't know everyone on DU and their views

but for those at I/P, I couldn't say that anyone has such extremist views, luckily..

[GabysPoppy]

21. I may have to remind you of that later if you don't mind

[bluesoul]

22. Nope

I don't mind...

[Violet_Crumble]

25. I can easily point you to some evidence...

Unfortunately it involves linking to posts from now-banned posters in this forum and I suspect that's against the rules. I don't really understand why yr asking bluesoul questions like that seeing as you've been here as long as I have and seen them come and go at times...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

26. I just checked and all that was said about zionism was...

"Please exercise extreme caution and sensitivity when using the words "anti-Semitism" or "Zionism." There is a wide range of opinion on the meaning of these words. If you must use them, please make sure your intended meaning is clear."

Maybe I've missed the specific reference to "Zionist regime"? If so, can you show me, because I'm a bit lost as to why that particular reference would be specifically barred from use....


Also, the methods used in the Occupied Territories are without a doubt done for the most part done in order to maintain the occupation. While Israel's claim is that it's done in order to root out terrorism, Israel's definition of what is and isn't terrorism is extremely suspect because they refer to legitimate resistance as terrorism (eg attacks on military targets). Also, error can not be used as an excuse for the deaths of so many innocent Palestinians. I think it's much more realistic to view it as negligence because it's abundantly clear that the safety of civilians isn't an issue at all for the IDF when it's doing it's 'rooting out terrorism' routine...

Violet...

[Gimel]

29. evidence shows

that a majority of terrorist attacks by what some call "militant groups" are targeting civilians. Just check the data, which I'm sure you've seen many times and know where the links are. It doesn't matter in the least what the terminology is. Attacks on military targets have been very few during the past three years.

You might have missed this point in the rules for I/P:

Do not use the term "Zionist" to mean "Jew" or "Israeli." Do not use the term "Jew" to mean "Israeli".

Therefore, refering to Israel's democratic government as "zionist" is forbidden, imo.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. You didn't appear to address the point...

And my point was that Israel calls ALL resistance terrorism and labelled legitimate attacks on military targets as terrorism. It doesn't matter how few or many they are. The fact is that Israel has taken the term terrorism and adapted it for their own use to include legitimate resistance...

No, I didn't miss that point in the rules. It's just that yr claim was that an article using the term 'zionist regime' is specifically forbidden by the rules. Interpreting something as 'this=that=this other thing which leads to this particular rule so imo it's forbidden' isn't particularly specific. Also, I thought the rules apply to *us* with what we post in our posts, which explains why some people post articles from places like Arutz Sheva which contain things in articles that we ourselves would have posts deleted for saying. I sense from the posts earlier in the thread that there's some desire for articles from socialist websites to be banned from this forum. I'm wondering to myself why the same hoo-haa hasn't been made over conservative sources by these same people. It's just that as a progressive I come here to read articles from progressive sources, socialist sites included. While conservative sources do supply some entertainment value, I think if WSWS were not to be an 'approved source', then why should things like Arutz Sheva and some of those others be 'approved sources'?

Violet...

[Gimel]

40. No need to explain how

If the IDF encounters live fire from Palestinians who just happen to shoot at them while they are searching for terror suspects (those know to have commited acts of terror) and shoots to kill those who are shooting at them, does it matter? Does it matter that they are identified also as members of IJ or Hamas? Are you saying that even in that case they should be treated as legitimate combatants and be viewed differently than say if they were actually shooting at civilians? Civilians don't shoot back, and terrorists should be brought to justice. Who will bring them to justice if not the military?

[sushi]

42. I'm thinking of the

members of the IDF who refuse to serve because they can't take it anymore!

[Gimel]

121. I'm sure that is so

But it proves nothing in this case. I don't think I could take it either.

[Resistance]

132. I am glad to know

you couldn't take being ordered to murder innocent people.

I couldn't either.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Attacks on military targets ARE legitimate resistance...

There is no disputing that at all. You haven't given any sort of argument as to why any resistance at all should be viewed as terrorism. Don't you understand the sheer hypocricy of people who conveniently try to blur the lines between legitimate (military) and illegitimate (civilian) targets in order to call it all terrorism? I can explain it to you if you really don't understand the problems with it...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

57. Terror groups

Terror groups target civilians. If you are a member of that group, you are a terrorist. If you defend such terrorists militarily, you take on their title as your own.

[Violet_Crumble]

61. Are you claiming that attacks on military targets are terrorism?

Muddle, go back and read my original post on this. How on earth did that morph from: 'While Israel's claim is that it's done in order to root out terrorism, Israel's definition of what is and isn't terrorism is extremely suspect because they refer to legitimate resistance as terrorism (eg attacks on military targets).' to 'If you defend such terrorists militarily, you take on their title as your own.'? Are you trying to say that attacks on legitimate military targets are terrorism because the attacks are carried out in order to defend terrorists?

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

63. Defense of terror groups is terror

I am not talking about attacks, I am talking about defending terror groups militarily. If Israel moves against such monsters and you pick up a gun to guard them, then you are a terrorist.

[Violet_Crumble]

66. Yes, Muddle. You've already said that...

Can you please back up a bit and read what I said, which is after all, what you attempted to respond to. I'm not quite sure why you've decided not to address what I said but to talk about something else...

I'll ask you again. Do you consider attacks on military targets to be terrorism?


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

71. No, I've said that before

However, an attack on a military target BY a member of a terror organization is still a terrorist attack.

[Resistance]

73. which terrorist organization you talking about?

The IDF or Hamas

[MikeGalos]

74. The one

that believes that the Jews secretly run the world through the Lions Club, the Rotary Club and the Freemasons. The one's who think "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" is an actual secret document smuggled out of the worldwide Jewish Conspiracy.

Care to defend these right-wing, religious-fanatic, violent nuts in any way?

[bluesoul]

75. Mike

Does "these right-wing, religious-fanatic, violent nuts in any way?" refer to Sharon and the RW government of his and the fanatics in Israel as well?

[MikeGalos]

77. Not even in the same league

Sharon and the Likud may be right wing by Israeli standards but here in the US, they'd be considered a leftist party. They are so far from Hamas that they shouldn't even be measured on the same scale.

To get an idea of Hamas, picture the KKK, the National Alliance and all the US Right Wing Militias combining together and accepting only the most right-wing, xenophobic and hate-filled of their teachings. Now add vast international funding, very significant weapons supplies and training and a happiness to kill for their cause.

Hopefully you won't confuse the two again.

[bluesoul]

79. Sharon and the Likud are considered

"leftist"? LOL, in what world? Do you know what liberal/progressive means? Sharon and Likud are very much to the right, some people are even the extreme right (with proposals of eliminating Palestinians, shoving them all into Jordan etc). Now I really do see the problem here. You consider Sharon to be close to what progressive/leftist ideas stand for while many of us couldn't disagree more. From "peace fence", "Man of peace" to now a leftist. Oh my, the the word spin has just gotten a new meaning...

[MikeGalos]

83. By US political standards they would be

Do you really think the US right wing would support a national trade union organization, fully socialized health care, equal rights regardless of gender, race, religion or sexual orientation, fair distribution of taxes even to the rich and corporations. Hate to break it to you but Israel has all that. The Republicans don't support most of that and neither do most Democratic candidates.

If you weren't so ignorant of Israeli politics, you'd see that although Likud is really right-wing for Israeli politics, by comparison with Bush or even with the DNC, they're leftists.

Of course, seeing how Arafat isn't in favor of most of that, I'd have to ask you why you aren't calling him a right-wing reactionary since the PA government is considerably to the right of the Likud party and actually fairly far to the right of Bush.

[Darranar]

86. Of course Israe's domestic policies are more...

left-wing then that of the US. However, the main reason the Likud keeps them in place is because there would be little support for moves against it.

Have you heard about Netanyahu's privatization plans?

[MikeGalos]

88. So you admit

that Israel (and even Likud) are a leftist government by US standards.

Frankly, we'd all love a government in the US that was as "right-wing" as you claim Israel has. It'd be the most left-wing government we'd have ever elected.

Kucinich is right-wing by comparison to Sharon.

[Darranar]

92. You're only considering domestic policies...

which have been in place for years. The Likud has little love for them, and would remove them if they could.

Kucincih was against the Iraq war, condemned the Israeli wall, and attacked Bush for his handling of Afghanistan. A Kucinich Administration would begin implementing the same policies domestically that Israel has had for years.

But this is not the GD - 2004 Primary forum, and I am not about to defend the American political system.

The Likud is a right-wing party when it comes to foreign policy and defense.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

96. Er..

Sharon supported the Iraq war. Kucinich did not.

Sharon supports Bush's vision of the Middle East. Kucinich does not.

I don't see how being anti-war could somehow be equated to being anti-Israel...

And do you seriously believe that if Sharon was elected President of the US (impossible according to the Constitution, but that's not the point) he would implement the left-wing economic policies of Israel, even if he had a Congress that would go along with it?

[MikeGalos]

98. I won't speculate

on Sharon running the US or Kucinich running Israel because both are unknowable and silly.

I DO know that for every equivalent policy, Likud is to the left of the DNC, the RNC and the Greens.

Deal with it.

[Darranar]

100. So how is supporting the Iraq war "left-wing"?

How is working against those economic policies you claim make them so left-wing left-wing?

And how are they to the left of the Greens?

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

104. No, it does not...

What does that have to do with anything? My point was simply that they are not to the left of Kucinich and the Greens on every issue aside from "anti-Israelism". That was your claim.

You also ignored my other two questions.

[bluesoul]

113. Sharon and Likud are left wing!?!?

Ahahaha, that's a good one! Jeezus no wonder then... :crazy:

[Violet_Crumble]

116. I've also been told...

..that JPost is a moderate liberal newspaper. It's about as bizarre a claim as calling Sharon and the Likud party 'centrist' or more to the left than Kucinich. The only thing I've agreed with that I've read in these posts has been that Israeli politics is probably more to the left than politics in the US, but that's nothing special, because the same can be said for politics in many other countries. What is totally wrong is to claim that Likud isn't a conservative party. They are. I know Mike's keen on us.israel.org, so here's what that site has to say about Likud:

"The Likud (Union) was formed by the joining together of Free Center, Laam and Gahal in preparation for the 1973 elections, the Likud has become one of Israel’s major conservative parties.

"http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Politics/LikudParty.html



Violet...

[bluesoul]

117. Violet

I guess we liberals here in Europe must be "far off to the left" to consider Sharon and Likud right-wing! ;)

[Violet_Crumble]

120. Blue-soul...

Same as us Labor voters here in Australia, I guess! ;)

Violet...

[Gimel]

110. This is right on

the money. Likud is more centrist, and domestic policies are quite social program oriented.

[Gimel]

112. Some people

Right. Some people other than Likud. Those statements were made by members of Moledet, not Likud.

[Darranar]

82. No, it is not...

a terrorist attack any more than an incursion commanded by a war criminal is a war crime.

[Darranar]

67. No, it is not terrorism...

because it does not target innocent civilians.

And what exactly is "defending terror groups"? If someone is fighting Israeli incursions, is that "defending terror groups"? Or is it fighting against the occupation forces?

[Muddleoftheroad]

72. Defending terror groups is indeed terror

It is part of their operation. If you do the accounts or know you are hiding terrorists and do it anyhow, those are terrorist acts.

If the Israelis move against terrorists and Palestinians try to stop them then yes that is a terror act. Perhaps the Palestinians might go after the terrorists first, then they could argue Israel's attacks were unwarranted.

[Darranar]

81. No, it is not...

Any active duty Israeli soldier - regardless of what he's doing - is a legitimate target. Attacking them is not terrorism.

Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians for a political purpose. It is that and nothing else.

[MikeGalos]

84. If it is an actual war

then that is true. And it is also true by those same rules that Israel attacking any military target even located inside a civilian population center is a legitimate target.

Face it, if it IS an actual war, Israel is showing insane restraint.

If it is NOT an actual war, then the PA supported terrorist are just cold blooded murderers even when they kill military people.

[Darranar]

85. 'Insane restraint'?

How is it 'restraint', and how is it 'insane'?

[MikeGalos]

87. If it were an actual war

It wouldn't be a case of knocking down empty houses. It would be a real war. Over in a week or two with total destruction of the enemies' war making capabilities and war-related infrastructure.

If you really think that is what Israel's been doing, you've never seen a real war. Compare the death and destruction in Baghdad to tearing down empty houses and maybe you'd have a clue.

So, pick which rules you think apply:

War: Israel's showing restraint. The PA's comitting war crimes.
Not War: Israel's responding to a massive crime wave. The PA's supporting mass murder.

[Darranar]

89. The difference...

is that Israel's leaders, though they may be fools, are not completely insane.

Trying to wage a war similar to the invasion in Iraq would be a disaster and would accomplish next to nothing, aside from high casualties and tremendous damage. The IDF is actually carrying out a counterinsurgency campaign, which is quite different, though not so much more effective towards stopping the conflict and creating a situation where both peoples live in peace and security.

You still have not explained why Israel's "restraint" is insane.

[MikeGalos]

90. If it were an actual war

Showing this restraint would be insane.

Propping up your opponent's government while they're at war with you? Nuts

Keeping your borders open? Nuts

Allowing foreign nationals to work in your country? Nuts

Providing health care to your enemies' population? Nuts

Not destroying all your enemies' military forces? Nuts

Not destroying your enemies' infrastructure? Nuts

But, apparently you want Israel to sit back and treat this as some harmless demonstrations while the Palestinians treat it as a declared war. Sorry. Pick one.

[MikeGalos]

91. And mostly

Spending years negotiating a settlement against people who don't want peace rather than forcing your enemy to surrender and accepting peace terms you find enforceable.

[Darranar]

93. Uh...

you are misunderstanding me.

This is not a war between Israel and the PA.

This is a war between Israel and the terrorist groups, as well as a variety of other insurgents. yes, there is a difference.

Israel IS trying to destroy their infrastructure and military forces.

[MikeGalos]

95. You mean those same terrorist groups

that Arafat refuses to arrest?

Those same terrorist groups that Arafat funds out of his "cash only" unaudited, unaccounted payrolls to the "Police" and out of his monopolies on trade that are also unaudited? (Estimates are that PA government funds siphoned off for terrorist salaries alone is over US$500,000 per month.)

Those same terrorists who ran bomb factories inside PA Government prison cells (with the cell doors unlocked)

Those same terrorist who were to recieve the weapons on the Arafat approved, PA government funded Karine-A weapons smuggling ship?

Those terrorists who work for Arafat?

(Oh, and if Israel wanted to destroy the PA infrastructure, it'd all be gone within two days.)

[Darranar]

97. Please expand on how the terrorists are working for Arafat...

Some relatively unbiased sources backing some of that up would be helpful, too.

[MikeGalos]

99. Tell me what YOU consider unbiased in a source

and I might but I don't feel like playing "I don't like the facts so I'll attack your sources to hide the truth".

[Darranar]

101. Note that I used the term "relatively unbiased"...

Any source that generally reports the facts and does not blatantly slant and distort the facts would be acceptable in my view.

[MikeGalos]

103. Can you give some examples

that actually are mainstream?

Just trying to figure out what YOU mean by it. (preferably not with other vague terms)

[Gimel]

115. Resistance

Resistance to operations that are searching for and arresting terrorists is not legitimate resistance. It is resistance in support of terrorism. Now do you understand?

[Resistance]

135. every atrocity is justified

because we're fightin' terra-ists! Fight fight fight!

[brainshrub]

44. Israel isn't Zionist?

I thought it was. :shrug:

[Resistance]

45. it can get confusing can't it

:D

[Blitz]

48. Let me simplify for you

I'm a zionist. You can refer to me as such without fear. I would consider it a compliment.

[MikeGalos]

76. Actually, Israel's a Social Democracy

While most people there support Zionism, Israel actually has free elections and even people who think Israel shouldn't exist can vote, run for office and hold seats in the government.

And, yes, there are Members of the Knesset who support the dismantling of Israel and they're backed by citizens of Israel who agree with that policy as well. They're clearly not Zionist but they are Israeli.

You see, unlike the Palestine Authority where citizenship is declared to only become available to one ethnic group, Israel supports a plural society with equal rights even if you disagree with the government.

So, no, Israel is NOT Zionist - but lots of Israelis (and lots of the rest of us) are.

Clearer now?

[number6]

50. from the Guardian

Israel trains US assassination squads in Iraq


http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1102869,00.html

Israeli advisers are helping train US special forces in aggressive counter-insurgency operations in Iraq, including the use of assassination squads against guerrilla leaders, US intelligence and military sources said yesterday.

US forces in Iraq's Sunni triangle have already begun to use tactics that echo Israeli operations in the occupied territories, sealing off centres of resistance with razor wire and razing buildings from where attacks have been launched against US troops.

snip snip

[newyorican]

111. How Israeli Intelligence led the US and the UK to launch on Iraq

By Richard H. Curtiss

It’s no secret that much of the news reported in Israel’s Hebrew-language media never reaches the mainstream American press, for the simple reason that items unfavorable to Israel generally are not translated. And, because very few Israelis break this self-imposed censorship, items from the Hebrew press that do appear may be much more newsworthy than their anemic English translations indicate.

It was a bit stunning, therefore, to read an article in Strategic Assessment, the quarterly bulletin issued by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. The report, titled “The War in Iraq: An Intelligence Failure?” was written by Shlomo Brom, a brigadier general in the Israeli Army reserves, and said what no one seems to have dared publish since President George W. Bush decided to wage war on Iraq. Shockingly, it told the full truth about the American and British intelligence “sources” making the case for war.

In fact, according to Brom, these sources were utterly compromised by Israeli intelligence, which made the case for starting the war and kept it going as long as necessary. The retired general described Israel as a “full partner” in US and British intelligence failures that exaggerated Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs in the lead up to the US-led invasion.

more...

[newyorican]

125. Original Source Article:

The War in Iraq: An Intelligence Failure?

by Shlomo Brom

(snip)
The prevailing supposition over the past decade was that despite the discoveries made by the UN supervisory commissions, Iraq had managed to hide operational equipment, such as surface-to-surface missiles, shells, and warheads loaded with biological and chemical warfare agents. However, all the searches carried out have failed to turn up evidence of the existence of such weapons. It can also be concluded that because weapons of this type are much bulkier and heavier than documents and small items related to projects, it would have been necessary in hiding them to involve a significant number of people. This suggests, therefore, that no operational weapons were hidden, or that if they were hidden, the concealment was on a much smaller scale.

The emergent picture has thus sparked demands within the United States and Britain to establish commissions of inquiry to investigate the performance of intelligence bodies in the context of the Iraq War. Moreover, a critical question to be answered is whether governmental bodies falsely manipulated the intelligence information in order to gain support for their decision to go to war in Iraq, while the real reasons for this decision were obfuscated or concealed. Those demanding the inquiry contend that there are two basic issues that justify such a step: the need to assess the reliability and competence of the intelligence services, and the fact that sending a country to war based on false pretenses constitutes serious injury to the democratic process.

In the questioning of the picture painted by coalition intelligence, the third party in this intelligence failure, Israel, has remained in the shadows. And yet, Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq's non-conventional capabilities. In addition to an exaggerated assessment of Iraqi capabilities, it was also assessed that the Iraqis were apt to use these capabilities against Israel. In actuality, of course, Israel was not attacked, either because Iraq did not have the capability or because it had no intention of doing so.
(/snip)

http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v6n3p3Bro.html

[Resistance]

136. thanks newyorican

[drdon326]

130. kick

.