Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Follies who wrote (85566)	5/20/2002 1:29:33 PM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116815

Here's an interesting opinion of Thomas Sowell who writes regularly at jewishworldreview.com. Mideast madness newsandopinion.com \| Everyone seems to be clamoring for the United States to "do something" about the carnage in the Middle East. Demands for action are ringing out from the pacifists on the left to the "national greatness" crowd among the neo-conservatives on the right. Whether in domestic policy or foreign policy, few things have led to so many disasters as the notion that we have to "do something." No nation and no individual can simply do "something." Whatever action you take has to be specific -- and what matters are precisely those specifics and their specific consequences. The fact that American intervention has always hovered in the background of the relations between Israel and the enemies by which it is surrounded has itself made aggression against Israel safer than it would have been otherwise. In the absence of the prospect of outside intervention, anyone contemplating unleashing a wave of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians would have to think twice if that meant facing the unbridled fury of the Israeli military, unlimited in time or scope by outside pressures. Pacifist movements, "world opinion" and the prospect of intervention by either the U.S. or the U.N are an aggressor's ace in the hole. The force needed to deter aggression is often more than squeamish people can stand watching on their TV every day. When contemplating terrorist attacks, Arafat and the Palestinians know that it's usually a case of heads I win and tails I get saved by "world opinion." What does winning mean in this context? It means gaining a series of piecemeal concessions from launching successive attacks on the Israeli population, without ever having to grant peace and normal relations. It means destroying Israel on the instalment plan. If all it takes is talking peace in English and urging war in Arabic, why not? While we fight the war against terrorism all out, the way we fought World War II, we seem to be insisting that Israel fight its war against terrorism the way we fought Vietnam -- restricted by political considerations and pulling our punches to appease those who indulge themselves in kibitzing from the sidelines about life and death issues that they have never bothered to study seriously. People safely nestled in the Berkeley Hills or Parisian cafes can engage in moral preening about Middle Eastern problems, without having to worry about the consequences. For such people, pious phrases like "the peace process" or "trading land for peace" have great appeal. Too often, foreign policies have been made in response to such uninformed pieties that disregard brutal realities. Worse yet, foreign policy has too often in the past been dominated by a need for White House photo ops showing Israeli and Palestinian leaders shaking hands while the American president of the moment looked on, beaming. The latest round of suicide bombings of Israeli men, women and children are a tragic aftermath of the illusions behind the photo ops and the notion that Israel can exchange "land for peace." Land for peace has in practice meant land for promises. Perhaps Israel should have responded to this misleading phrase by saying: "You want land for peace? We agree! Give us six months of peace and we will turn over so many acres of land. Make that a whole year of peace and we will turn over so many square miles of land. And if you can behave like decent human beings for five consecutive years, we will give you enough land to have your own country. "However, if you start raising hell after that, we will send in our troops and tanks, to take back the land you got under false pretenses." Instead, the deal was that Israel would make the first concession by giving permanent land for promises of peace. Whatever proposals come out of current attempts at negotiating a Middle East settlement will undoubtedly expect Israel to first make concessions in hopes of later gaining the peace and security that it has been vainly seeking for more than half a century.

To: Follies who wrote (85566)	5/20/2002 4:05:35 PM
From: Enigma	Respond to of 116815

Dale the penny dropped - however I think that a dissident in Israel should have the same freedom as one in the States - you use the old debating trick of trying to divert attention away from the argument - which is there is serious dissent. No doubt there are dissenting Jews in the States - but one isn't hearing too much from them - yet - an exception being Richard Cohen.

To: Follies who wrote (85566)	5/27/2002 6:48:14 PM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116815

FYI&I:- Israel's 'army' of Palestinian informers It has lured many thousands to work as collaborators by offering them money or freedom in exchange for information JERUSALEM - Across the West Bank and Gaza Strip, many thousands of Palestinians have been co-opted as informers. Precise numbers of those on Israel's payroll are unknown but figures of up to 15,000 have been suggested by human rights groups, according to the Christian Science Monitor. Advertisement The groups said many of these informers were offered freedom in exchange for information. Israel's use of informants has prevented numerous suicide bombings. Yet in addition to enhancing Israeli security, collaboration has also developed a culture of suspicion such that anyone who runs a successful business or has access to hard-to-get permits is often suspected. Since the 1993 Oslo accords, which transferred chunks of the occupied territories to Palestinian Authority control, the recruitment of collaborators has become a crucial plank of Israel's security apparatus. The role begins simply - passing details of a neighbour's car number plate or place of work. As collaborators are drawn more deeply into the system they may be asked to infiltrate the highest levels of militant and political groups or set up targets for arrest and assassination. Israel has stepped up its policy of targeted assassination during this intifada, typically using collaborators to arrange the hit. 'Where would Israel be without collaborators?' asks Mr Moshe Kuperburg, a former agent with Shin Bet, Israel's internal security service, who recruited and ran a network of informers in the West Bank before retiring in 1999. Mr Saleh Abdul Jawwad, head of the political science department at Bir Zeit University near Ramallah, believes collaborator recruitment was one aim of Israel's recent offensive in the West Bank. Hundreds of Palestinian men were rounded up. The declared goal was to root out the militants among them, but Mr Jawwad says during interrogation many were offered opportunities to collaborate. 'In most countries you are detained or imprisoned because you do something wrong, or plan to,' he says. 'Here almost the entire adult male population has been through this experience. I see it as a kind of refinery for producing collaborators.' Both the human rights organisations including Israeli human rights group B'tselem and Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group have recorded testimonies from those with criminal records detailing how they were offered freedom in exchange for information, said the Monitor. Others were shown photographs of female relatives undressing in fashion store changing rooms, and told the images would be circulated unless they agreed to collaborate. 'There are many taboos in Palestinian society that create opportunities to pressure people into collaboration,' Mr Jawwad told the Monitor. Mr Kuperburg says his methods centred on disillusioning young militants against the organisations they joined by pointing out inconsistencies in the extremist rhetoric, or the failure of the groups to achieve the Palestinian state they claimed to be fighting for. Others were convinced by him that they could better help their people by working for Israel because of access to credentials that allowed freedom of movement. If all fails, there is always money: 'I make sure they know we are generous,' he says. Mr Kuperburg, a secular Jew who speaks fluent Arabic and was trained to impersonate a Palestinian using the undercover name 'Musa', often targeted junior members of militant organisations. 'Someone who is a good student, a moderate, we will leave him alone,' he says. 'But if he is radical, we can tell him he is living in a dream. Sometimes even if he does not become a collaborator the conversation can prevent a future attack.'