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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jcky who wrote (37046)	8/11/2002 3:08:19 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Pope backs Mid-East peace force Pope John Paul ll has lent his support to the creation of an international peacekeeping force to try to bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No one can remain indifferent in the face of this humanitarian drama Pope John Paul II In one of his strongest denunciations of the continuing violence, the Pope said the international community should take "a more determined role on the ground" to help bring about peace. Speaking to pilgrims at his summer residence in Castel Candolfo, near Rome, the pontiff called on political leaders on both sides to seek, what he called, "the path of honest negotiation". Hours before the pope delivered his impassioned plea, there was more bloodshed in the West Bank and Gaza: Israeli troops shot dead a Palestinian militant who opened fire on Israeli troops at a Jewish settlement in the northern Gaza Strip. Two Israeli soldiers were wounded by Palestinian gunfire in the West Bank town of Jenin, the Israeli army says. A Palestinian gunman killed an Israeli woman and seriously injured her husband at the West Bank settlement of Mechora. Israeli troops shot the attacker dead. Another Palestinian militant was shot dead by Israeli soldiers after trying to infiltrate Israel from the Gaza Strip with grenades strapped to his body Israeli Defence Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said on Sunday there was evidence that Israel's policy of destroying home belonging to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers was preventing potential attacks. He said there were a number of cases where parents of would-be suicide bombers had stopped their children from carrying out attacks through fear of losing their homes, Israel radio reported. Israel recently revived the controversial practice following a spate of suicide attacks. Call for dialogue In his address, the Pope said international mediation was required in order to create "the conditions for a fruitful dialogue between the two sides". Israel says house demolitions are deterring suicide attacks The BBC's Rome correspondent, David Willey, said the Pope was clearly offering his support to proposals for the creation of an international peacekeeping force. The Palestinians have long called for international protection, but the Israelis have rejected such proposals, saying a peacekeeping force would not stop attacks by Palestinian militants. The pope spoke of the "deathly spiral of revenge" that is afflicting the Holy Land, saying: "No one can remain indifferent in the face of this humanitarian drama." Violence no solution The Pope said he had been very concerned this summer at the almost daily episodes of violence in the Middle East which had cost the lives of so many men and women. The Pope said force of arms will not bring peace "When will people realise that peaceful co-existence between Jews and the Palestinians can never be achieved through force of arms?" he asked. "Armed attacks, walls of separation and reprisals will never lead to a just solution of the present conflict." "The Pope", he went on - referring to himself in the third person as he often does - "suffers with those who are bereaved and he is near to the many innocent people paying the price for such violence." Pope John Paul visited Israel and the West Bank in March 2000, and has frequently used his sermons to call for peace in the region. WATCH/LISTEN ON THIS STORY The BBC's David Willey "He spoke of the deadly spiral of revenge" Key stories Looking for new ideas Suicide as a weapon US demands Palestinian disarray Arafat's successors? Eyewitness Suicide attack story Gazans kept apart Teenagers in uniform A family divided Background Running Palestine Intifada Q&A History of bomb blasts Country profiles FACTFILE Voices from the Conflict TALKING POINT What hope for peace? AUDIO VIDEO TV and Radio reports See also: 10 Aug 02 \| Middle East CIA hosts Mid East security talks 06 Aug 02 \| Middle East UN demands Israeli withdrawal 27 Mar 02 \| Middle East Mid-East 'needs peacekeeping force' 13 Nov 01 \| Middle East Amnesty calls for Mid-East observers 19 Jul 01 \| Middle East International observers for Mid-East? 19 Dec 00 \| Middle East UN rejects Mid-East peace force 23 Mar 00 \| Middle East Vatican's Mid-East balancing act Internet links: Israeli Government Palestinian Authority The Vatican The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites Top Middle East stories now: Pope backs Mid-East peace force Iran 'handed over al-Qaeda fighters' Syria frees dissident after 27 years Palestinian killed in Gaza gunfight

To: jcky who wrote (37046)	8/11/2002 11:10:18 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Do you mean like how the Israelis have a history of dragging Americans into the Mideast conflicts You mean, by our support of their existence? Yeah, like that. For sure the Mideast would have been peace and quiet without the Israelis. It must be Israel's fault that Lebanon had a civil war or Saddam invaded Kuwait, everything else is. Here are the sobering facts Numbers are useless, show me good intelligence reports. In 1967, the Arabs outnumbered the Israelis 3 to 1 in men, artillery, and tanks. But their armies worked miserably nonetheless. The intelligence I've seen says that Iraqi units, even the elite ones, are in tough shape. There's isn't much point in threatening an irrational mind, is there? It may be worth a shot even if you're not sure. You certainly don't want to announce that you won't retaliate for an attack, which is what you seem to want Sharon to do. That makes an attack on Israel a free option for Saddam. And you certainly don't find any credible experts asserting Saddam is irrational, do you? Pollack believes Saddam is a victim of his character pathology, not his irrationality. At a certain point, the difference between irrationality and character pathology becomes functionally indistinguishable. Another open question with Saddam is, what quality of information does he receive? It makes it very difficult to predict him, which is itself at the core of the interventionist argument. After 9/11, we are less willing to wait around and just see what he does. The first reason lies in the devastating counter-strike from either the US or Israel in the form of either nuclear weapons or overwhelming military force which would guarantee the destruction of his regime. It deterred him during the Gulf war, but has not deterred him into keeping the armistace agreement since. It is an arugment for needing an aggressive stance, and really immediate threats against Saddam. thought the hawks were intent on removing Saddam? So what if he's not alive and around? It's the regime we want to change, not just Saddam. What everyone has also failed to address, except briefly by tek, are the far reaching implications of Bush's cowboy diplomacy. The US has never employed a policy of pre-emptive war upon a nation which has never directly attacked us. Would this lower the threshold for aggressive confrontation by sub-superpower nations which are constantly picking a bone with each other (Pakistan and India, Israel and the entire Mideast, almost all of Africa, etc.)? And what does this imply about the credibility of America, a nation built on the rule of law, and the expectations we should police the world in an equitable manner? These are good questions and the strongest arguments for not preempting. But considering the Gulf War and the situation since then, Iraq is certainly not just any sovereign country. It is an aggressor in violation of its armistice agreement. It didn't keep its agreement, but forced us to stay there to enforce non-agression against SA and Kuwait, while Saddam failed to cooperate in every way he could manage without bringing war down on his head. This passes for triumph in the Arab world. Thus we are an "aggressor" in Arab eyes because we are in Iraq and SA, but we are a weak aggressor because Saddam thumbs his nose at us. It's the worst of all worlds for the US. And anytime we threaten to move, the world rushes to tie us down like Gulliver in Lilliput, the diplomats on one side and the terrorists raising the flame in Israel on the other. Cowboy diplomacy has its risks, but so does a weakened and retreating US. There is a certain diplomatic logic in "Crazier Than Thou", as Tom Friedman has pointed out.