SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (21287)12/23/2003 7:36:37 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 793688
 
Wow! Ilka Schroeder sure doesn't pull any punches. Good for her.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (21287)12/23/2003 7:45:04 PM
From: Lane3  Respond to of 793688
 
The complexities of the interrelationships and interests of the players in this are mind boggling.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (21287)12/24/2003 12:09:22 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793688
 
Things are heating up on the Nuclear front between Iran/Israel.


Iran warns Israel against striking nuclear reactor
JPost.com Staff Dec. 23, 2003

Iranian leaders warned Israel on Monday against an attack on the Muslim country's nuclear reactor, following remarks by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz last week, according to which Israel would not allow Iran to achieve nuclear capability.

"He made a damn mistake," Iranian president Mohammad Khatami said Monday Mofaz's statements the day before to the effect that Israel would take care not to harm Iranian citizens should a strike be launched against the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities.

On Sunday, Mofaz, of Iranian origin, spoke on Israel Radio's Farsi (Persian) weekly radio phone-in program broadcast to an audience of millions in Iran. Mofaz told listeners that, 'if deemed necessary, we will strike nuclear facilities in Iran."

Israel has said a nuclear Iran would pose a grave danger to the world and is urging the European Union and the international community to help halt a "nightmare scenario" from becoming reality.

Also responding to Mofaz's remarks, former Iranian President, Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani warned, 'our response will be severe.'

Two years ago, Rafsanjani said in a speech that the Islamic world wanted to obtain an atomic bomb for the purpose of wiping Israel off the map.

"Israeli attacks will be to no avail. The Iranian Islamic Republic will respond very harshly to a possible Israeli aerial strike. They will pay a heavy price. If Israel acts irrationally, it will not achieve anything, and they will regret it, Rafsancani told the Saudi Arabian newspaper Al-Riyadh.

The head of the Iranian air force General Seyed Reza Pardis said if Israel launches an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, it will be "digging its own grave," the Mehr news agency reported.

He later warned that an attack would have serious consequences beyond the imagination of the Israeli leaders.

Whether the Israeli threats are serious or not, he said, Iran's armed forces are fully prepared to defend sensitive sites and the country's airspace.

Neither confirming nor denying that it has nuclear weapons, Israel has been accepted as a nuclear power by the US since 1969. According to some experts, Israel has at least 200 nuclear weapons.

Israel bombed Iraq's French-built Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 destroying Iraqi hopes for producing nuclear weapons.

For months Israel has been trying to focus international attention on what it perceives is the real obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

Last month the head of Israel's overseas intelligence service said Iran's nuclear program posed the biggest threat to the existence of the Jewish state since its creation in 1948.

Last week Iran bowed to pressure from the international community by signing the additional protocol of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows intrusive snap inspections of its nuclear sites.
This article can also be read at jpost.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (21287)12/24/2003 1:37:19 AM
From: D. Long  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793688
 
In picturing Israelis and Jews as the perpetrators - it's very popular to hear in Europe, the Israelis have learned nothing, they behave like the Nazis - it's an export of history. It's the old anti-Semitism expressed in different ways.

VERY interesting idea.

Derek



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (21287)12/24/2003 6:16:22 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793688
 
It's always fun to start the Morning with Mark Steyn.

Europe's problem is that it's barren
By Mark Steyn
News Telegraph

'But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John."

If you're one of the increasing numbers of Britons who have "some problems with conventional organised religion" (as J K Rowling puts it), you've probably forgotten that bit from the Christmas story. It's Luke 1:13, part of what he'd have called the backstory, if he'd been a Hollywood screenwriter rather than a physician.

Only two of the gospels tell the story of Christ's birth. Mark plunges straight into the Son of God's grown-up life: he was writing for a Roman audience and, from their perspective, what's important is not where Jesus came from but what He did once He got going. But Matthew was writing for the Jews, and so he dwells on Jesus and His parents mainly to connect the King of the Jews with all that had gone before: he starts with a long family tree tracing Joseph's ancestry back to Abraham.

Like Mark, Luke was writing for a gentile crowd. But, like Matthew, he also dwelt on Jesus's birth and family. And he begins with the tale of two pregnancies: before Mary's virgin birth, he tells the story of her cousin Elisabeth: Zacharias is surprised to discover his impending fatherhood - "for I am an old man and my wife well stricken in years." None the less, an aged, barren woman conceives and, in the sixth month of Elisabeth's pregnancy, the angel visits her cousin Mary and tells her that she, too, will conceive.

If you read Luke, the virgin birth seems a logical extension of the earlier miracle - the pregnancy of an elderly lady. The physician-author had no difficulty accepting both. For Matthew, Jesus's birth is the miracle. Luke leaves you with the impression that all birth - all life - is to a degree miraculous and God-given.

There's a lot of that in the Old Testament, too, of course - going right back to Adam and Eve, and God's injunction to go forth and multiply. Or as Yip Harburg explained in his Biblical précis in Finian's Rainbow: "Then she looked at him And he looked at her And they knew immediately What the world was fer. He said 'Give me my cane.'
He said 'Give me my hat.'
The time has come To begin the Begat."

Confronted with all the begetting in the Old Testament, the modern mind says, "Well, naturally, these primitive societies were concerned with children. They needed someone to provide for them in their old age." In our advanced society, we don't have to worry about that; we automatically have someone to provide for us in our old age: the state.

But the state - at least in its modern European welfare incarnation - needs children as least as much as those old-time Jews did. And the problem with the European state is that, like Elisabeth, it's barren. Collectively barren, I hasten to add. Individually, it's made up of millions of fertile women, who voluntarily opt for no children at all or one designer kid at 39. In Italy, the home of the Church, the birthrate's down to 1.2 children per couple - or about half "replacement rate". You can't buck that kind of arithmetic.

Israel's doing the numbers, too. If it doesn't unload the "occupied territories" soon, Palestinians will do their sums, quit asking for their own state, and instead demand a one-man-one-vote arrangement for the state they're already in. Last week, in a speech on the country's demographic difficulties, Binyamin Netanyahu conceded: "We do have a demographic problem, but it is with the Arab Israelis."

"The day is not far off," replied Ahmad Tibi, an Arab member of the Knesset, "when Netanyahu and his cohorts will put up roadblocks at the entrances to Arab villages to tie Arab women's tubes and spray us with spermicide."

Mr Tibi is correct to this extent. The problem is not tying Arab tubes, but metaphorically untying Jewish tubes. It's remarkable that, having survived the Holocaust, the Jewish people should now be in danger of not surviving their survival of the Holocaust.

Demography is not necessarily destiny. Today's high Muslim birthrates will fall, and probably fall dramatically, as the Roman Catholic birthrates in Italy, Ireland and Quebec have. But demo-graphics is a game of last man standing. It's no consolation that Muslim birthrates will start falling in 2050 if yours are off the cliff right now. The last people around in any numbers will determine the kind of society we live in.

You can sort of feel that happening already. "Multiculturalism" implicitly accepts that, for a person of broadly Christian heritage, Christianity is an accessory, an option; whereas, for a person of Muslim background, Islam is a given.

That's why, as practised by Buckinghamshire County Council, multiculturalism means All Saints Church can't put up one sheet of A4 paper announcing tomorrow night's carol service on the High Wycombe library notice board, but, inside the library, Rehana Nazir, the "multicultural services librarian", can host a party to celebrate Eid.

To those of us watching from afar the ructions over the European constitution - a 1970s solution to a 1940s problem - it seems amazing that no Continental politician is willing to get to grips with the real crisis facing Europe in the 21st century: the lack of Europeans. If America believes in the separation of church and state, in radically secularist Europe the state is the church, as Jacques Chirac's edict on headscarves, crucifixes and skull caps made plain. Alas, it's an insufficient faith.

By contrast, if Christianity is merely a "myth", it's a perfectly constructed one, beginning with the decision to establish Christ's divinity in the miracle of His birth. The obligation to have children may be a lot of repressive Catholic mumbo-jumbo, but it's also highly rational. What's irrational is modern EUtopia's indifference to new life.

I recently had a conversation with an EU official who, apropos a controversial proposal to tout the Continent's religious heritage in the new constitution, kept using the phrase "Europe's post-Christian future". The evidence suggests that, once you reach the post-Christian stage, you don't have much of a future. Luke, a man of faith and a man of science, could have told them that.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (21287)12/24/2003 6:26:00 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793688
 
Pipes gives it a try.

Reading Sharon's Mind
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
December 23, 2003

In a much-noted speech last week, Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ostensibly made a dramatic reversal in course. But I am wondering whether to take his shift at face value.

Mr. Sharon announced that the "road map," a U.S. plan that envisions Israel and the Palestinians negotiating a settlement between them, has only a "few months" left to live. If "the Palestinians still continue to disregard their part in implementing the road map," he warned, "Israel will initiate the unilateral security step of disengagement from the Palestinians."

This "Disengagement Plan," he explained, will include "the redeployment of [Israeli] forces along new security lines and a change in the deployment of settlements" to reduce the number of Israelis living among Palestinians. Security will be provided by "[Israel Defense Forces] deployment, the security fence, and other physical obstacles."

Perhaps the most startling element of this speech — because it is most at odds with Mr. Sharon's long-time views — was this statement about the Israeli civilians living in the West Bank and Gaza: "There will be no construction beyond the existing construction line, no expropriation of land for construction, no special economic incentives and no construction of new settlements."

Though presented in a take-charge, active, and even somewhat bellicose manner, the Disengagement Plan sent three defeatist messages:

Palestinian terrorism works. Even as violence and attempted violence against Israelis continues (24 suicide attacks have been thwarted just since October 4, 2003), it grants several key Palestinian demands: more land under Palestinian Authority control, removal of roadblocks in place to protect Israeli lives, and dismantling some Jewish habitations in the West Bank and Gaza. Mr. Sharon appears to be hoping that concessions will appease the beast.

Israel is in retreat. Mr. Sharon presented his plan as an ultimatum to the Palestinians, but, however aggressively wrapped, its substance constitutes a capitulation. In the words of Ziad Abu Amr, a Palestinian academic and politician, as radical Palestinians watch the debate in Israel unfold and note concessions being offered, "they don't think of it as a favor from Sharon's government, they see it as an outcome of their struggle."

Israelis are fearful. Passive obstacles — walls, road blocks, demilitarized zones, and the like — have the tactical utility of reducing casualties and defining territory. But they are useless on the strategic level; they cannot solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. No fence, however high, however deeply dug, however electrified and monitored, can win a war. To the contrary, building a wall implies cowering behind it, hoping the enemy will not strike. And cowering signals to the Palestinians that they enjoy the initiative and that Israel has gone into a defensive mode.

Taken at face value, then, the Sharon speech amounts to a major blunder; were its defeatist policies put into effect, they would spur Palestinians to engage in more violence, and so delay a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

But that's taking this speech at face value. Count this observer as skeptical that Mr. Sharon actually means what he says, for it too starkly contradicts his known views, for example, on the need for Israelis to control the West Bank. (In 1998, as foreign minister, he urged Israelis there to "grab more hills, expand the territory. Everything that's grabbed, will be in our hands. Everything we don't grab will be in their hands.") Last week's speech appears to reflect momentary imperatives, not long-term goals.

This reflects the fact that as prime minister, Mr. Sharon has two different audiences. Palestinians he wants to convince that violence against Israelis is counterproductive, and this he achieves by retaliating hard against terrorism. The Israeli public and President Bush he wants to stay on good terms with by demonstrably engaging in diplomacy.

Maintaining these two more-or-less contradictory policies at the same time has not been easy; Mr. Sharon has done so through a virtuoso performance of quietly tough actions mixed with voluble concessions.

I don't pretend to know what is on the prime minister's mind — he does not confide in me — but I do suspect that his speech last week amounted to yet another such concession, this time addressed to an Israeli public demanding something more activist and immediate than the achingly long-term policy of deterrence. Mr. Sharon, a shrewd politician who knows when he must bend, has outlined a plan that I believe he has little wish to fulfill.

From www.danielpipes.org | Original article available at: www.danielpipes.org/article/1369



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (21287)12/31/2003 6:11:15 PM
From: Elmer Flugum  Respond to of 793688
 
"Why is Palestine such a popular cause in Europe?

The Palestinian cause is popular because Palestinians are seen by most of the left-wing as the classical victims of imperial world interests. Also, it fits in well with anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist ideology, whereby you can easily criticize Israel for everything it does militarily. Especially for Germans, it's important to see that Germany is not trying to get rid of its history but to instrumentalize the Shoah. That Israel exists is still kind of an outcome of the Shoah; it's still something that reminds the world of what Germany did. In picturing Israelis and Jews as the perpetrators - it's very popular to hear in Europe, the Israelis have learned nothing, they behave like the Nazis - it's an export of history. It's the old anti-Semitism expressed in different ways."

It is always the same old tract; anti-semitism [sic], self-hatred, the Holocaust, Russian pogroms, Spanish Inquistion and endless suffering.

The new Magen David?

len