The mistake was in not trading corpses for corpses.

I read somewhere that most of the released arabs were due for release in 2004.

Pipes is right again, as per usual.

I appreciate the need for the Israeli families of the IDF MIAs to have closure. But their closure may yet come at the expense of more dead Israelis, and more kidnapped IDF. Hezbollah and Hamas have both stated publicly that kidnappings of Israelis will resume because the policy works. Furthermore, it's only a matter of time before the men being released take up arms again. This is why I don't approve Sharon's decision to "withdraw" from Gaza. I've read all the arguments in support of it, and there are certainly some good ones. But in general, the move rewards terror. Like releasing terrorists from Israeli jails, it will encourage more terror.

just throwing this out there...terahz transmitters...injested perhaps? see where they go...we can dream right?

#2 Necklace of Shoes:

I read somewhere that most of the released arabs were due for release in 2004.

Even if that's true, it's still sending the wrong message. Pipes' points still stand. Paying ransom of any sort only encourages more hostage-taking. I am hoping that Sharon was pursuing some sort of wonderfully intricate strategy with this, that I'm not smart enough to see; but it doesn't look good.

Incidentally, Charles--I like your use of the "Hizb'Allah" spelling. A textual reminder that "this racist, irredentist terrorist gang was brought to you by the Religion of Peace."

Even self-hating leftist Zionists know the score. Allahu Akbar!

Israel should have publicly thanked each released prisoner for their full cooperation with the Israeli authorities and for supplying Israel with information regarding the various terror groups.

The problem is Israel is not a Republic.
It is a fractionated Parliamentarian Socialist Democracy that has a problem of corruption and semi-anarchy. The things that are occuring in Israel like the Left negotiating with the enemy would NEVER happen in America.

Second, in America the President, except Impeachment, can't lose power for 4 years. Thus, the Dems can't plan for the next shift in the waves to blackmail or overthrow the present government as happens in Israel.

Third, Israel's losing the most important war in the media. Why Isreal doesn't have a fully trained, multi-lingual professional media force made up Sephardim, Mizrahi as well as Ethiopian Jews to go on media appearances, speaking engagements and public appearance at the least in the States is a CRIME.

Mike

#2 Necklace of Shoes: There was a link on the front page the other day of a terrorists guilty of murder who had around 10 or so years yet to serve, who was let go in this swap. I don't know how the overall breakdown works out, but that alone is atrocious.

The Sharon government also failed its allies in the global war on terror.

As much as I was against the swap, as much as I suspect Sharon is needlessly endangering his people, this doesn't strike me as fair criticism. Israel suffer like no one else under terrorism no matter how you care to measure it. And Sharon has tried tons of ways to reduce the threat, only to get kicked square in the nads by his "allies in the global war on terror." Who are these people, btw, allied with Israel in this global war? I nominate the US, while noting the ways we make thing worse, especially for Israel, but who else, Mr. Pipes? Israelis bleed and die in part to cater to her "allies'" interests above her own, so that line seems cruel and poorly thought out.

#8 soi:
LOL! I wish they would...

My mother (in Israel) says that everyone in their circle thinks it was a big, big mistake.

One possibility is that Sharon is releasing them so that they'll be on the other side of the wall when the Pali Civil War inevitably starts after the fence/wall keeps the Palis outta Israel. Without Israelis to kill and a dwindling amount of money coming in, the Pali-on-Pali violence should start pretty soon considering the crazed population full of weapons. Does anyone know when the fence/wall is to be completed. Also, are they building any anti-tunnel defenses?

It's hard to know what Sharon was thinking--or how Israel would benefit--when he agreed to this loser deal. I am baffled by a reputedly brilliant tactician to cedes the advantage to his enemy. Right now, Hezbollah is laughing at Sharon's weakness and feeling chuffed by their ability to best him.

I too agree that the prisoner swap was wrong. It sends the wrong message to terrorists. BUT maybe this is a plan, endorsed and supported by the US, to track these people let go, and see where they lead to, and then take out the leadership. I hope so at least.

Pipes is right. Israel should have never negotiated with Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite version of Hamas. They need to be bombed and killed and kidnapped until they shape up.

#9 Mike: Israel is indeed a republic, but the Knesset is elected by pure proportional representation, which gives any splinter group that can get 1% of the vote a seat or two in the Parliament. If Israel had a first-past-the-post system of single electoral districts, as in the U.S., Canada, and Britain, there would only be two parties, one left, one right. The religious groups would not have their own parties, but would split up and join the major party of their choice (or risk consignment to political oblivion because they couldn't win any significant number of seats in the Knesset).

I have been hoping for the past few weeks to find someone with an adequate explanation for why this swap was agreed to. I guess Mike's explanation in #9 is the closest I'll come

I always thought that when an enemy takes your people prisoner, you go in and take them back by force.

I just can't agree. It is vitally important for Israel to make all outward appearances of bending over backwards ... since they're perceived as being unnecessarily ruthless in dealing with the paleostinians that continue to attack without ethos or mores.

They have imprisoned a zillion pali's, and what better than to reduce costs a bit by trading 4 score-to-1 back. It is not like the pali's have plush reserves chock-full of UN approved captured soldiers and other Israeli government military spoils of war. They only had "3" to trade, methinks.

GoatGuy

Not Iowahawk but almost as good.

A Palestinian suicide bomber is at the centre of a massive storm after saying that she 'might consider becoming a Liberal Democrat if she lived in Richmond Upon Thames'.

The suicide bomber has insisted she does not condone woolly Lib Dem thinking, or the party's inability to present a credible alternative to New Labour, but she understands how disillusion with two-party politics could drive people to such apathy.

A spokesman for Hamas said, "Her recent remarks about Liberal Democrats are completely unacceptable."

He continued: "They are not compatible with Hamas thinking and principles, and she can no longer remain on our frontline team. She will be undertaking a duty for us tonight, but that, I'm afraid, will be her last."

OT: New one by Amir Taheri on French hijab ban.

It was a terrible mistake... but at the same time, I have to wonder what all those terrorists think of the fact that all their lives taken together are worth only a few dead Israelis.

By the way... anyone with an underappreciated blog might want to read this to find out how to get some attention.

#14 ben: They released Mr. Fridge Bomber, a multiple-murderer, a while before this and he went straight to the PLO, Arafat, and the media to be greeted as a public hero. The world yawned (those that didn't send him their congratulations). I fear your hope is misplaced.

The Sharon government also failed its allies in the global war on terror.

Hostage-taking looks like a more effective tactic than it did a week earlier. If it can win a signal victory for Islamists in Lebanon against Israel, their ideological counterparts are more likely to use it in Iraq against the American government, in Moscow against the Russian government, and in Kashmir against the Indian government. Each terrorist success, however local, has the potential to reverberate internationally.

The moral opprobrium of dealing with terrorists is eroded. If releasing hundreds of terrorists is acceptable for Israel, why not other countries, too?

These many negative consequences raise questions about the morality of this Israeli government action.

Wow! A mainstreamer criticizing Israel's 'chosen people' morality. And naming it as a not so good ally to those fighting for civilization.

Better late than never. But I think it's too late.

Model4 (#10):

Israelis bleed and die in part to cater to her "allies'" interests above her own

I often tend to think that, while the U.S. government is not interested in Israel's complete destruction, it needs Israel relatively weak -- and thus dependent on America's "largesse" ad easily manipulated -- and bleeding.

Bleeding, because Israeli blood is the currency we pay the Arabs and Muslims with for whatever "cooperation" we manage to extract from them. Blood for oil, indeed.

#10 Model4

Sums up my feelings almost exactly.

The Sharon government also failed its allies in the global war on terror.

IMHO, the fact that all of these concessions and weaknesses are taking place under Ariel Sharon, supposedly the most badass Jew out there, makes a wider war inevitable.

I'd bet moving forward the policy is take a hostage, get targetted. I suspect this is a "one time" offer. I can't believe Sharon would be that short sighted.

I wonder how Rumsfeld's alleged plan to take out hezbollah in Lebenon may play into all this in the future.

#20 Watcher

I have to wonder what all those terrorists think of the fact that all their lives taken together are worth only a few dead Israelis.

1. The Jew is weak
2. We are strong
3. We will win

Israel has failed to send a CLEAR message to her enemies defining the PRICE they must be willing to pay to inflict harm on Israeli citizens.

Israel traded 400+ terrorists for 3 corpses and a tortured businessman. At the same time, the price paid by Pali killers for murdering 11 civilians on a Jerusalem bus was the bulldozing of a the terrorist's family home.

There is clearly NO consistency in the "pricing strategy" employed by Sharon's government.

I would urge Sharon to issue a public price list for the whole world to see. Harming Israeli's should be damned EXPENSIVE, and there should be escalators to increase the price for subsequent or repetitive crimes.

It's time to make the FU*KERS pay !!!

And now, on the theme of killing your parents and then complaining that you;re an orphan: Palestinians whine that Israel isn't providing more medical services.

#22:

FOAD.

BTW, Sanctions worked! in keeping Iraq from obtaining nukes according to Mohamed ElBaradei, but he can't figure out why Libya decided to give up its nuke program.

#12 Doss has a comment I think may be the most optomistic explanation of why the Sharon government did what it did.

He is hoping that, before too long, the wall will be complete, and with the removal of the settlements in Gaza, have a more defensible area to work with.

I have heard that since Gaza was walled off, no successful genocide bombers have gotten through to Israel, and if they have the same level of success with the west bank wall, this trade, while looking to be a very, very poor idea, will work out if no genocial thugs get an opportunity to take any more hostages.

I agree with most people that such an exchange was a foolish one, but I'm hoping it all works out in the long run.

TechCentralStation.com has an article that addresses the problem of thinking that nonviolent approaches to dealing with terrorism (i.e., good faith gestures) may in fact result in further violence. It's worth a read, and not to plug my own blog, but I thought it worthwhile to include there.

Here's the link:

Over-Humanizing the Enemy

It's worth a look.

It may be that this is the signal: kidnap an Israeli, the Sheik gets it. Yassin is a dead man; Arafat is toast (Pali toast, not French). I hope so. Otherwise it makes no sense. May the civil war start soon.

But thats not ALL .

PM Sharon intends to uproot Israelis
in Gaza as well. Further, he intends to hand over
Israeli towns with majority Arabs, to the PLA
in exchange for some land in the West bank.

Now what bets that the PLA will pocket the Israeli
towns but the Arabs will just go to another part of
Israel. Thus Israel will lose territory but still
retain Arabs who pose a demographic threat. This is
afterall what happened in the partition of India.
India gave land to Pakistan on the basis of the Muslim
population in the sub-continent but has now more
Mulsims within it then either Pakistan or Bangladesh.
Meanwhile the number of Hindus in Pakistan has
dwindled from about 30% at the time of partition to a
mere 1% or less.

It seems to me that the continuous slander of Sharon
has a 'war criminal', has had the effect of totally
nuetering him.

#9 Mike

Lincoln, McKinnly, and Kennedy would disagree with you.

Gordon #15

#9 Mike: Israel is indeed a republic, but the Knesset is elected by pure proportional representation, which gives any splinter group that can get 1% of the vote a seat or two in the Parliament.

In America if you get 51% of the vote you win the Executive Branch. I don't have a definition of a Republic but I believe that is closer to the Roman Republic.
Israel the Executive comes from the Legislative which is a Parliamentarian system.

If Israel had a first-past-the-post system of single electoral districts, as in the U.S., Canada, and Britain, there would only be two parties, one left, one right. The religious groups would not have their own parties, but would split up and join the major party of their choice (or risk consignment to political oblivion because they couldn't win any significant number of seats in the Knesset).

I don't totally understand that, however, in Britain and Germany there are more than 2 parties. Its just that the two usually are the majority of the electorate, maybe due to what you are saying above, though I don't totally understand what you're saying. They're still Parliamentarian Democracies though, and not Republics like America.

#17 GoatGuy

It is vitally important for Israel to make all outward appearances of bending over backwards

Bending over backwards is a good position to get F'ed. No matter what the Israelis do out of goodwill, the people that are against Israel will continue to be against Israel.

#36 Necklace of Shoes

Yeah I was thinking about that as well, however, you know what I meant. Further, in those situations the parties still maintained power as in the case of Impeachment until the end of the term, but I see your attempt at cute humor.

#17 Goat Guy:
Israel makes many, many bending-over-backwards gestures, they're just never appreciated. Remember Barak's offers to Arafat? Which kept getting better and better as Arafat ignored them?

No, neither does the rest of the world.

#23 Q:

the U.S. government is not interested in Israel's complete destruction, it needs Israel relatively weak -- and thus dependent on America's "largesse" ad easily manipulated -- and bleeding.

We need Israel weak, so we can continue to give her money? What a strange idea.

Bleeding, because Israeli blood is the currency we pay the Arabs and Muslims with for whatever "cooperation" we manage to extract from them. Blood for oil, indeed.

Sorry, Q, I have to call you on this odd conspiracy theory the same way I would a DU lefty loon. Has the US administration done everything it could to support Israel (or done everything that *I* think it should)? No, of course not. But to draw from this that we're somehow deliberately "paying for Arab oil with Israeli blood" is simply obscene. If we wanted to pander to the Arabs, we'd have abandoned Israel entirely 3 decades ago, the way Europe did. We haven't. It's simply bizarre to declare that Israel's closest ally in the world, US$3bn-per-year donor, and principal foreign armourer, is deliberately "bleeding" her.

A very bad deal. Sharon has made a lot of mistakes since coming into office, starting with bombing empty PA facillities as a response to suicide bombings, after warning the PA functtionaries to leave facilities before the attacks.

Bombing empty buildings strikes fear into the hearts of no one.

Sending soldiers into the rathole of Jenin to "reduce civilian casualties" was a huge mistake. 22 soldiers were killed and the Arabs and the UN still accused Israel of a massacre. It would have made more sense to line up some howitzers and fire them until the buildings were all levelled. Then let the UN criticize us. They are going to call as murderers whether or not we do anything, when will we learn that? So if we are going to be libelled for being humane, let's give up on being humane and go out and fight the enemy!

It is long past time for Sharon to realize that the world is going to hate Jews no matter what we do and there is no sense playing by Queensberry rules when the other sides "has all the benefits of being the cad," to paraphrase Winston Churchill.

Israel is being held to a ridiculous standard no other nation has ever been held to. It is time to fight back like any other nation, instead of letting Jew-haters like the UK Guardian and the terrorists in the UN tie our hands.

If I was a prison guard in Israel and had prisoners with our blood on their hands, I would machine gun them rather then let them be traded so they can murder more Israelis. It is time for the common soldier and common citizen to act on their own. If necessary, the people of Israel have to storm the Palestinians and make them pay a very heavy price, because the army is not going to do anything as long as Arik and the other politicians are holding them back.

iminj/28, q/23 ...

I see it from a different angle: Israel [by the numbers] has already been pretty good at taking 2 eyes for an eye, two teeth for a tooth. It is recognized internationally that the "Arab mind" understands doubled up retaliation.

The destruction of houses, the capture of thousands of wannabe militants (and plenty of real ones), the daily incursions into "their" supposed "refugee camps" (camps with people's houses? How is that a camp? ), the building of the wall, the helicopter mediated executions, the soulful whining to the U.N. [good politics, wasted venue], the structured arming of a force to actually "deal" with the incipient problem at hand - these are the other things besides the 2-for-1 retaliation that serve to keep the Pali's from completely going on the rampage.

Typically, the same are cited as the cause celebre, the causus bellae of the Palis' themselves.

But it is such a load of goatgak. Pali's are militant because their "lead" by a hopelessly corrupt leader, in a hopelessly corrupt society, where hopelessness is transformed into purpose through the auspices of their faith's definition of "Jihad". The world essentially knows this, yet the Lambasting Left continues to foster the notion that the whole darn thing is the Israeli's fault.

Well, much of the money earmarked for Israel from the Good Ol' U. S. of A. is "directed" on the basis of the balance of politic here, with the Left and the Right doing their part to add and subtract shekels from the monthly shipment of the pursers sack. So, Isreal has to "do what appeals to the middle" more than anything else.

I should think -- especially given that Sharon, once quite the field commander, is in power -- that Israel would love nothing better than to put a news-blackout on the whole country, and go into the "territories" with cannons ablaze, helicopters afloat, armies amassed, and totally giving up on "we'll be nice if you promise not to be stupid" rhetoric. The meme of resistance, offensive, David-vs-Goliath is set, right down to the 7 year olds that toss pitifully ineffective rocks at the armored caravan giving wrath in their midst. It is a meme, it is strong, and it is very, very Arab at the core.

So, Israel is planning on deporting (can't call it that, but it amounts to the same) a bunch of jailbirds anyway. Needs to get back some of the extremely few prisoners that the other neoliths hold. Arranges a swap. Makes the Palis and Arabs feel good. Makes the Licentious Left growl suspiciously. Keeps the focus away from the Wall, and lets things progress as they would anyway.

The Pali's have a big surprise coming, I'm pretty sure. Israel will get totally fed up with their antics, will finish off the wall, and will simply "shut the gate". Humanitarian or not, well... isn't that for the Palestinian "moderates" to moderate?

GoatGuy

Yet another British journalist calls for the slaughter of Israeli children.

“Let’s call suicide bombers by their proper name, which is martyrs.”

Yes, she converted to Islam...

Her remarks, to the Islamic Student Association, will cause fury among Jews living in Britain. “There are no innocents in this war,” she told the audience. “The big shame about suicide bombers is that they rarely target their tormentors and kill innocents.”

Ridley, 45, who used to work for the Arab television station al-Jazeera and has written a book about suicide bombers called Ticket to Paradise, insisted that the remarks were not anti-Semitic.

I can't wait for Trevor Phillips of the Commission for Racial Equality to jump down her throat.

#39 Mike

Garfield too! Couldn't think of him. Fried brain. Just goofing around. Your points are sound.

In my lifetime: Kennedy, Ford (2 attempts), Reagan (1 attempt), if you count Saddam's plot on Bush 1 there's another. So why dear lord can't we get one shot inot Dhimmi?

Does anyone know how to bypass registration at the UK Times, please? I've been meaning to ask...

#43 GoatGuy

So, because Israel (in your words) bends over backwards for their enemies, there is something big on the cards?

Israel has been letting terrorists off since before I was born.

Israel's vaunted morality.
Pipes:

When will the descent stop? By then, how much damage will have been done?

Self-destruction is nothing to boast about.

Oh yeah. The Arabs sure are victorious! Just look at all of their gains over the past 2 years. Islam is on a roll. A roll towards a mass grave that is. Why do they have to suck so much? How awesome will the world be after Islam has been neutered? Fucking Faster Please!

#22 & #48 the Devil

Self-destruction is nothing to boast about.

Can you clarify that? Because nothing in either of your two posts suggests you understood anything Pipes wrote.

OT - well, at least the IDF won't be trading this f*cker back. Terrorist leader responsible for last Thursday's Jerusalem suicide bombing killed in Bethlehem

During a joint IDF-ISA operation in the Aida refugee camp in the Bethlehem district today (Monday), February 2, 2004, Bethlehem area Izadin al-Kassam leader Muhammad Abu Ouda was killed. According to intelligence assessments, Abu Ouda was behind last Thursday's suicide attack in Jerusalem, in which 11 people were murdered and over 40 were wounded (the attack itself was perpetrated by Ali Jaara, a Palestinian policeman who resided in the camp).

#44 Colt: good lord. That's sickening.

Any other choice nuggets from the article you can post? (Suddenly timesonline is paid subscriber-only, it seems.)

I can't wait for Trevor Phillips of the Commission for Racial Equality to jump down her throat.

Why, of course they won't, because...

Ridley... insisted that the remarks were not anti-Semitic.

See? She says her remarks aren't anti-Semitic. Therefore, they aren't! Move along, please.

#44 Colt

Aw shucks, another Times link that requires a paid subscription! Golly, looks like a good one too! If only someone could anonymously post a password...

(whistles)

Iossef Zhugashvili (#42)

Israel is being held to a ridiculous standard no other nation has ever been held to.

It's called anti-Semitism.

It is time to fight back like any other nation, instead of letting Jew-haters like the UK Guardian and the terrorists in the UN tie our hands.

Agreed. When do we start?

Colt / 47

Good point. Let's put it this way. The Israeli's probably bent over backwards just far enough to suppress a giant fart. Politically of course.

Well, let it not be said that appearances haven't been given their due. The world certainly must think Israel has lost their basket of nuts, but in truth, they've just again they've taken the world's eye "off the ball(wall)"

GoatGuy

Since people are having trouble with registation, I'll C&P the article:

People with Andrew Pierce



How many insults can one newspaper proprietor take?

Will the newspaper baron Richard Desmond extend his fabled powers of tolerance to yet another of his tactless journalists who have managed to malign an entire nation? Robert Kilroy-Silk may have lost his BBC chat show after insulting Arabs in his Sunday Express column, but he continues to enjoy the confidence of Desmond, who owns the newspaper.

But will Desmond prove to be as forgiving to Yvonne Ridley, once his most famous hackette, who made international headlines when she was captured by the Taleban having gone undercover in Afghanistan? Ridley, who is now a regular freelance for the Express magazine, told a Belfast audience last week that child victims of Palestinian suicide bombers were not innocent because they grew up to join the Israeli Army.

She also said that the phrase “suicide bomber” was insulting. “Let’s call suicide bombers by their proper name, which is martyrs,” she said.

Ridley, who recently converted to Islam, said that there was no such thing as an innocent Israeli, because they were either in the army or supported it.

Her remarks, to the Islamic Student Association, will cause fury among Jews living in Britain. “There are no innocents in this war,” she told the audience. “The big shame about suicide bombers is that they rarely target their tormentors and kill innocents.”

Ridley, 45, who used to work for the Arab television station al-Jazeera and has written a book about suicide bombers called Ticket to Paradise, insisted that the remarks were not anti-Semitic. She said that she enjoyed a good relationship with Richard Desmond.

But will that still be the case once Desmond, who is Jewish, has studied the text of her speech?

#52 Occasional Reader

See? She says her remarks aren't anti-Semitic. Therefore, they aren't! Move along, please.

There's that, and the fact that we must allow journalists to raise controversial issues about murdering Jewish children.

Paid subscription? I've never paid anything...

#55 GoatGuy

IMHO, the smarter anti-Israel crew are happy that Israel is giving up terrorists and looking weak. The dumber ones are angry that they didn't release more.

they've just again they've taken the world's eye "off the ball(wall)"

With the ICJ hearing within the next few weeks, this was ill-timed to say the least. Not to mention that these 'negotiations' have been going on for some years now.

There are no innocents but the shame of suicide bombing is that it kills innocents? Or does she mean the bombers themselves?

Woo hoo. I am a super intelligent codebreaker. CIA, I am looking for a job now.

Just kidding:

UK times:

Anonymous
Anonymous

#56 Colt:

Wow. So many candidates for "most shocking line" in that article. But I'd like to nominate one of the perhaps less-obvious ones:

Her remarks, to the Islamic Student Association, will cause fury among Jews living in Britain.

Yep, those touchy Jews will probably get all "infuriated" about somebody advocating mass child-murder. They're funny that way.

Remember, this line is the newspaper speaking, not Ridley.

You know, if as the necklace of shoes suggested, many of the terrorists were due to be released this year, the question should be, how come they got such short sentences in a first place. I mean, shouldn't membership in a terrorist organization be a capital offense? Or, at the very least, warrant a life sentence?

I guess papijoe could have slyly been giving us the username and password though ;-)

Guys,
Can you give the man (Sharon) a little credit here? As always in this situation, we only see the tip of the iceberg. Who knows what the second shoe will be once it drops.
On another note, you all know of course that the UN was an accomplice in this whole episode as the kidnappers used UN vehicles, UN uniforms and the UN even had a tape of the whole incident.
The UN refused to release the tape to Israel because the terrorists were clearly visible in it. Kofi Imbecile refused to see the parents of the hostages who had come to beg for the tape. I met the parents of one of them. After increasing pressure from the US, the UN finally released the tape with the faces of the terrirists blanked out.
Faced with this kind of wall of silence and complicity, what were the parents supposed to do? They put on lots of pressure and finally Sharon gave in.
I agree with someone else who thinks that the released terrirists are dangerous and will soon turn onto other palestinian monsters as soon as Arafat finally dies.

#60 RWC: Huh. I tried generic/generic, and it didn't work. I guess I didn't receive your level of training. Or perhaps all those times when Q admonished me to "pay attention, double-oh-seven!", I should have paid attention.

#61 Occasional Reader

The idea that non-Jews might have something of a problem with advocating slaughter of Jews does seem beyond every British paper/magazine.

was posted here before but if you haven't read yet, do:

Hizballahland by Gal Luft

I have thought about for several weeks and there must be some logic in trading the prisoners and I think it is money. The prisons in which the terrorist were held have to be expensive to operate and guard 24/7/365. I realize that it is a paltry sum compared to these terrorist coming back to kill your citizens but, Isreal does have financial problems and this is a way to free up resources. I still think it was a stupid idea, just trying to understand the motivation.

#63 Right Wing Conspirator

I tried about 20 variations of "free times online".
Just too dumb to think of "anonymous"
The greatest sleuths see what is hidden in plain sight

Thanks for nuthin' Colt!

Some stirring flash memorial for those lost on September 11.

So many faces...

Its not going to work, as Mr. Pipes said. Some people live and learn by their mistakes but Sharon and Arafat are gonna die before they learn by theirs'.

OT Hazardous business, celebrating religious feasts...429 amateur butchers hurt in Turkey

A total of 429 people were treated across Turkey on Sunday for cuts and fractured limbs they suffered while trying to slaughter sheep and cows to mark Eid al-Adha, the Anatolia news agency reported.

Several faithful rushed to hospitals with knife cuts to their hands after they took to slaughtering animals themselves rather than finding a butcher to do the job.

Others came in with concussion and fractures to their arms and legs after they were kicked by panicked animals, the report said.

It's not just the RoP, of course. Christians run a similar risk at Christmas, of being kicked by one of Santa's reindeer.

Here's to hoping that the ingested transmitter theory is real.

Cheers!

RC neo-Jew #72
A revenge of PETA?

#69 papijoe

You're welcome :-)

I agree with the overall gist of Pipes' article. Obviously, this swap was bad for Israel, good for Hiz'ballah - and, thus, bad for the war on terror.

But this section, which several have commented upon:

The Sharon government also failed its allies in the global war on terror.

is flat wrong. The Sharon government only failed in living up to Daniel Pipes' desired vision of what the WoT should be, but not what the WoT is in actuality.

In his view, Israel and their battle against Hamas, PIJ, AAMB/PA/PLO should be the same as ours against Al-Qaeda. But the State Dept. and the Administration refuse to let that be the case.

In fact, the U.S. pushes Sharon into making these concessions.

I'm not the biggest Sharon fan around. But he only failed the global WoT in as much as we are failing ourselves by allowing the double standard to continue, and nudging Israel into concessions we would never ask ourselves to make.

Granted, Israel and the U.S. are two different countries, with two very different security problems. However, the enemy is the same, and should be treated as such.

#41 Occasional Reader

We need Israel weak, so we can continue to give her money? What a strange idea.

The idea is that the US needs to restrain Israel, in order to keep the Arab states happy. The best way to keep Israel on a leash is to be the one who keeps her safe(diplomatically, as well as in terms of military hardware).

The US bows to pressure from KSA and friends because the US needs the oil to keep pumping. Throw in honour/shame, antisemitism and the rest, and a strong Israel is even more of crime in Arab minds. So Israel is kept at a not-to-strong, but not-strong-enough-to-win level.

OR (#41):

No more obscene than CIA training PLO "policemen" or U.S. Marines protecting Arafat from Sharon in Beirut.

Deliberate or not, that's pretty much what it amounts to. It's been said -- and I agree with it -- that American public and their representatives in Congress is a friend of Israel, but no American president is or was.

And even that status quo, as Neil Bush helpfully pointed out to sympathetic Saudi audience, can be changed -- with the right PR (and more MONEY, Abdullah, please).

#76 SCJ

The Sharon government only failed in living up to Daniel Pipes' desired vision of what the WoT should be, but not what the WoT is in actuality.

Precisely. It isn't Israel courting Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and (it would seem from Michael Ledeen's latest) Iran. It wasn't an Israeli C-130 flying WMD parts from one US ally to an axis-of-evil-list state. And so on...

#42

Interesting nic, Mr. Stalin.

#76

In fact, the U.S. pushes Sharon into making these concessions.

Yes, and we have implanted electrodes into Sharon's brain, and he has no power of free will any longer to make moral decisions.

And not just Sharon, but his entire staff, and the entire population.

It's a conspiracy! And it's ultimately all America's fault.

/sinister laugh

(#72) RC neo-Jew

Wow. Amatuer butchers.

They're not in it for the money. They just do it for the love of, well, butchery.

How very RoP®.

#74 veebee

A revenge of PETA?

Yes. The animals all enjoy free membership of that powerful organisation. You realise what this really means, don't you? The animals were members of a huge powerful conspiracy to empower little furry creatures, so the people who were trying to kill them were the real victims. They were, like the Palestinians, 'the victims of the victims'. Wouldn't be at all surprising if freedom fighters don't start blowing themselves up in the middle of fields of cows.

Israel can argue that they have two philosophies in conflict, those of "Leave no man behind" and "We do not negotiate with terrorists." However, both philosophies have fallen in the past few years. Oslo, and now again, have shown that terrorists will be negotiated with. And when soldiers were left to bleed to death at Joseph's tomb two years ago, Israel showed they would leave a man behind. I know the odds against Israel are great, I know the world's pressures on her unjust. But the world requests for you to lay down your lives has no currency. Israel's leaders cannot remain in the pessimism of 1973.

(#81) theDevil!

Yes, and we have implanted electrodes into Sharon's brain, and he has no power of free will any longer to make moral decisions.

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant when I said that the U.S. pushes Sharon into making concessions.

If you don't think we do, you're either ignorant, uneducated or retarded. Or perhaps some combination of the three?

#76, SoCalJustice
#79, Colt

Has an administration insider--White House, State Department, other--ever commented about or hinted at the double standard, the balancing act our government is employing with the Arabs/Israel? It sounds just right, but it would be nice to have some evidence--even anecdotal or second-hand.

#81

GAZE

The problem as I see it is that Israel wasn't settled by strong Northern Europeans. And hence they are weak and uncivilized.

/yep, it's sarcasm from another thread

I actually think Pipes is a little overstated on this. The wall is being built. That's the end of the story.

#82 SoCalJustice

All fun and games until the amateur buthers and their love of butchery come to a town near you.
Lamb Slaughter Rankles Va. Community

#86 observer

it would be nice to have some evidence--even anecdotal or second-hand

Indeed it would. Nothing comes to mind, though it doesn't mean it ain't out there. It makes you wonder about the people responsible for US foreign policy.

#85

(#81) theDevil!

Yes, and we have implanted electrodes into Sharon's brain, and he has no power of free will any longer to make moral decisions.

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant when I said that the U.S. pushes Sharon into making concessions.

Okay.

QED

/more sinister laughter, louder

Is theDevil! today's in-house idiot?

Roger L. Simon (#89)

That's the end of the story.

The end of what story? While I strongly support the fence being built, it's not a long-term solution.

(#90) RWC

Oh no. That is a town near me!

And I must say, I am rather rankled.

(#92)

QED

What? That you can't detect sarcasm?

Gotcha.

Model4 (10):

Who are these people, btw, allied with Israel in this global war? I nominate the US, while noting the ways we make thing worse, especially for Israel, but who else, Mr. Pipes? Israelis bleed and die in part to cater to her "allies'" interests above her own, so that line seems cruel and poorly thought out.

Hear! Hear!

I'm sick of these armchair generals fighting the war on terror to the last Israeli.

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer played a significant role in this prisoner-hostage deal. At a conference on antisemitism in Berlin last week, Ha'aretz reported on Fischer's presence there:

[Link: www.haaretz.com...]

Some leftists, Jews among them, believe the concept of a national home for the Jewish people is immoral and illegitimate. This widespread attitude converges easily with racism against Jews, making it difficult for even the loudest critics of the Sharon government to identify with European leftist positions.

On this issue, the German Green Party presented a refreshing position at the conference. "The government of Israel may be criticized for its policies," German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer told the opening session, "but Israel's right to exist as the national home of the Jewish people cannot be denied." Fischer expressed concern over the demonization of Israel and said Europe must change its attitude toward Israel.

Nations with liberal civil traditions need to step up and side with Israel for their own sake. There has recently been a small positive budge in the right direction as 30 nations filed protests against the Israeli security fence going before the International Court of Justice in the Hague. But there needs to be some definitive and unequivocal follow-through regarding Israel's fundamental legitimacy and its right of self-defense. An invitation to join NATO's mutual defense pact might be an appropriate next step.

More on Colt's C&P from #56:

Ridley, who recently converted to Islam, said that there was no such thing as an innocent Israeli, because they were either in the army or supported it.

Her remarks, to the Islamic Student Association...

... were received with vigorous booing and hissing by this moderate Muslim group! Or, um, at least, with stony silence! Right?

#77 Colt:

So Israel is kept at a not-to-strong, but not-strong-enough-to-win level.

"Qualitative superiority", actually, is the catch phrase. Israel is the only non-NATO country to get first dibs on advanced US weaponry. I think this goes rather further than a mere barely-adequate lifeline. And we're hardly
forcing dependency (to the extent it exists) on Israel, are we? Israel buys weapons from other countries, too, and is free to spend as much on defense as its budget will warrant, and is free to accept military and economic aid from whoever else will offer it. To complain that "you're giving us $3 billion a year, and that makes us dependent!" is a very strange complaint.

#78 Q:

No more obscene than CIA training PLO "policemen"

... while Israel was providing them with Kalashnikovs? We weren't the only ones suckered by Oslo.

or U.S. Marines protecting Arafat from Sharon in Beirut.

The Marines were in Beirut to protect Arafat?! Please substantiate that claim.

Congress is a friend of Israel, but no American president is or was.

Not enough of a friend... hey, I agree. No friend at all? Please. Nixon (no great anti-anti-semite, he) could have stood by and watched Israel really bleed in '73. Instead, he sent in the C5 Galaxies (with globular clusters, natch) to resupply her. So why didn't he just pander to the Arabs and do nothing, if that's what the US presidency is all about?

#94 SoCalJustice

Have the lambs stopped screaming, Clarice?

Hannibal

I love Daniel Pipes, but you don't need him to tell you that this was a fuckup of immeasurable proportions.

What Sharon has done and his idiotic rationalizations are the words and acts of a man too senile to even be called stupid.

Sharon, what "closure" are you going to be able to give the coming victims of the murderers you just unleashed on your people, you fat moron bag of fuck?

#2 Necklace of shoes

I read somewhere that most of the released arabs were due for release in 2004.

Yeah, so? Just further evidence of the idiotic mentality behind the "exchange". Why the fuck were they scheduled for release? What did Israel possibly have to gain by letting them ever go ?

#12 Doss, #14 Ben, #73 the varmint

You are dreaming in color.

#17 GoatGuy 2/3/2004 12:38PM PST

...It is vitally important for Israel to make all outward appearances,, etc, etc.

No, it isn't. It is vitally important for Israel to be raising the pain level on its enemies.

#27 Colt

Exactly.

#42 Iossef Zhugashvili

Exactly

62 veebee 2/3/2004 01:30PM PST

You know, if as the necklace of shoes suggested, many of the terrorists were due to be released this year, the question should be, how come they got such short sentences in a first place. I mean, shouldn't membership in a terrorist organization be a capital offense? Or, at the very least, warrant a life sentence?

#2, see #62

Part of the problem arises from Israel not having the death penalty. By not having the death penalty, murderers are imprisoned to possibly be freed in an exchange later. Also, there is no legal way to eliminate terrorist leaders, so extrajudicial assassinations are used to eliminate terrorist leaders in the West Bank and Gaza.

On the other hand, instituting the death penalty would obviate these problems. Murderers can then be tried and (hopefully) swiftly executed in an orderly and legal fashion, just like in Texas (or perhaps China).

Joun Southerland writes:

I have thought about for several weeks and there must be some logic in trading the prisoners and I think it is money

Fuck off and die.

#97 Occasional Reader

I think this goes rather further than a mere barely-adequate lifeline.

As I need hardly tell you, strength is only useful if people think you will use it. If the Arabs thought Israel would unleash all the advanced US weaponary the Israelis have first dibs on, this war would be a lot easier.

And we're hardly forcing dependency (to the extent it exists) on Israel, are we?

1. No, we aren't forcing them (note that I didn't say we are).
2. Much of the strength of the IDF/IAF comes from the US weaponary already mentioned. The Apaches, the F-15s, F-16s, and much more. Take away their air cover and tank busters and the fight becomes far bloodier, and closer.

Israel buys weapons from other countries, too, and is free to spend as much on defense as its budget will warrant, and is free to accept military and economic aid from whoever else will offer it.

Yes, of course that's true. But in real terms, only the US offers it. (FWIW, I can't think of any weapon used by the IDF/IAF that isn't either Israeli or American, aside from the German Dolphin subs).

In a scenario where the Israelis buy weapons from the Russians or Chinese (assuming they'd be willing), the qualitative edge slips, as Egypt, KSA, Jordan, et al, are still getting the M1s, F-15s and (perhaps) JDAMs. As you say, the qualitative edge is the key, and the US is the only country that can provide it.

To complain that "you're giving us $3 billion a year, and that makes us dependent!" is a very strange complaint.

To modify slightly: "we need what you give us, and thank you for it, but what you force us to do has killed over a thousand of our citizens - which we resent" is more accurate.

#100 Jersey Devil

I'm not a big fan of the death penalty, but this is one case where I could get behind it.

#100 Jersey Devil

Part of the problem arises from Israel not having the death penalty. By not having the death penalty, murderers are imprisoned to possibly be freed in an exchange later. Also, there is no legal way to eliminate terrorist leaders, so extrajudicial assassinations are used to eliminate terrorist leaders in the West Bank and Gaza

It's immaterial whether or not Israel has the death penalty.

The government decides if they will do deals with the terrorists - and to what extent that they will do the deal. If history is any judge, any deal, any negotiation is taken by the terrorist as a sign of weakness, and only exacerbates the problem.

Frankly, under International Law - these irregulars, terrorists, should not be subject to the normal laws and rules because of their tactics and targets. Summary executions are permitted under the letter of the law if terrorists are captured - it is to their benefit that they are given protection of the rule of law.

Because of the tactics used by these terrorists, they and their leaders can be hunted down and executed. Assassination is giving them too much credit given their tactics and targets.

They have declared an unconventional war, and are waging it outside of international law. Since they have decided to wage on that basis, they can be fought on that basis - and should be.

These guys need to be implanted with GPS and 10 lbs of plastique THEN let loose to go home

#54

Firebomb Hizb'allah bases and camps, even their villages and families if they're in the way.
I know it's ruthless, but I can't imagine a better solution.

USA control Israel... no wait, the Jooos control the USA and another big slice of the world...

Oh, those conspiracy theories, so logically built...

(#86) observer

Nothing comes to mind, although Daniel Pipes has chimed in on the matter, and he's on the Board of the USIP:

U.S. to Israel: Do As We Say ...

Colt #102:

If the Arabs thought Israel would unleash all the advanced US weaponary the Israelis have first dibs on, this war would be a lot easier.

So can we agree, first off, that the problem here isn't that the US somehow is preventing Israel from being sufficiently well-armed?

As to whether the US is then "restraining" Israel from engaging in full-throttle warfare with its weaponry... well, perhaps, but there isn't exactly unqualified support for that route among the Israeli electorate either, is there? So we're perhaps restraining Israel from doing something it wouldn't do anyway. At least, not yet.

Yes, of course that's true. But in real terms, only the US offers it.

And does that fact tend to prove that: 1) the US is deliberately bleeding Israel (as Q suggested); or 2) the US is Israel's only real friend? Even if an imperfect one?

Ridley, who recently converted to Islam, said that there was no such thing as an innocent Israeli, because they were either in the army or supported it.

Ridley is right. This is total war, and everybody is a target. That being the case, I'm sure she will understand if the Israelis use some howitzers to wipe out the terror nests in the refugee camps. And when Israel eliminates the Hezbollah threat in southern Lebanon, she can't really complain that the whole area is also scraped clean of civilians. After all, those civilians might be sheltering Hezbollah.

What's that, Ridley? You mean you've already condemned Israel for actions much milder than these? Then STFU.

#107, SoCalJustice

Thanks for the Pipes piece--still hope to be around when an "inside dope" account appears.

OR (#108):

And does that fact tend to prove that: 1) the US is deliberately bleeding Israel (as Q suggested); or 2) the US is Israel's only real friend? Even if an imperfect one?

To paraphrase Churchill, it proves that the U.S. is the shittiest friend Israel has -- if you discount the fact that every other country on the face of this foul planet of ours is either hostile or indifferent.

What surprises me is that there seems to have been absolutely no comment from other nations involved on the war against terror that a single country, for its own purported gain (very debatable) is prepared to relesase into circulation generic terrorists who may well turn against other countries' citizens and interests. Is the US entirely satisfied that convicted killers of an organisation that has killed and promised to eliminate in the future so many americans are released in one go? And if not, why have we heard no comment on their part, or on the part of any other country affected by terrorism?

#108 Occasional Reader

So can we agree, first off, that the problem here isn't that the US somehow is preventing Israel from being sufficiently well-armed?

Yes. But if you suggest Israel should buy elsewhere, you must accept that Israel would be weaker (militarily) as a result. This is, effectively, a form of restraint in itself: stick with us, or things get harder for you. I need hardly mention the political aid the US brings, and would be lost, if Israel allied itself with another major power.

As to whether the US is then "restraining" Israel from engaging in full-throttle warfare with its weaponry... well, perhaps, but there isn't exactly unqualified support for that route among the Israeli electorate either, is there?

An electorate that put Ariel Sharon in power, on a platform of 'we won't be another Czechoslovakia'? If full-scale warfare were a viable choice at the ballot box, which it seemed to be with Sharon (though not to the extent I - and, if I may assume, you - would like), I think you'd see the support.

So we're perhaps restraining Israel from doing something it wouldn't do anyway. At least, not yet.

I know you're going to ask me for a link - and I will look - but the US issued three red lines that Israel could not cross, one of which was killing/harming/expelling Arafat. When did this come? As soon as it was announced that Arafat's life was no longer guaranteed by Israel.

Yes, of course that's true. But in real terms, only the US offers it.

And does that fact tend to prove that: 1) the US is deliberately bleeding Israel (as Q suggested); or 2) the US is Israel's only real friend? Even if an imperfect one?

Administrations and bureaucracy (State, etc) - option 1.
People and Congress - option 2.

FWIW, the Marines protecting the PLO is referenced on p. 227-229 in Israel's Lebanon War by Ze'ev Schiff and Ehud Ya'ari.

I think that the pull out of Gaza is a good move. There are many places on earth that we should allow Islam to demand be Jooo free. Right? Either way, it really is a good thing, because now Israel will be free to finish off the West Bank in due course. If everything continues in a straight line, most the W.B. will be declared a permanent part of Israel at about the same time the PLO arabs declare Gaza to be "Palestine". Fine. Let them have it. It won't last long.

Huh. That was easy :-)

Bush warns Israel to tread carefully

According to the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, the three red lines are: not to harm the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat; not to "shock the region"; and not to create "facts on the ground" that could jeopardise the Palestinian state promised in the US- backed "road-map" for peace.

#113 Colt:

But if you suggest Israel should buy elsewhere

I'm not suggesting that, I'm just saying we're not stopping her from buying elsewhere. (As she has, although more in the past, e.g. Mirages; small arms, e.g. MP5 and FN-FAL; the Dolphin subs you mentioned; lots of German input in the Merkavas.)

Israel would be weaker (militarily) as a result. This is, effectively, a form of restraint in itself: stick with us, or things get harder for you.

It's not our fault that US weaponry tends to be the best. No offense, but I think it's odd to say this fact is a "form of restraint". If my pub sells the best beer in the neighborhood, that doesn't mean I'm somehow "restraining" you from drinking in someone else's pub. This debate reminds me of anti-globos complaining that the US "forces" French people to watch Hollywood movies!

I have read justifications for the release. First off, no real big fish except the old lebanese prisoners who may be of no use anymore for Ron Arad. Otherwise, previously there was talk of releasing Barghoti, but this did not happen.

Another justification is that Hizbollah has no more cards to bargain with. They could try to kidnap more Israelis, but then Sharon could respond hard and hit Lebanon. Hizbollah risks becoming unpopular if regular Lebanese view them as responsible for provoking Israel when Israel has effectively given in on most points, such as land and prisoners. Lebanon wants business development. Thus, Hizbollah may be in a pickle now because the only way they can justify their is existence is risking a major provocation that could invoke a harsh Israeli response that would make them unpopular in Lebanon. So the argument goes.

#116 Occasional Reader

We can agree that Israel has one friend, and that there is no viable alternative. This is true for political, military, diplomatic and cultural reasons.

I'm not suggesting that

True enough, you aren't. But 'take it or leave it' was implied, and my position is that Israel can only take it.

Now, is it really hard to imagine the US abusing that position? Of course not. Governments do what they percieve to be in their best interest, and do what they can to achieve those goals. See the 'red lines' linked in #115. What possible leverage would the US have over Israel? The fact that they are their only friend, key arms supplier and (for the most part) a diplomatic ally in the UN.

#118 Colt:

But 'take it or leave it' was implied

When did I imply that? More like "take it, if you want it... and we're not stopping you from buying from others". To my knowledge, US military aid to Israel has never been conditioned on "buy American only" (nor has Israel felt the need to do so).

As to the "red lines" from your link, the only evidence I see of any US retaliation for crossing lines is the following:

The US has cut $290m (£167.9m) from loan guarantees intended to bail out Israel's ailing economy to signal its unhappiness over the settlement expansions.

And I think we can agree that settlement expansion is not exactly a key Israeli security priority?

We certainly agree that MANY people... including the US State Dept., including the Euros, including the Israeli left... are not being realistic about the situation, and have given the Palis way too much credit for way too long. And yes, of course, Arab oil will always have a place in US foreign policy--and not just in ours. But I cannot simply let lie a statement to the effect that the US is deliberately "bleeding" Israel for Arab oil.

#119 Occasional Reader

To my knowledge, US military aid to Israel has never been conditioned on "buy American only" (nor has Israel felt the need to do so).

As I understand it, the amount of US military aid ($3 billion, IIRC) must be spent on US kit, including specifically (another IIRC) on the M-16. (We're stretching my knowledge here... :-)

And I think we can agree that settlement expansion is not exactly a key Israeli security priority?

It was an article in the Independent, so that kind of spin is inevitable. The total value of loans revoked was the cost of the fence extending around Ariel. We're not talking about expansion, but preventing terrorists inflitrating Israeli towns. It would seem that such efforts must be punished.

But I cannot simply let lie a statement to the effect that the US is deliberately "bleeding" Israel for Arab oil.

1. Do not harm Arafat
2. Do not jeopardise the creation of a Palestinian state
3. Do not shock the region

Unless deterred, the Arabs will continue to make Israel bleed. Those three things above are the pressure-points of the Arab world, and the US says 'do not touch'.

#40 Colt

I read the Times today and saw this; but a pejorative slant was put on it, of which I'm glad.

Lancing the abscess of the Islamic mind-set lets the pus run out.

That can only be a good thing.

#120 Colt (seems we have our own private thread!):

As I understand it, the amount of US military aid ($3 billion, IIRC) must be spent on US kit,

Let me rephrase: To my knowledge, US military aid to Israel has never been conditioned on "buy American only" with Israel's own money. Sure, we insist that our aid be spent on our stuff. But AFAIK, we don't say, "and if you spend YOUR money on other peoples' stuff, we'll cut off OUR money." So, again; Israel is coming to us because we make the best beer in the neighborhood, not because we're preventing them from visiting other pubs. (Everything makes more sense to me when it's rendered into a beer-related metaphor... please bear with me.)

Unless deterred, the Arabs will continue to make Israel bleed. Those three things above are the pressure-points of the Arab world, and the US says 'do not touch'.

And yes, key US administration officials believed for a time (I think less so now) that those three things would help the bleeding stop, because the road map would work, and the Palis would become happy tolerant democrats, and all that malarkey. They were wrong. That's still not AT ALL the same thing as saying that the "US needs Israel weak... and bleeding" (Q's words).

Anyway, good night, estoy fuera de aquí como un rebaño de pajaros (I'm outta here like a herd of birds).

#121 Ben B

Lancing the abscess of the Islamic mind-set lets the pus run out.

I just hope we have the guts to do something about it once people realise what a threat Islamism poses.

I meant

#44 Colt

I'm sorry.

#122 OR

Anyway, good night, estoy fuera de aquí como un rebaño de pajaros (I'm outta here like a herd of birds).

It's 00:01 here, and you're saying good night? :-)

G'night. I'll reply tmr. as long as I remember.

No problem :-)

#123 Colt

It will. Islamism is rising above the immune threshold quite rapidly. I'm sure they've shown their hand too soon.

Are you in England? You have an English intonation.

Islamism has lost its immunity in my book. I am "spreading the word" as fast as I can! If we don't, we should invest in hijab and other attire and learn Arabic, dhimmitude, a prospect that I refuse to accept.

I have found that few people know what I am talking about or really want to know at this point. They don't want to take a stand because doing so would be admitting that the West is changing to something we don't want. In other words, it's fear.

OT: ICJ Rules 15-1, Against Israel's Request to Remove Egyptian Judge in Fence Case

Baldy, the only surprising thing about it is that Israel is surprised by their decision.

A little late with this but an Islamic Student center in

Belfast?! Eh habbibi, let`s beat up the infidel Gaelic

footballers and ruggers going to their godless pub.

I`d pay to join in, er, see that. For the first time in

500 years the Catholics and Protestants have something

to agree on!

OT: "Jihad means struggle for improvement, for the well-being of the people." Indonesian FM (on Bali Conf.): Terrorism Conf in Bali - Wed 2/4/04
OT: Malaysia: Boost Transvestite Shows for Tourism!
OT: Pres. "Mega" of Indonesia to Pick Muslim Leader or Military Leader as Running Mate

#16 Tobacco Tom

I always thought that when an enemy takes your people prisoner, you go in and take them back by force

It seems that Entebbe is a distant Memory! ;-(

Although I do agree with one of the first few posters in this thread that alluded to how difficult a job Ariel Sharon has and I for one, wouldnt want to be in his position.

As long as the US holds him back, who am I, a non-Israeli to comment on what appears to be very, very wrong, this prisoner swap.

double agents for israel in the group freed?

I dunno folks, perhaps this was an "equitable" swap.

1 Israeli life for 400+ Palestidiots?

Seems to me that the Hezbollah got the proverbial short end of the stick! :-)

I got a flash reading this article. Israel should have put all of these prisoners in a bus, driven that bus into the mass of people expecting it, let the driver get out and come home, then blown it to smithereens with about 10,000 lbs of high explosives hidden inside. Just a thought. How would any of the people awaiting the bus have claimed moral superiority?

I agree with Roger Simon. There is nothing that the terrorists will not do that they are not capable of doing. They need no motivation. Separation is the best answer.

The freeing of terrorists was a disaster as far as the impact on the enemy's morale and motivation to carry out more kidnappings and carry out more terrorism; it was a disaster as far as changing the capability of the enemy to carry out more terrorism.
But it was done to raise the morale of Israelis, especially those who have to go into battle.

Has anyone ever thought that the Mossad has 'bugged' all of the released prisoners? 400+ little homing devices to guide in the apaches. What could be better?

I agree with Joel #137
"There is nothing that the terrorists will not do that they are not capable of doing. They need no motivation. "

The unfortunate side of freeing the terrorists is that this increases the terrorists' capability.

re #140 I mean that the terrorists will do whatever they are capable of doing. Their motivation is already at full boil. This will increase their motivation, but it is already extremely high. What has to be curtailed is their capability.

Thank you E.E.

The terrorists are not rational. If they could destroy every Israeli Jew, man, woman, child, ethey would do it. I would have deproted all these scum who wer ereleased to Lebanon.

I think that contrary to currrent beliefs, israel was right for getting out of Lebanon in 2000. The IDF was a punching bag for Hizbullah, the IDF was hukered down taking 25 daeths a eyar for no purpose. Ultimately they were involved in dfeneding themselves more then Northern Israel. When Israel announced it was pulling out, the Lebanese and Syrians were angry! They wanted a war of attrition against Isreal there.

Darn. Too early in the morning to go without spellcheck.

Israel seems to be betting the whole paycheck on the security fence. I for one think it'll work, for a while. I just hope they continue to monitor the PA territories after they withdraw behind the wall. They can actually learn something from the French and their Maginot line on this one. IF they don't keep a vigil on the territories, what was once a buffer zone for Isreal proper may become a forward base of operations for the islamazoids.

Just one thing on the spelling Hizb'Allah.

It's not very accurate.

The Arabic word "Hizb" means "part", "group".

The Arabic word "Allah" means "God".

However, when they join, the initial "A-" of "Allah" disappears. In literary Arabic, the word Hizb will always end in an extra vowel, depending upon its syntactic role. If it is the subject or the predicate, it will take the "u" vowel, as in Hizbullah. If it is the direct object (and for other syntactic reasons that cannot be discussed here) it will take the "a" vowel and become Hizballah. If it is the genetive, or after a preposition, it takes the "i" vowel, hence "Hizbillah". These case vowels do not exist in the spoken language, hence there is no clear way of deciding what it would be. ALso the short "i" vowel is often pronounced "e", hence Hizbullah becomes Hezballah or Hezbllah.

Anyhow, the dividing glottal stop before the "a" of "allah" really isn't there.

Sorry, but a nice try.

#122 OR

So, again; Israel is coming to us because we make the best beer in the neighborhood, not because we're preventing them from visiting other pubs. (Everything makes more sense to me when it's rendered into a beer-related metaphor... please bear with me.)

No, the beer analogy is good. Or was until this...

Imagine Israel to be a drunk who can only face his wife after a few of these special beers. The bar tender decides that he wants something from our drunk. The drunk is in no position to refuse, because no-one else sells this beer and it is (ok, it gets weak here) medically impossible for him to get along with his wife without beer.

And yes, key US administration officials believed for a time (I think less so now) that those three things would help the bleeding stop, because the road map would work, and the Palis would become happy tolerant democrats, and all that malarkey. They were wrong. That's still not AT ALL the same thing as saying that the "US needs Israel weak... and bleeding" (Q's words).

If the people who create US foreign policy don't understand (or choose not to understand) that the Arab-Israeli conflict is all about jihad, dhimmitude and Arab honour/shame, the WoT is in for a rough ride.

It implies that they think that jihadists can be appeased, cajoled and lobbyed in to doing what the US wants. It implies that they learnt nothing from Oslo, Oslo II, Wye River and the rest. It implies that they're undertaking a major foreign policy drive without understanding the realities.

That is best case scenario, IMHO. And it ain't pretty.

#127 Ben B

Are you in England? You have an English intonation.

Yup. It sounds like you are, too?

Now who would have though that Israel under Sharon would make Gaza Judenrein

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

#37 Mike: As I understand it, all you have to do to be a "republic" is have no monarch. I don't think a democratic form of government is really even a requirement, at least if you go by the "people's republics" that clogged and littered the world for a few decades from 1945 on. The key issue is what kind of representative form of government a nation has.

The reason there is a third party in Britain is that the Liberal Democrats have a few constituencies where they can muster a majority, and they also serve as a "protest" vote for both Labourites and Tories who can't stomach actually voting for their counterpart. Even with that, despite their winining 20% of the national vote in the 2001 election, they only have 8% of the seats.

[Link: www.election.demon.co.uk...]

Their strategic collaboration with Labour actually makes this a great result for them. In previous elections the disparity between their popular vote totals and seats won has been much greater. For instance, in the 1979 general election they won 13.8% of the vote, but only 11 out of 635 seats (less than 2%).

Germany's third (and fourth) parties get in because half the seats in the Bundestag are given proportionally to party vote, with a 5% cutoff to get any seats. Neither the Free Democrats nor the Greens get any of the seats chosen in individual electoral districts; they get all their seats through the proportional distribution of seats.

But back to Israel, its politics would be a lot more stable if it jettisoned proportional representation and chose a system of parliamentary elections which reduced the power of small parties with extreme (right or left) or narrow (religious) agendas. If Ariel Sharon or Ehud Barak was selected as Prime Minister by a single party which had actually won a majority of seats in a general election, they would have a much more secure mandate to govern.

I'm not sure how this would have prevented this disastrous exchange from going forward though...

# 128 epg

sound stuff. I agree, and I broadcast it likewise.

# 147 Colt

Glad you inhabit these sunny skies. My impression of Islamism in England is that it is something of a loser, for all the vituperation of certain small groups. There's a general sense of integration, at least where I live (a manufacturing town in the East Midlands.)

France is different; her Arabic North-African empire may be coming home to roost in the banlieus.