Pat Buchanan *GASP* Actually making sense of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

[Phokus]

Even though Pat is a conservative nut-job and i rarely agree with him, he actually makes some sense in his article here:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27056



<< Palestinians are winning

Posted: April 2, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

"Citizens of Israel, the state of Israel is at war ? a
war against terror," thundered Ariel Sharon in
his Sunday address to the nation.

But Sharon's rage and resolve notwithstanding,
Israel is not at war with terror. Israel is at war
with Palestine.

The terrorism of the suicide bombers of the
intifada ? ugly and awful as its manifestations
are in Netanya, Haifa, and Jerusalem ? is but a
tactic in a guerrilla war of national liberation
being waged by the Palestinian people against
Israeli occupation. It is a tactic with a venerable
pedigree in the 20th century, where it was used
repeatedly and successfully against the Western
empires.

Michael Collins used terror to bring into being
an Irish Free State. Menachem Begin blew up
the King David Hotel to drive the British out of
Palestine. The Mau Mau used terror to run the
British out of Kenya. Nelson Mandela's ANC
used terror to overthrow white minority rule in
South Africa, as did Mugabe in Rhodesia. The
FALN used terror to drive the French out of
Algeria. Islamists used terror to run the Marines
out of Lebanon. And Islamic Jihad, Hamas and
the Al Aqsa Brigades are using terror to drive
the Israelis off the West Bank and out of Gaza.

Terrorism works, and the terrorists of yesterday
often emerge as the statesmen of tomorrow.
Begin and Mandela won the Nobel Peace Prize,
and a third Nobel laureate is now holed up in
Ramallah.

Terrorism works best against Western
governments inhibited in the weapons they may
use to combat it by their Judeo-Christian and
just-war moral codes. But, like civil
disobedience, terror is far less effective against
dictatorships. Gandhi would have been well
advised not to lie down in front of the trains in
Hitler's Germany.

Indeed, when Lord Halifax droned on to Hitler
about his difficult dealings with Gandhi during
his tour as Viceroy of India, the Fuhrer
impatiently interrupted him, "Shoot Gandhi!" As
an astonished Halifax stared in disbelief, Hitler
went on: "Shoot Gandhi ? and if that does not
suffice to reduce them to submission, shoot a
dozen leading members of Congress; and if that
does not suffice, shoot 200 and so on until order
is established."

But the Israelis cannot "shoot" Arafat. To do so
would forfeit Israel's support in the West, ignite
an explosion in the Arab and Islamic world, and
make Arafat a martyr about whom the
Palestinian people would rally and rise up for
revenge.

And what good would it do? Arafat is not
recruiting the terrorists. Israeli tanks and armor
rampaging through the cities and refugee camps
of the West Bank are doing the recruiting. As for
the Palestinian Authority, the Israelis have
smashed it. Arafat has nothing left to lose and
would surely prefer to die a martyr's death than
live as the Arab leader who capitulated to Ariel
Sharon.

Whether the Israelis admit it or not, the
Palestinians are winning. Hezbollah drove
Israel out of Lebanon. The first intifada brought
Israel to Oslo to offer land for peace. The second
caused Barak to offer 95 percent of the West
Bank. Today's suicide bombers die in the
knowledge their families face no reprisals but
will forever honor their memory. Sharon's
reoccupation of the West Bank will no more
cause the Palestinians to give up than the
black-and-tans could force the Irish to surrender
to Lloyd George.

Is there no way out?

The only hope lies in a Palestinian state. A small
state of their own would give Palestinians a
huge stake in peace and in preventing acts of
terror against Israel ? i.e., national survival.
Syria does not allow acts of terror on the Golan
Heights, because Assad knows he has a nation
to lose in any war with Israel. And, after
independence, the IRA, the Irgun, the Mau Mau
and the ANC terminated the terror.

But time may be passing us by. For the Israeli
repression has radicalized the Palestinians, and
through Al Jazeera's nightly clips of Arabs cut
down by Israeli Jews using American weapons,
it has radicalized the Arab world. Arabs and
Muslims are concluding that the tactics used to
drive Israel out of Lebanon and bring her to
Oslo may be the tactics that can drive the
Israelis out of the Middle East altogether.

And just as Israelis must be asking themselves
today, "What price Judea and Samaria?" we
should be asking ourselves, "What price
empire?" For, in Arab and Islamic eyes, ours is
the last of the Western nations and imperial
presence in their part of the world.

Over the weekend came reports America is
planning to put troops in the Middle East and
President Bush backed Sharon to the hilt. If
America has decided to abandon the role of
honest broker in the Palestinian-Israeli war, in
favor of its role as Israel's ally, we would be
well advised not to put U.S. troops on the West
Bank, or we will likely revisit the lesson of the
Marines in Beirut. >>

 

[Pocatello]

Sure, but terrors can be used to drive out invaders. But the Israelis think it's their land too, where else they are going to go?

 

[b0mbrman]

<< Sure, but terrors can be used to drive out invaders. But the Israelis think it's their land too, where else they are going to go? >>


Did Braveheart kill innocent people? Did Payback kill innocent people? Did Ghandhi kill innocent people?

Don't act like alternatives are impossible...

 

[Phokus]

<< Did Braveheart kill innocent people? Did Payback kill innocent people? Did Ghandhi kill innocent people?

Don't act like alternatives are impossible... >>



I'm awfully surprised that you used movies to bring your point across. The difference between "Braveheart" vs. the Brits and the Palestinians and the Israelis are that "team Braveheart" weren't so unevenly unmatched in terms of arms. Israel has tanks, fighter helicopters, fighter jets, and even nukes. Palestine has jack.

 

[gopunk]

<<

<< Did Braveheart kill innocent people? Did Payback kill innocent people? Did Ghandhi kill innocent people?

Don't act like alternatives are impossible... >>



I'm awfully surprised that you used movies to bring your point across. The difference between "Braveheart" vs. the Brits and the Palestinians and the Israelis are that "team Braveheart" weren't so unevenly unmatched in terms of arms. Israel has tanks, fighter helicopters, fighter jets, and even nukes. Palestine has jack. >>



which makes it okay to kill innocents? the right thing to do would be to move on with their lives and get over it. yeesh. i would be pissed if somebody took my land. but not pissed enough to blow myself up, taking a bunch of innocent people with me. that's f*cked up.

 

[b0mbrman]

<<

<< Did Braveheart kill innocent people? Did Payback kill innocent people? Did Ghandhi kill innocent people?
Don't act like alternatives are impossible... >>

I'm awfully surprised that you used movies to bring your point across. >>


Heh heh...figured I might as well make these discussions a little more interesting by using Simpsons quotes...

 

[AaronP]

Did Braveheart kill innocent people

the fictional character Mel Gibson played didn't, however there is some evidence that the real William Wallace did kill innocent english people.

 

[Phokus]

<<
which makes it okay to kill innocents? the right thing to do would be to move on with their lives and get over it. yeesh. i would be pissed if somebody took my land. but not pissed enough to blow myself up, taking a bunch of innocent people with me. that's f*cked up. >>



I never said it was "ok". And it's a good thing the USA is the most powerful country on the earth, if we were ever in danger of having our land taken over, i sure wouldn't count on *YOU* defending it.

 

[gopunk]

<<

<<
which makes it okay to kill innocents? the right thing to do would be to move on with their lives and get over it. yeesh. i would be pissed if somebody took my land. but not pissed enough to blow myself up, taking a bunch of innocent people with me. that's f*cked up. >>



I never said it was "ok". And it's a good thing the USA is the most powerful country on the earth, if we were ever in danger of having our land taken over, i sure wouldn't count on *YOU* defending it. >>



they're not defending anything... they already lost the land. you have to learn when to take your losses and move on. if you keep on fighting, regardless of whether fighting is the best option or not, you're a f*cking idiot.

i wouldn't support native americans blowing themselves up at shopping malls to retake america, either.

 

[Random Variable]

He was on MSNBC earlier today calling Palestinian suicide bombers "freedom fighters."

The world community is legitimizing the maiming and killing of men, women, and children in the name of resistance. Everyone, including infants, are now fair game. Wake me up when sanity returns to this world.

 

[b0mbrman]

<< they're not defending anything... they already lost the land. you have to learn when to take your losses and move on. if you keep on fighting, regardless of whether fighting is the best option or not, you're a f*cking idiot. >>


I would have a lot of respect for the Palestinians if, against all odds, they went ahead and declared war on the Israelis and fought using conventional warfare...none of this blowing up innocent civilians crap.

Sure, they'd probably lose if they fought and if they ran, they'd probably live. At least a while. And dying in their beds many years from now, would they be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance, to go back there and tell their enemies that they may take their lives.... but they'll never take their FREEDOM!!

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

<<

<< Sure, but terrors can be used to drive out invaders. But the Israelis think it's their land too, where else they are going to go? >>


Did Braveheart kill innocent people? Did Payback kill innocent people? Did Ghandhi kill innocent people?

Don't act like alternatives are impossible... >>



MUHUHAHAHAHA! I love the way people bit on this - you'd think the "Payback" line would at least have tipped them off.

 

[Russ]

Phokus,

For once, you're right. Buchanan is a nut job.

Russ, NCNE

 

[b0mbrman]

<<

<<

<< Sure, but terrors can be used to drive out invaders. But the Israelis think it's their land too, where else they are going to go? >>

Did Braveheart kill innocent people? Did Payback kill innocent people? Did Ghandhi kill innocent people?
Don't act like alternatives are impossible... >>

MUHUHAHAHAHA! I love the way people bit on this - you'd think the "Payback" line would at least have tipped them off. >>

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Buchanan belongs in a padded cell and straight jacket. On top of that he's anti-semitic. Both are pretty apparent in his little article there.

 

[Random Variable]

I don't know why it is so hard for people to see that the Palestinian Authority is causing the suffering of the Palestinian people. But what I do know, right? After all, I'm a biased Jew.

 

[Miramonti]

Good article from Buchanon. And anyone who wants palestinians to fight a conventional 21th century war, please supply them with some tanks, some attack helicopters, and some anti-aircraft missles - and I'm sure they'd oblige. Or, perhaps the US could give them a couple billion dollars like they do israel and they could buy them themselves.

 

[gopunk]

<< Good article from Buchanon. And anyone who wants palestinians to fight a conventional 21th century war, please supply them with some tanks, some attack helicopters, and some anti-aircraft missles - and I'm sure they'd oblige. Or, perhaps the US could give them a couple billion dollars like they do israel and they could buy them themselves. >>



oh cry me a river, they're wrong for resorting to terrorism, and if they want to whine about being outgunned, that's something they should have thought of before they attacked israel in the first place.

 

[Martin]

<< I would have a lot of respect for the Palestinians if, against all odds, they went ahead and declared war on the Israelis and fought using conventional warfare...none of this blowing up innocent civilians crap. >>



And how are they supposed to do that when they don't have the weapons or the organized military? Remember the outrage that people expressed when Israel caught those arms shipments a few months ago?

 

[gopunk]

<<

<< I would have a lot of respect for the Palestinians if, against all odds, they went ahead and declared war on the Israelis and fought using conventional warfare...none of this blowing up innocent civilians crap. >>



And how are they supposed to do that when they don't have the weapons or the organized military? Remember the outrage that people expressed when Israel caught those arms shipments a few months ago? >>



he's just saying he would have respect for them if they did it. obviously, if they were on equal footing with the israelis, it wouldn't be "against all odds".

 

[Phokus]

<< Buchanan belongs in a padded cell and straight jacket. On top of that he's anti-semitic. Both are pretty apparent in
his little article there. >>



I don't see how you can draw the conclusion that buchanan is 'anti-semetic' from the article here. Your ad hominem attack does not take away from the fact that he does make good points:



<< The only hope lies in a Palestinian state. A small
state of their own would give Palestinians a
huge stake in peace and in preventing acts of
terror against Israel ? i.e., national survival.
Syria does not allow acts of terror on the Golan
Heights, because Assad knows he has a nation
to lose in any war with Israel. And, after
independence, the IRA, the Irgun, the Mau Mau
and the ANC terminated the terror. >>

 

[Amused]

Oh BS. The Palestinians are not fighting against merely an Israeli occupation, they are continuing a war that has been waged for 50 years against the very existence of an Israeli state in the Middle East. No other explaination suffices as to why they would reject or break every peace treaty offered up, even that last one during Clinton's administration in which they were given everything but the kitchen sink.

The "Palestinian cause" is the creation of the surrounding Arab nations to fight a terrorist war by proxy that could not be won by conventional means. There is NO peace for the Palestinians so long as an Israeli state exists. Anyone who has the least bit of knowldege of history can readily understand this.

To claim that Israel occupation creates terrorists is just bass-acwards Terrorists created the Israel occupation, and prolong it to this day. Terrorism must NEVER be allowed to succeed. In this, Buchanan starts out correct, then drops the ball. First he claims terrorism is successful against Western societies because they have a history of caving to it, then he claims Israel should also cave. NO!

Just as the child who is given what they want after throwing kicking and screaming fit will soon learn that this behavior works, so have the Arabs learned that terrorism is a valid means of gaining their goals. Israel must NEVER give into terrorism, for it will only send the message that terrorism is a valid means of protest to gain one's demands.

It's trime to STOP giving in to terrorism. Yes, it will be messy, it wont be pretty at all as those children kick and scream until they're blue in the face... but NOTHING else will break this cycle of madness.

 

[b0mbrman]

<< And how are they supposed to do that when they don't have the weapons or the organized military? Remember the outrage that people expressed when Israel caught those arms shipments a few months ago? >>


The outrage stemmed for the fact that they'd signed an agreement not to have anything bigger than small arms.

 

[InfectedMushroom]

<<
which makes it okay to kill innocents? the right thing to do would be to move on with their lives and get over it. yeesh. i would be pissed if somebody took my land. but not pissed enough to blow myself up, taking a bunch of innocent people with me. that's f*cked up. >>




first: i hate to see the suicide bombers killing innocent ppl.
but,
i can see why they are doing it. you gotta think that some of them really have no choise. they lost everything. almost 50% of them have no jobs and no prospects for a better life because of the occupation and isolation and checkpoints.
so it seems that some of those with no prospects for a better life chose to die blowing themselves and others around up, thinking this would draw attention to their problems.

both sides are fvcked and bad and have commited really fvcked up acts. i can't see how you can have israel pull out while there are still suicide bombings going on, and i can't see how you can have suicides bombing stop while israel is still occupying palestenian teritories.

 

[Amused]

<<

<<
which makes it okay to kill innocents? the right thing to do would be to move on with their lives and get over it. yeesh. i would be pissed if somebody took my land. but not pissed enough to blow myself up, taking a bunch of innocent people with me. that's f*cked up. >>




first: i hate to see the suicide bombers killing innocent ppl.
but,
i can see why they are doing it. you gotta think that some of them really have no choise. they lost everything. almost 50% of them have no jobs and no prospects for a better life because of the occupation and isolation and checkpoints.
so it seems that some of those with no prospects for a better life chose to die blowing themselves and others around up, thinking this would draw attention to their problems.

both sides are fvcked and bad and have commited really fvcked up acts. i can't see how you can have israel pull out while there are still suicide bombings going on, and i can't see how you can have suicides bombing stop while israel is still occupying palestenian teritories. >>



Oh BS again. If the "they have nothing to lose argument" held any water, many of our world's suicide terrorists wouldn't be middle and upper class Saudis. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

They are NOT doing this because they have nothing to lose. They are doing this because they believe it's a valid form of protest... and previous western nations giving into this madness is what has made them think this. They aren't doing this because they want Israel out of the occupied territories. They are doing this because they want Israel out of the Middle East altogether. And if you think Israel withdrawing from the territories will stop this, you've got a lot of learning to do. Israel offered to do just that, they even have basically done just that in the past, and the terror never stopped.

The reason the terrorists strike Israel is the very reason Bin Laden strikes at the US: Religious fanaticism. They believe we and our culture should NEVER be in the Middle East.