Bush nominated for the Nobel PEACE Prize?!

[zakur]

Story (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=3&u=/nm/20040130/ts_nm/nobel_peace_dc) President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are among nominees for the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize before a Sunday deadline for nominations despite failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.WTF? :confused:

[Tmy]

Geez the Nobel prize is getting as bad as the Oscars. IT USED TO BE ABOUT THE PEACE!!!!

Bush has his reasons for military actions, but the peace prize seems kidna silly. Unless theyre buying intothat Iraqi Freedom nonsense.

[wollery]

Yes, did you actually read all of the story?

Lundestad said many people wrongly believed being a "Nobel prize nominee" was itself a kind of honor.

Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler and former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic have made it to the list -- every member of all the world's parliaments, university professors from law to theology, ex-winners and committee members can submit names.

[CFLarsen]

Relax.

Study first, comment later.

http://www.nobel.se

Being nominated is not such a BFD. Getting it is.

[CFLarsen]

Nominations.

http://www.nobel.se/help/faq/nominations.html

[Hexxenhammer]

Besides YAsser Arrafat getting it, the funniest person to ever get it was Teddy Roosevelt. My man Teddy thought war was great and was just itching to go kill him some Spaniards when he formed the Rough Riders.

[El Greco]

Ok, who nominated GWB ? I need to have a word with that person :D

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tmy
Geez the Nobel prize is getting as bad as the Oscars. IT USED TO BE ABOUT THE PEACE!!!!


Yes, in BIZARRO WORLD. In the real world it has no meaning whatsoever anymore.

After Arafat won it, it was obvious that it had become a joke.

[Cain]

No, it became a joke after Kissinger won it. Somebody famously remarked that satire died that day.

[geni]

Originally posted by El Greco
Ok, who nominated GWB ? I need to have a word with that person :D

Same person who nominated Blair (this is on the bais that there surly can't be two people like that).

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Cain
No, it became a joke after Kissinger won it. Somebody famously remarked that satire died that day.

Some of us weren't even alive back then. For us, Arafat was the tell.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Tmy
Geez the Nobel prize is getting as bad as the Oscars. IT USED TO BE ABOUT THE PEACE!!!!

Bush has his reasons for military actions, but the peace prize seems kidna silly. Unless theyre buying intothat Iraqi Freedom nonsense.

Oh? When exactly was it about the peace?

Theodore Roosevelt got the peace prize. Hell, Henry Kissinger got it. Why not W??

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx


Some of us weren't even alive back then. For us, Arafat was the tell.
Read a book, my friend, so you learn stuff that happened before you were born. Its useful, and easy.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius

Read a book, my friend, so you learn stuff that happened before you were born. Its useful, and easy.

Drink your Boost, tuck in your depends, and go back to complaining about kids skateboarding on the sidewalk.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx


Drink your Boost, tuck in your depends, and go back to complaining about kids skateboarding on the sidewalk.
He shoots, he scores!

[Zep]

Maybe the nominations are for a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT George W Bush and Anthony Blair - some unknown heroes who have done some community benefit in an underpriviledged country somehow.

D'ya think?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Think of what Nobel Prizes W could get. Certainly not any of the scientific ones. Nor literature. Economics? Naah, ya gotta be an academic for that one.

Peace it is then! :p

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Cain
No, it became a joke after Kissinger won it. Somebody famously remarked that satire died that day.


I am sorry but I agree on this one. Kissinger contributed a lot in the miseries of the world and in the creation of the Arafats of the world.Kissinger has destroyed the lives of thousands of people all around the world, he has lead to imprisonment and tortures thousands, he has destroyed countries, people, families.

At least Arafat is fighting for his people, on whose behalf Kissinger was fighting when he distributed horror all around the planet.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


At least Arafat is fighting for his people

I can't tell who Arafat is fighting for. His own people are in egypt. I didn't realize that he lines his own pockets with millions to help the egyptians fight Israel.

Mr. Kissinger in his own deluded way thought he was fighting the dirty parts of the cold war by proxy all around the world for America.

At least Kissinger had a reason to get the nobel. The only criticism is that the conflict he was complicit with or orchestrated should disqualify him.

Can you show me one reason why Arafat should have ever gotten the award? Just one?

I am not saying Kissinger was a great guy but the Nobel is not a "lifetime achievement award". It was awarded to him (I believe) for finally negotiating an end to the Vietnam conflict. It wasn't given because he led a life of peace of nonviolence from beginning to end.

[Tricky]

It is not uncommon to nominate and even award the peace prize to people for not killing as many people as they could have. Certainly Kissenger falls under this umbrella, as well as Arafat. Using this rationale, Truman could have been given the award for only nuking two cities.

But being the impartial person I am, I must point out that Arafat and Begin were co-awarded it for the Camp David accords, which initiated a period of diminished violence in the Mideast that hasn't been duplicated since.

[Captain Trips]

I've got it! I know what Dubya has done to further the cause of peace! Has anyone here ever heard the phrase "the peace of the dead?"

Really, this man is responsible for more deaths than Al Qaeda. By those rights, perhaps someone should nominate bin Laden?

[demon]

Hitler may not have got the prize, but Kissinger did. So did the well-known international terrorist Menachem Begin, and the military dictator Anwar Sadat. So did the missonary bigots Mother Teresa and Albert Schweitzer. Not to mention the peanut farmer last year, whose pal the Shah of Iran treated his people so wonderfully well that they rose up in revolution.
Beside such charming company, Bush and Blair should fit right in.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Cain
No, it became a joke after Kissinger won it. Somebody famously remarked that satire died that day.
Is Tom Lehrer all that famous any more?

[Skeptic]

But being the impartial person I am, I must point out that Arafat and Begin were co-awarded it for the Camp David accords, which initiated a period of diminished violence in the Mideast that hasn't been duplicated since.

Er, no. Begin won it together with Sadat, for the peace agreement with Egypt brokered by Carter in Camp David.

Needless to say, Sadat was soon assassinated by one of the followers of the "religion of peace" for the crime of signing a peace agreement with the "zionist entity".

[Cleopatra]

First of all I am not suggesting that Arafat should have won the prize. I think that it's totally wrong and unfair to expect the Palestinians or the Israelis to fight for peace. Both fight for survival and the Palestinians side doesn't fight only for survival but for its existence as well, let's be fair.

Originally posted by corplinx

I can't tell who Arafat is fighting for. His own people are in egypt. I didn't realize that he lines his own pockets with millions to help the egyptians fight Israel.[quote].

Arafat is fighting for his people the Arabs. We know who Araft is, he is a product of Nasser he is not a child of the Palestinians. We also know that he would kill to have been born in Palestine and that he has tried hard to make people forget that he wasn't born there.
[quote]Mr. Kissinger in his own deluded way thought he was fighting the dirty parts of the cold war by proxy all around the world for America.
At least Kissinger had a reason to get the nobel. The only criticism is that the conflict he was complicit with or orchestrated should disqualify him.

Kissinger's "deluted way" created real and existent pain and misery to people. People all around the world hate Americans because of Kissinger. Fierce anti-americanism started after his days. Are American people aware of the misery he has caused on their behalf?

Can you show me one reason why Arafat should have ever gotten the award? Just one?

As I said there isn't any reason that Arafat or Begin should have gotten the award. Giving the Nobel Award to people that have been killing each other is just ridiculous.

FYI demon Begin wasn't a international terrorist. He was a local terrorist. PLO's guerillas have played the role of International Terrorist repeatedly during the 70ies and the 80ies.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by geni


Same person who nominated Blair (this is on the bais that there surly can't be two people like that).

No, you are wrong. There are two people like that. I finally figured this out.

Bush nominated Blair and Blair nominated Bush.

Bingo!

[Chaos]

Added to Skeptic

Didn´t Arafat get the Prize jointly with Rabin, for the Oslo accords?

Added to Cleopatra

International terrorism (as in: terrorists operating outside their home country, trageting foreigners to catch international attention) started in 1968 IIRC, with the kidnapping of a TWA airliner by Palestinians.


On the other hand, "terrorism" as it is used today is a very subjective term. If the American Revolution happened today, the Founding Fathers would almost certainly be regarded as terrorists (and you can bet that the British would call them that at every opportunity). The Boston Tea Party, for example, was very clearly a terrorist act.

[Skeptic]

The Boston Tea Party, for example, was very clearly a terrorist act.

Somehow, however, I doubt Washington or Franklin or Jefferson would blow themselves up with gunpowder as long as they could do it in the basement of a british school, in order to take a few british schoolchildren with them.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Somehow, however, I doubt Washington or Franklin or Jefferson would blow themselves up with gunpowder as long as they could do it in the basement of a british school, in order to take a few british schoolchildren with them. [/B]

And I doubt that Arafat or Sheik Jassin (sp? - he is the leader of Hamas, isn´t he?) would personally commit a suicide bombing.

Anyway...

Personally, I don´t think Washington or Franklin or Jefferson (or the others) were anything like in the same league as Arafat or Bin Laden.
What I was (and still am) trying to say is that "terrorism" by itself is not enough to instantly put a person into the "cloven-hoofed horned and tailed devil who will sit to the right side of Satan in hell" category. You have to take a look at how and why they did (or do) it.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Chaos

The Boston Tea Party, for example, was very clearly a terrorist act.

That's somewhat like saying that the kids who vandalized a sign post were terrorists. I like Skeptic would concur that these people would have not gone as far as modern day terrorists. This isn't merely limited to suicide/explosion tactics against civilians, but the explicit use of terror against civilians, slaughtering of children, and sanctioning of other suicide bombers.

I agree, that for a side one man's terrorists may be labled as another man's hero, and vice versa. But before one thinks its all relative, one should look at the actual merits, and practices of each side.

I myself, while aknowledging such men were great figures, would think it inappropriate to give either Washington and Franklin a Noble Peace prize. Let alone a butcher like Arafat.

[Cleopatra]

I have been protesting in this forum about the twisted image of the Israelis that the press broadcasts but I want to note here that the same stands for the Palestinians in USA.In fact it's exactly the opposite.

Can we have a balanced view? I mean that in Europe people see Israelis as butchers and in USA people see the Palestinians are butchers. Well both images are distorted!

It's important for the future of the Middle East not to see Palestinians as murderers. Unfortunately for their cause, in the frame of the Cold War they got involved in the International Terrorism that was supported from the Soviet Union something that proves that Palestinians were nothing but the pawns of the Arabs and the Russians that before 1967 didn't recognize them as a separate nation.

I don't have statistics but I would be interested to compare the action of PLO with ETA's in Spain and IRA's in Ireland.

When I was in the States I was impressed about how easily people called the Palestinians murderers and how soft they were with the IRAs who did the same things with PLO. Obviously none wanted to displease the Irish community by calling their liberation front butchers...

USA people must get over this mentality that was cultivated in order to justify the unlimited support to Israel. This policy--of the unlimited support--turned out that it was a mistake for Israel and for USA too.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

It's important for the future of the Middle East not to see Palestinians as murderers.


The idea of all Palestinians as murderers rings of bigotry. Unfortunately, you won't hear me comment on Palestinian who helped the old lady cross the road because it didn't make the news.

Most likely, you will hear me talk about some militant who made the news.

As such, your view of my view may become warped.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I have been protesting in this forum about the twisted image of the Israelis that the press broadcasts but I want to note here that the same stands for the Palestinians in USA.In fact it's exactly the opposite.

Can we have a balanced view? I mean that in Europe people see Israelis as butchers and in USA people see the Palestinians are butchers. Well both images are distorted!

It's important for the future of the Middle East not to see Palestinians as murderers. Unfortunately for their cause, in the frame of the Cold War they got involved in the International Terrorism that was supported from the Soviet Union something that proves that Palestinians were nothing but the pawns of the Arabs and the Russians that before 1967 didn't recognize them as a separate nation.

I don't have statistics but I would be interested to compare the action of PLO with ETA's in Spain and IRA's in Ireland.

When I was in the States I was impressed about how easily people called the Palestinians murderers and how soft they were with the IRAs who did the same things with PLO. Obviously none wanted to displease the Irish community by calling their liberation front butchers...

USA people must get over this mentality that was cultivated in order to justify the unlimited support to Israel. This policy--of the unlimited support--turned out that it was a mistake for Israel and for USA too.

I would agree that it would be unfair for me to label all the Palestinian people as butchers. I'm sorry if that's how I came off.

I merely meant to comment on those engaged in, or supporting terrorism now.

I also see many of their fundamentalist tendencies as reprehensible as well, but that hardly makes all the people terrorists. Again, that wasn't what I was trying to say. Nice post btw.

:)

[demon]

"FYI demon Begin wasn't a international terrorist. He was a local terrorist. PLO's guerillas have played the role of International Terrorist repeatedly during the 70ies and the 80ies."

FYI the Irgun bombing of the British Embassy in Rome on Oct. 31, 1946 was not "local terrorism" and it qualifies Begin as an international terrorist.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


That's somewhat like saying that the kids who vandalized a sign post were terrorists. I like Skeptic would concur that these people would have not gone as far as modern day terrorists. This isn't merely limited to suicide/explosion tactics against civilians, but the explicit use of terror against civilians, slaughtering of children, and sanctioning of other suicide bombers.

I agree, that for a side one man's terrorists may be labled as another man's hero, and vice versa. But before one thinks its all relative, one should look at the actual merits, and practices of each side.

I myself, while aknowledging such men were great figures, would think it inappropriate to give either Washington and Franklin a Noble Peace prize. Let alone a butcher like Arafat.

My definition of "terrorism" is:

- violence or the threat of violence (this includes violence against property)
- not a confrontation of (regular or irregular) armed forces
- exercised by non-state actors (i.e. private persons or groups)
- to achieve political (or, by extension, religious) goals

So, for example, what the Israeli government does to the Palestinians is, by definition, not terrorism. Nor was, for example, the rumored attempt by the Iraqi intelligence service to assassinate Bush I in ´93 a terrorist act.
On the other hand, the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act - as were the several attempts by Germans to assassinate Hitler.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Chaos


My definition of "terrorism" is:

- violence or the threat of violence (this includes violence against property)
- not a confrontation of (regular or irregular) armed forces
- exercised by non-state actors (i.e. private persons or groups)
- to achieve political (or, by extension, religious) goals

So, for example, what the Israeli government does to the Palestinians is, by definition, not terrorism. Nor was, for example, the rumored attempt by the Iraqi intelligence service to assassinate Bush I in ´93 a terrorist act.
On the other hand, the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act - as were the several attempts by Germans to assassinate Hitler.

The best I can offer, is from the Council of Foreign relations special site "terrorismanswers.org":

Is there a definition of terrorism?


Even though most people can recognize terrorism when they see it, experts have had difficulty coming up with an ironclad definition. The State Department defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." In another useful attempt to produce a definition, Paul Pillar, a former deputy chief of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, argues that there are four key elements of terrorism:

1. It is premeditated?planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.
2. It is political?not criminal, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get money, but designed to change the existing political order.
3. It is aimed at civilians?not at military targets or combat-ready troops.
4. It is carried out by subnational groups?not by the army of a country.


http://terrorismanswers.org/terrorism/introduction.html


I would consider the Boston Tea Party to be merely a form of vandalism, not terrorism. As there was really no violence perpetrated against civilians imo.

[demon]

Definitions Of Terrorism . . .

No one definition of terrorism seems to have gained universal acceptance.
The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

That statute contains the following definitions:

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.

The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

The US Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983.

http://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by demon
[FYI the Irgun bombing of the British Embassy in Rome on Oct. 31, 1946 was not "local terrorism" and it qualifies Begin as an international terrorist.


Since you pretend to be an ignorant as to what International Terrorism means let me explain you. International Terrorism means to implicate in a conflict third parties and become an accomplish in terrorist acts that are irrelevant with the cause of the organization the way PLO collaborated with Carlos in many cases,for example, since you will ask for an example.

original posted by corplinx


The idea of all Palestinians as murderers rings of bigotry. Unfortunately, you won't hear me comment on Palestinian who helped the old lady cross the road because it didn't make the news.

Most likely, you will hear me talk about some militant who made the news.

As such, your view of my view may become warped.

The difference is that today with the help of Internet those who want can be informed and have access to a variety of opinions and sources.

[demon]

"Since you pretend to be an ignorant as to what International Terrorism means let me explain you. International Terrorism means to implicate in a conflict third parties and become an accomplish in terrorist acts that are irrelevant with the cause of the organization the way PLO collaborated with Carlos in many cases,for example, since you will ask for an example."

No offence, but I think I`ll stick with the definition of the US Intelligence Community as contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d) rather than some home grown variety. Just seems a little more objective to me.

"The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country."

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by demon

"The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country."

No offense but you bring the litigator on the surface. The British Embassy in Rome was and is British Territory. The conflict was between the Jews--later Israelis and the British.

[demon]

"No offense but you bring the litigator on the surface. The British Embassy in Rome was and is British Territory. The conflict was between the Jews--later Israelis and the British."

Your point?
I repeat again:
"The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country."

edited to add: Incidently, I`m not trying to make a moral point here, ie. an "international terorist" is better or worse than a "local terrorist". Just attempting to get a correct definition that applies equally to "terrorists".

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by demon
"No offense but you bring the litigator on the surface. The British Embassy in Rome was and is British Territory. The conflict was between the Jews--later Israelis and the British."

Your point?
I repeat again:
"The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country."

edited to add: Incidently, I`m not trying to make a moral point here, ie. an "international terorist" is better or worse than a "local terrorist". Just attempting to get a correct definition that applies equally to "terrorists".


My point is that your definition doesn't apply to the specific hit, also I don't think that Begin was involved in this incident but I am not sure. I don't suggest that the specific hit wasn't a terrorist act or whether Irgun was a terrorist organization. It was because it was involved in terrorist acts but it's absurd to try to compare the action of Irgun with tha action of PLO.

PLO can be compared only with other similar liberation fronts that have an equally rich resume. As I said I don't think that PLO is worse than IRA it's just that the PLOs did the stupidity to get involved in some really nasty business worldwide also the Arabs never really succeed in lobbying. So, that was the mistake that PLO did and that's why they stopped their international action and since in this forum we are not idiots let's admit the true reason that PLO stopped this activitity: The USSR didn't provide them with protection anymore and here comes Israel's and USA stupidity that turned PLO's guerillas from secular militants to islamic fundamentalists instead of helping them to create a healthy political wing in order to have somebody to negotiate with.

This was USA's responsibility not Israel's, to be exact.

[demon]

"My point is that your definition doesn't apply to the specific hit, also I don't think that Begin was involved in this incident but I am not sure."

Why and why?
If it`s British territory in Rome, or British territory in Britain, it`s another country...that makes it international.
Begin was the leader of Irgun at the time, the Rome bombing was only three months after that of The King David Hotel...yes Irgun has a pretty rich resume too, remember?
Am I imagining you are trying to cut Begin and Irgun some slack here?

It`s not my definition as I already stated, it`s the one the US Intelligence Community chooses to adopt. I dont agree with them very often but this definition seems to be fair.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by demon
Definitions Of Terrorism . . .

No one definition of terrorism seems to have gained universal acceptance.
The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

That statute contains the following definitions:

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.

The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

The US Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983.

http://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html

My own definition is borrowed from "Inside Terrorism" by Bruce Hoffman.

I have some trouble with the definition you cite:

- "clandestine agent" - could that mean operatives of an intelligence service? These would, in fact, be state actors.

- it does not involve the threat of violence - which is, for example in times like today, effective enough to provide disruption

- by my logic, "international terrorism" means applying violence or the threat of violence to the people or property of "neutral", i.e. not directly involved states, to get them involved in the "struggle"

- your definition would (though this might be nitpicking) mean that a group that is only engaged in "domestic" terrorism is not a terrorist group (see definition of "terrorist group")

As for the Boston Tea Party:

- the ships with the tea crago in the Boston harbor were not warships, so they were indeed noncombatant targets

- IIRC the "Indians" storming the ships were citizens of Boston, and therefor a subnational group

- throwing the tea overboard was meant as a political statement: "We are not willing to be taxed without being represented"

That would make it terrorism.

[Skeptic]

your definition would (though this might be nitpicking) mean that a group that is only engaged in "domestic" terrorism is not a terrorist group (see definition of "terrorist group")

Er, to be fair, it would only mean (it seems) that such a group is not an INTERNATIONAL terrorist group, which of course it isn't.

But, seriously, it is understandable that demon "shopped around" until he found a definition of terrorism that is as wide as he could, one that--as you point out--is vague enough to include the Boston tea party as an act of "terrorism" (presumably, this is unintentional on the CIA's definition part).

After all, while Palestinian groups would be terrorist under any reasonable definition, wide or narrow, or "terrorism", to include the israelies, and support demon's claims of moral equivelancy, let alone the superiority, of the Palestinian moral stance, one must of course use a very broad and unconventional definition of "terrorism".

Like the "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" people who "prove" their case by defining "AIDS" so broadly as to make the term meaningless, demon's "israelies are terrorists too" claim can only be supported by using the term "terrorist" so broadly as to include the Boston tea party.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Yes I think that there is no hard and fast definition of terrorism that everyone will agree on. IMO, it's like the Supreme Court on porn. There are no strict categorical guidlines, but you know it when you see it. Definition's like the CIA are only good for certain practical purposes, like statistics, they do however failt to account for many complexities.

According to some definitions, like Chaos, an anarchist who graffitis a billboard at night or a store with something like "Fight the Power!" can be considered a terrorist, especially if he breaks a window or something, while a guerrilla poisoning a soldier's water supply is not or shooting dressed as a civilian from inside a crowd is not. Like I said there are likely to be problems with every definition, thus the matter is one of approximation, not strict category.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



My point is that your definition doesn't apply to the specific hit, also I don't think that Begin was involved in this incident but I am not sure. I don't suggest that the specific hit wasn't a terrorist act or whether Irgun was a terrorist organization. It was because it was involved in terrorist acts but it's absurd to try to compare the action of Irgun with tha action of PLO.

PLO can be compared only with other similar liberation fronts that have an equally rich resume. As I said I don't think that PLO is worse than IRA it's just that the PLOs did the stupidity to get involved in some really nasty business worldwide also the Arabs never really succeed in lobbying. So, that was the mistake that PLO did and that's why they stopped their international action and since in this forum we are not idiots let's admit the true reason that PLO stopped this activitity: The USSR didn't provide them with protection anymore and here comes Israel's and USA stupidity that turned PLO's guerillas from secular militants to islamic fundamentalists instead of helping them to create a healthy political wing in order to have somebody to negotiate with.

This was USA's responsibility not Israel's, to be exact.



Why exactly do you think this is America's fault?

To my knowledge, America has time and time again simply offered aid to Israel in weapons, in negotiations (that were held at camp David) and advocated that Palestinians get their own state.

I doubt Israel is to blame btw, despite the fact that they occupied the West Bank, illegally, despite international suggestions that they stop. It was, understandable imo.

The people at blame here I think are the Palestinians. Though they are not all terrorists, extremist/militant actions haven't exactly been unpopular among the Palestinians.

Is Hamas popular among Palestinians?

Yes. During the late 1990s, experts say, Hamas' popularity rose as Arafat's fell with the collapse of the peace process. Before the spring 2002 Israeli-Palestinian crisis, polls showed that Arafat's Fatah faction and the Islamists each commanded a base of roughly 30 percent support among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. (The remaining Palestinians were either independent or undecided, or supported other factions.) Experts say Hamas' trademark suicide bombings became so widely accepted that Fatah began using them to win back followers.



http://terrorismanswers.org/groups/hamas3.html



Do most Palestinians support suicide bombings?


Since a second intifada (uprising) broke out in the fall of 2000, polls show that up to 70 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza back suicide bombings. The bombings- and Hamas-were much less popular in the mid-1990s, when the peace process was moving along more quickly. Many Palestinians consider Hamas' attacks a legitimate way of resisting Israeli occupation and argue that the world pays less attention to Palestinian losses-including about 1,600 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces since the second intifada began?than to Israeli ones. Pollsters say Palestinian support for anti-Israel violence hardened further during the spring 2002 Middle East crisis.

http://terrorismanswers.org/groups/hamas2.html


Hence even though the Palestinians are in some ways pawns, they seem to be willing pawns.

America to my knowledge, also takes a lot of heat for supporting Israel:

Does U.S. support for Israel contribute to anti-Americanism in the Middle East?

Yes. Many-if not most-Arabs cite American backing for the Jewish state as one of their main complaints against the United States. An April 2002 Zogby International poll conducted in several Arab countries reported that more than 90 percent of respondents disapproved of U.S. policy toward the Palestinians. While many Arabs also dislike America for other reasons-its perceived arrogance and supposed hostility to Islam, as well as its support for repressive Arab regimes-Palestinian issues have struck a particularly raw nerve since the outbreak of the second intifada in September 2000. The satellite news channel al-Jazeera now broadcasts images of dead and wounded Palestinians into homes and coffeehouses across the Middle East. As one Saudi prince put it,"The people see their brothers dying in Palestine, and it makes them hate America." (Other critics of U.S. support for Israel take matters even further, echoing antisemitic canards and conspiracy theories common in many Arab media outlets.)




Could the current crisis between Israelis and Palestinians hurt the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism?
Yes, experts say. The Bush administration will find it harder to win support in the Arab world for continued moves against al-Qaeda and future steps against Iraq if its efforts take place against a backdrop of Israeli-Palestinian bloodshed.

http://terrorismanswers.org/causes/israelsupport.html

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tricky
It is not uncommon to nominate and even award the peace prize to people for not killing as many people as they could have. Certainly Kissenger falls under this umbrella, as well as Arafat. Using this rationale, Truman could have been given the award for only nuking two cities.

But being the impartial person I am, I must point out that Arafat and Begin were co-awarded it for the Camp David accords, which initiated a period of diminished violence in the Mideast that hasn't been duplicated since.

Post of the month, Tricky. Be thankful for what you've got.

[demon]

"But being the impartial person I am, I must point out that Arafat and Begin were co-awarded it for the Camp David accords, which initiated a period of diminished violence in the Mideast that hasn't been duplicated since. "

Point of order:

Begin was co-awarded the Nobel peace Prize with Anwar al-Sadat for their "efforts" in the Camp David accords in 1978. That was between Israel and Eygpt.

Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin were awarded the prize in 1994 .

[LW]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Needless to say, Sadat was soon assassinated by one of the followers of the "religion of peace" for the crime of signing a peace agreement with the "zionist entity".

By the way, could you refresh my memory on exactly how Yitzhak Rabin died?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
At least Arafat is fighting for his people, on whose behalf Kissinger was fighting when he distributed horror all around the planet.

While I don't diagree with your comment about Kissinger, since when did it become the Nobel At Least He's Fighting For His People prize?

[demon]

"While I don't diagree with your comment about Kissinger, since when did it become the Nobel At Least He's Fighting For His People prize?"

When she said it did. Don`t you know better than to argue with Cleo?;)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by demon
When she said it did. Don`t you know better than to argue with Cleo?;)

I love you too demon.

Now. Yes of course I am trying to cut some slack to Irgun, you cannot in any way compare its action with PLO's. You belittlle PLO if you do that. As for Begin you are right, he was the leader of Irgun when the bombing in the British soil in Italy took place but Irgun as a typical jewish organization had at least three "official" leaders that each of them did what it thought best, so Irgun was not only Begin.

Come-on demon, if everything goes the way I think that it will during the next five years your grandchildren will talk about their founding fathers the PLO bombers they way we talk in Israel about Irgun.


originally posted by Dialectic Materialist

Why exactly do you think this is America's fault?

To my knowledge, America has time and time again simply offered aid to Israel in weapons, in negotiations (that were held at camp David) and advocated that Palestinians get their own state.

I doubt Israel is to blame btw, despite the fact that they occupied the West Bank, illegally, despite international suggestions that they stop. It was, understandable imo.

The people at blame here I think are the Palestinians. Though they are not all terrorists, extremist/militant actions haven't exactly been unpopular among the Palestinians.

We disagree in two basic things. First it's quite disputable whether the occupation of the west bank is illegal. If the Palestinians want to talk with that terms and play the smarts then Israel is entitled to declare that it will negotiate only with Jordan who was the owner of the territories before 1967... To many people, including myself, The Six Days War was a defensive war so the occupation is not illegal.The settlements are illegal. I post this clarification because many people suffer from serious deficiencies in reading comprehension.

Also, the other thing we disagree is about USA's role. It hasn't be a fair negotiator at least towards the Palestinians. They have been pushing the Palestinians to the point of suffocation without exercising the same amount of pressure towards Israel.

A simple hint Dialectic Materialist. Ariel Sharon is the only foreign leader that can take the airplane and visit the American President whenever he wishes.Whenever Ariel Sharon wishes of course and not the vice-verca. Of course this is not a thing that Israelis should be proud of because I keep reminding my Israeli friends that the flights of the Presidential plane to the States are fueled by our blood and not by gasoline.We have paid those rendez-vous in the White House a very high price.

Some time ago we had another (unfortunate) thread under the title "Israel and USA" I have started it. In that thread Capel Dodger said something really wise, I quote him by memory and not verbatim:" Israel knows very well how Americans think but the Americans have no idea about the Israeli mentality".

originally posted by epepke
While I don't diagree with your comment about Kissinger, since when did it become the Nobel At Least He's Fighting For His People prize?

It's not about that I just made the comparison with Kissinger that's all.

[Cleopatra]

Dialectic Materialist:

Read this OP-ED


A Rude Awakening, By Thomas Friedman (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/05/opinion/05FRIE.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20O p%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fThomas%20L%20Fried man)


I have already told you that he lurks in this forum and he steals my ideas.... :cool: