BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Israeli attack on Syria

 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Baz Auckland
14:11 / 15.10.03
Gaza Strip Blast Kills Three Americans

A remote-controlled bomb exploded under a U.S. diplomatic convoy Wednesday, ripping apart an armored van and killing three Americans in an unprecedented attack on an official U.S. target.

The bombing, which also wounded an American, will likely intensify U.S. pressure on the Palestinian Authority to take action against militant groups. The U.S. Embassy advised U.S. citizens to leave the Gaza Strip after the attack.

There was no claim of responsibility. But if Palestinian militants were to blame, it could signal a dramatic change in strategy. While targeting Israeli soldiers and civilians for years, groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad repeatedly insist they do not target U.S. officials — apparently to avoid a harsh retribution from the Americans and the anger of Palestinian officials trying to work with Washington.


...this could lead to very bad things, I fear...
 
 
pachinko droog
16:12 / 15.10.03
Was just discussing this on another forum. Yeah, its starting to look VERY bad indeed, in an almost too convenient sort of way. I mean, its a perfect excuse to get all those foreign activists out of Israel's way before the big gundown...among other things. I think war is inevitable now. Or, a widened war, I should say.
 
 
Baz Auckland
16:52 / 15.10.03
I'm wonder how odd it is though. Odd in a 'change of tactics' way, or odd in a 'previously unheard of group claims responsibility/cue conspiracy theory' way.
 
 
pachinko droog
17:50 / 15.10.03
Perhaps the latter? I mean, supposedly Syria was about to cooperate with the US on Iraq: about to hand over Saddam's funds that were in Syrian banks (to the tune of what? $700 million+ ?) and to send teams of security specialists to help seal the Iraq/Syria border against volunteer fighter infiltration. Now that probably won't happen, and word is that Syria expects a US/Israel "pincer" in the near future, hence the recent calling up of Syrian reservists. Recent comments by Richard Perle aren't helping to defuse the situation, as he seems all too ready for a US war with Syria ASAP (sorry I don't have the links handy).

Seen against this backdrop, possibly the attack on the Americans in Gaza was an agent provocateur action by Mossad to turn up the volume on the drumbeats for war. Just a hunch. It would appear that Sharon is trying his damndest to isolate Syria in cooperation with pro-Israel lobby in US (Wolfowitz, Perle and Co.) and tie it into not only actions against Palestinians, but also as part of the broader US led "War on Terror". It just fits the pattern is all.
 
 
pachinko droog
17:57 / 15.10.03
Just as an addendum: the Gaza attack does not, in any way, shape, or form, benefit the Palestinian people in their struggle with Israel. Hence my use of the term "agent provocateur". If anything, it makes them look like part of the "terrorist threat" to Americans. Conditioning and psyops and all that.
 
 
Not Here Still
18:31 / 15.10.03
First point: OH, SHIT!!!

Second point; As far as I can see, the possibilities are; that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are lying (but what do they have to gain?); that this is a 'rogue' Palestinian terrorist group (as opposed to those friendly terrorists, but you know what I mean); that this is the work of al-Qaida or similar in a way previously unseen; or, as Pachinko has noted - that this could be an agenct provacateur action, whether by Mossad or by an Israeli rogue group of hardliners.

Whatever it is, it ain't good....
 
 
MJ-12
18:32 / 15.10.03
he Gaza attack does not, in any way, shape, or form, benefit the Palestinian people in their struggle with Israel

True, but since Sharon suckered them into rioting at al-Aqsa, neither has much else that they've done.
 
 
pachinko droog
18:43 / 15.10.03
Well, yes and no. I think a large part of the Israeli strategy has always been the "divide and conquer" method; hence early Israeli involvement with support of Hamas as a counterweight to Arafat. Even though Israeli civilians have suffered from predictable "blowback", it serves Israeli regional interests in the long run.

I mean, Israel got $10 billion in assistance this past year. And they're building their own version of the Berlin wall. And they're getting the US to put heavy pressure on Syria, their long-time rival, not to mention shutting the Palestinians out of any meaningful dialogue. And of course, Saddam's reign is history and Iran could be next. Israel and its supporters get to have their cake and eat it too, assuming they aren't eating it in a restaraunt that gets taregeted by a suicide bomber...
 
 
Ray Fawkes
12:20 / 16.10.03
If a Palestinian state was created, if Jerusalem was put under shared control, if Israel turned away from policies of confrontation and aggression, then progressive social, economic and political developments throughout the rest of the Arab world would be possible.

This is true, absolutely - but wouldn't it require a leap for more than just the Israelis? Palestinian representatives over the last couple of decades (including, but not limited to, Arafat) have openly declared that any solution that allows the state of Israel to remain, even in a diminished capacity, is unacceptable. How do you turn away from policies of confrontation when you are neighbors with somebody who doesn't want you to exist?

I think both Israel and Palestine are faced with similar difficulties - but Israel is stronger while Palestine is weaker. Were these qualities reversed, I can't help feeling the trade in aggression would be roughly the same within the territory in question.
 
 
pachinko droog
15:54 / 16.10.03
There are Israelis and Palestinians working together on a non-violent solution to the crisis, but their numbers are relatively small and they have been marginalized and left out of the dialogue by both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership. (Sharon's govt. refers to their meetings in a derogatory manner as "freelance diplomacy".)

I would also hasten to add that none of us should forget the effect that the media filter is having on framing this particular issue. A lot is being left out. There are weekly peace marches in Tel Aviv, for example, where Israeli army veterans march side by side with Arab peace activists. The Israeli media is as tightly controlled as any other autocratic regime, and word of these protests doesn't get out the way it should.
 
 
Not Here Still
17:46 / 16.10.03
A number of arrests have been made by the Palestinian authority in relation to the attack

Even at the same time, the Jerusalem post reports Palestinians believe Israelis were behind attack
 
 
diz
19:28 / 16.10.03
Palestinian representatives over the last couple of decades (including, but not limited to, Arafat) have openly declared that any solution that allows the state of Israel to remain, even in a diminished capacity, is unacceptable. How do you turn away from policies of confrontation when you are neighbors with somebody who doesn't want you to exist?

Please note that there is a difference between the State of Israel as an entity and the Israeli Jewish people. A number of people (including but not limited to the late, lamented Edward Said) have championed the idea of an integrated, democratic, and most importantly secular Palestine that includes all the territory of Israel and the Occupied Territories - a real secular democracy, not the racist ethnic terror-state that stands now.

It's handy for Zionists to argue that when people argue for the abolition of the State of Israel that they're talking about driving all the Jews into the sea, which isn't true in all cases. There's a difference between abolishing the state of Israel and exterminating its inhabitants. The Zionist lobby deliberately blurs that distinction in order to demonize the Palestinian resistance and to play to people's fears by invoking the spectre of the Holocaust, and conveniently drawing attention away from the fact that the state apparatus being protected here is as bad, if not worse, than its old former ally in apartheid South Africa.
 
 
Baz Auckland
19:47 / 16.10.03
Side note: I had never heard of the secular/bi-nation solution until last week when I attended a memorial at the university in honour of Said. It really, ideally seems to be the best solution. Lebanon has something similar, doesn't it? A Christian president, with a Muslim Prime Minister?
 
 
Creepster
23:14 / 16.10.03
I think both Israel and Palestine are faced with similar difficulties - but Israel is stronger while Palestine is weaker. Were these qualities reversed, I can't help feeling the trade in aggression would be roughly the same within the territory in question.

do you really beleive it would be the same? surely that would be naive.


It's handy for Zionists to argue that when people argue for the abolition of the State of Israel that they're talking about driving all the Jews into the sea, which isn't true in all cases.

thats good. what does that mean "not true in all cases"?

There's a difference between abolishing the state of Israel and exterminating its inhabitants.

yes, its a grammatic difference you do us the service of pointing out.

The Zionist lobby deliberately blurs that distinction in order to demonize the Palestinian resistance and to play to people's fears by invoking the spectre of the Holocaust, and conveniently drawing attention away from the fact that the state apparatus being protected here is as bad, if not worse, than its old former ally in apartheid South Africa.

what is it you mean by zionist though who support he jewish state as oppose to those who, as you say wish to "abolish" it. a jewish conspiracy then, just so we know who to blame, as if we didnt already.

so you know what would really happen then dont you. by the sound of it there wouldnt be any problems any more.

i thought they demonized the palestinian resistance by blowing up public buses and cafes.
 
 
bjacques
10:30 / 17.10.03
If the Gaza bombing operation was a Mossad operation, there may be precedent: the 1967 Israeli air attack on the USS Liberty. Israel still says it was a mistake, their commander thinking it was an Egyptian ship. Recently released NSA intercepts suggest are inconclusive, but strongly suggest otherwise. Many surviving crewmembers of the Liberty think it was deliberate and point to orders to shut up or stick to the official story.

Even if Israel clears out the Gaza Strip, a lot of Hamas and other terrorists will end up in Iraq (they're terrorists for sending angry and humiliated youths to suicide-bomb public places, however brutal is Israeli policy). Some already have. Bush's people are too stupid to see that whether Iraq harbored terrorists before, it certainly does now.

The bulk of responsibility and initiative lies with the side with the greater power (to paraphrase Stan Lee). Sharon chose to turn up the heat first. Arafat is a spent force who can make trouble but not unmake it. He provided political cover for Hamas and al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, as well as the conservative mafia and the radical bombers of his own Fatah; now that political cover is pointless, the above groups bomb as their agendas dictate.

The US is dealing with suicide bombers in Iraq, but they're smart enough to know that Israeli-style reprisals won't look good in Iraq. The difference is that the Sharon government doesn't care.

Here's a scenario: Israel invades Syria, Syrias fights back with everything it has (and what Russia, China and Pakistan can give them), while Palestinians openly revolt. Israel would have to decide whether it really wants to use nukes offensively, as that would make them a rogue nuclear power. Pakistan or China might step in. The good news is that the nuclear armageddon will probably be local, since the US and Russia aren't adversaries these days, and the Holy Land will be a Smoking Hole before the US can work up a good saber rattle.

Ever since Israel acquired nukes, germs and gas (and good delivery systems), Arabs--e.g., Saddam Hussein--ceased to be a real threat to its existence. Israel can only pestered internally by Palestinians (or externally by Lebanese Hezbollah). So, really, it's up to Sharon. If he fucks this up, we'll be able to see it from space.
 
 
MJ-12
14:02 / 17.10.03
but the Liberty was most likely a strike to take out a sigint platform, not an attmept to provoke the US into attacking someone else/gathering sympathy.
 
 
pachinko droog
17:03 / 17.10.03
I thought the Israelis bombed the USS Liberty (a ship that was outfitted with electronic warfare/eavesdropping hardware) to cover up their massacre of Egyptian POWs in the Sinai desert. (I'm pretty sure this was in that book on the NSA by William Bamford, "Puzzle Palace".)

Getting back to the issue:

I find it particularly odd that the Gaza bombing was allegedly carried out by a previously-unheard of group. Yet again, a little too convenient. It is within the realm of possibility, of course, there are a number of splinter groups with extremist leanings in the region. But still, for a new group to go out of its way to target Americans at such a juncture...I'm just not buying it.

It should be pointed out that the PLO was set up as an umbrella organization to unite various Palestinian nationalist groups under one banner. Nationalist being the key word, which also goes along with secular. Arafat has no control over splinter factions like the Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, just as he has no control over groups like Islamic Jihad and Hamas (who are allied, at least ideologically, with Iran). In the past, Palestinians always relied on small-scale guerilla actions from neighboring Arab countries (mostly Jordan & Lebanon), along with media-grabbing terrorist actions and hijackings. But the suicide bombing campaign is a completely different stratagem, one that has been embraced, for the most part, by Islamic extremists and that speaks volumes about the levels of both desperation and commitment now involved in the struggle for a Palestinian state. But will that nation be geared more toward Palestinian nationalism, or Islamic fundamentalism?

Sharon and Co. use this rift to their advantage as they continue to play "divide and conquer" with the Palestinian people, along with attempting to isolate Arafat as much as possible. That needs to be taken into account. So too, the rift that exists between Zionists and anti-Zionists in the international Jewish community, including, but not limited to, the US. Its not just about groups like Gush Shalom in Israel. There is a growing divide within Judaism that's only being exacerbated with each action Sharon's govt. takes.

This goes way beyond Israel's borders in terms of overall impact, whatever the outcome may be. That being said, it should also be recognized that even if Israel doesn't practice racial apartheid against the Palestinians (as some allege that it does), it can be conclusively argued that Israel does most emphatically practice economic apartheid against the Palestinians. The checkpoints, walls, and curfews are ample enough proof of that alone.
 
 
Not Here Still
18:24 / 17.10.03
OPB Creepster:

There's a difference between abolishing the state of Israel and exterminating its inhabitants.

yes, its a grammatic difference you do us the service of pointing out.


Personally, I read that post differently; it is not a grammatic difference as I understood it, more a reference to the fact that the State of Israel as an entity, like the United Kingdom as an entity, could be changed.

To push the analogy further, making the UK into four countries, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (and let's not open that can of worms in here) wouldn't mean wiping anyone in those countries out.

What it would mean is that the United Kingdom no longer existed. I think the point here is that the end of the State of Israel would not mean killing every Israeli, just a change in the way the state was set up.

As to what is meant by Zionism; there is a definition here from wikipedia

Zionism

To attempt to wrest the thread back onto topic; anyone got any more on recent Israeli indications towards Syria?
 
 
Not Here Still
18:38 / 17.10.03
Tell you what, I'll find one myself:

Sharon interview, Jerusalem Post

Q:'Might we attack Syria again, perhaps seeking a more serious target?'

A: We will never declare in advance whether or not we will attack. We don’t have to declare such things, but the Syrian activity is very serious, and George Bush’s criticism of Syria was even harsher than ours.


So nothing has been ruled out....
 
 
unheimlich manoeuvre
16:00 / 19.10.03
US Missiles for Israeli Nukes?

The United States apparently has fitted out the Harpoon missiles it previously supplied Israel to accommodate nuclear warheads.

Syria Accountability Act a Clear Message; 'Our Warnings Will Not Be Ignored'
 
 
pachinko droog
16:52 / 19.10.03
We can probably expect pre-emptive stikes at Iran in the near future, if the cycle continues...
 
 
unheimlich manoeuvre
10:03 / 20.10.03
Stage Four in the Terror War

Nowadays Israel threatens to bomb the Iranian Bushehr reactor.

President Putin on Iran nuclear programme
 
 
bjacques
07:48 / 21.10.03
Slightly off topic, maybe...

The E-word is being bandied about again:

Putin: Why Not Price Oil in Euros?
By Catherine Belton
Staff Writer

President Vladimir Putin said Thursday Russia could switch its trade in oil from dollars to euros, a move that could have far-reaching repercussions for the global balance of power -- potentially hurting the U.S. dollar and economy and providing a massive boost to the euro zone.

"We do not rule out that it is possible. That would be interesting for our European partners," Putin said at a joint news conference with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in the Urals town of Yekaterinburg, where the two leaders conducted two-day talks.

If Russia takes the lead, Arabs (and Venezuelans?) will dump those Zionist dollars in a Riyadh minute despite the threat of US invasion/destabilization. That $3 billion aid and $9 billion in loan guarantees to Israel would be worth a whole lot less.
 
 
pachinko droog
18:02 / 21.10.03
Is Iraq still considered part of OPEC? Just wondering. Because if its not, then US could conceivably get Iraqi oil production up to par eventually and flood world market with cheap oil, which would seriously destabilize Saudi economy. Assuming their facilities and pipelines don't get hit by sabotage, that is.

Supposedly, they're going to open up several new oilfileds for drilling by March (no doubt Cheney's rubbing his hands together like a cricket), and then there's Shell drilling like crazy in Kazakhstan. I'm sure that's got to be pissing off the Russians to no end.
 
 
Baz Auckland
19:24 / 21.10.03
The Iraqi council has said that it will remain in OPEC....
 
 
pachinko droog
16:53 / 22.10.03
So...if its still part of OPEC, then what, exactly, is going on with relation to the rest of OPEC? I mean, something isn't adding up here.

Supposedly, Iraq has (potentially) more oil reserves than the Saudis, who up 'til now were considered to have the most. Have they reached peak oil production/are they about to? If the Saudis decided to switch to Euros to denote the value of oil, how would that impact US efforts in Iraq/US economy? Because any way you look at it, the Saudis are mad as hell at us right now.

Might Saudi Arabia also be a future target in the War on (Some) Terror? I tend to think so.
 
 
pachinko droog
16:56 / 22.10.03
Just as an addendum: Saudi Arabia is the main source of funding for the PLO/Arafat. You do the math.
 
 
pachinko droog
17:15 / 22.10.03
Oh. Shit. Heads up people:

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia in Secret Nuke Pact

This really isn't boding well...
 
 
bjacques
07:39 / 23.10.03
And they're wondering why Iran wants a nuclear program.

Barbelith scoop the "Liberty" re-inquiry.

And the plan isn't to have Iraq flood the world with cheap oil (when I went to the US this month, I made a point of saying at gas stations "Goddammit! I thought this war was about oil!"). There were discussions before or during the war (horse, cart) about this precisely because of the destabilization question. Iraqis would probably get a discount so they can afford gas and make a little extra smuggling it across the borders. But the US can still profit, or at least certain American companies (Madrid: "Send us those love offerings, brethren! That's 'Halliburton' with 2 'l''s...").

That's a lot of thread rot and I left out why the euro isn't yet suitable as a reserve currency, so I'll just wait a few days for Israel to show us the way back :-D
 
 
pachinko droog
17:09 / 23.10.03
Just to clarify things in response to the Pakistan-Saudi Arabia story:

The India-Israel-US Nexus

US-Israel-India: Strategic Axis?

Israel, India, & Turkey: Triple Entente?

Hmmmm.....
 
 
GreenMann
10:08 / 24.10.03
"Saudi Arabia is the main source of funding for the PLO/Arafat."

Well at least they're doing something positive with their money.
 
 
pachinko droog
15:36 / 24.10.03
But that's just it. Because of the financial links, the Saudis could very well be targeted. (Not meant to offend in any way, just pointing out the likelihood of a future flashpoint.) Regardless of how that money has been used, a link in and of itself could be the justification for military action.


Also, I don't think we can really deal with each "issue" seperately when it comes to the Middle East, everything IS intricately interconnected there. I think that what's going on in relation to Syria (and this includes US policy towards Syria) has much more to do with a shifting balance of power in the region as a whole, as well as changing alliances and geopolitical ambitions than it has to do with say, Israel simply lashing out at support for Palestinian resistance.

I think it behooves us to try and examine this from as many angles as possible.
 
 
pachinko droog
16:30 / 24.10.03
Please read this. It relates directly to the main thrust of this thread and its meanderings:

Neocons Flying Like a Hawk: "US & Israel working together to 'roll back' the Ba'ath-led government in Syria".
 
 
pachinko droog
16:45 / 24.10.03
This just in:

Gaza raid kills Israeli troops

I think its safe to say that things are, in fact, escalating.
 
 
diz
17:16 / 24.10.03
well, at least if the Middle East is reduced to a radioactive wasteland, it will force us to develop alternative energy sources.

that was a joke.

heheh. ha. umm.

yeah.

~ducks and covers~
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply