Israel to halt targeted killings if PA maintains hudna

[bemildred]

Truncated headline a bit to fit.
Scroll down to read new comments from ex Shin Bet head.
Apparently its been decided that Qureia is not an Arafat shill.


A senior source close to Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon said late Tuesday that Israel would agree
to halt its policy of targeted assassinations, and
cease military operations in the territories, if
the Palestinians would reach and maintain a new
cease fire agreement, Israel Radio reported
Wednesday.



The source added that Sharon
and Palestinian Prime
Minister Ahmed Qureia would
meet in several days, and
said that Qureia "will not be
a puppet nor a rag doll nor a
spitting image of Yasser
Arafat." The source
emphasized "we don't know if
he'll be good or bad, but
clearly he's a very independent fellow."

---

He refused to give the current Shin Bet chief,
Avi Dichter, any advice on how to fight terror,
but noted that "if we drop heavy bombs on a
house or send a missile or even an F-16 once or
twice to kill one person or two, that looks out
of proportion. If we did the work more
secretly, we would have achieved results much
more easily."

Asked if he believes the Palestinians enough to
strike a deal with them, Shalom said "We're two
peoples living on the same land and if we can't
learn to trust one another, there will only be
chaos here and nobody will be able to live
here."

Haaretz

[forgethell]

1. Believe it,

when I see it. In any event, the Palestinians will give Israel an excuse soon enough.

[tinnypriv]

2. Probably a reaction to the Yediot article

That sent shockwaves around the Israeli establishment.

Oh, and speaking of which, Yediot says the liquidations have already been stopped. That was denied after they went to press, so who knows.

[bemildred]

3. I sense a change in the force.

Hard to tell what's up out here in TV land, but it
seems clear that business as usual has been disrupted.
One must assume the ex-Shin Bet fellows have good reasons
for their actions.

The level of hysteria from the right seems to have been
taken up a notch too, but that's a bit more speculative
(I mean how would you tell?).

One has the sense that the pretense that things are ducky in
Iraq is quite shaky too, but nothing on the order of the
Yediot article yet, but then the US press is much more
controlled.

[tinnypriv]

4. Good points

Here is a thought experiment:

Imagine the same article printed in the NY Times, signed off on by 4 high ranking US figures, making the same points about Israeli policy.

Now just imagine the squawking from certain quarters...

p.s. Have you seen the entire article? Can PM it you if not. Much better than the extracts given in the summaries.

[bemildred]

5. Frankly, I cannot imagine that.

I do not believe I've ever seen the like here,
even during VietNam. The USA, for all its individualistic
rhetoric and violent propensities is politically almost
Stalinist in its conformity. Someone like Mr. Wellstone is
considered "radical". That's one of the problems.

You are correct that the reaction would be hysterical, and
most likely incoherent.

I am Hebrew-challenged, so a copy of the entire thing in
English translation, if that could be done, would be nice.

[forgethell]

8. Stalinist?

surely you are joking? where are the Gulags? Where are the show trials. Where are the assassinations?

I'm not saying there isn't a little room for improvement down, say, in Guantanamo. But Stalin killed millions more human beings than Hitler.

Nobody is forcing people to think alike. they may be fooling them into it, but that is entirely different.

A stalinist comparison to the current situation is offensive.

[bemildred]

9. I'm not joking.

I didn't compare the US to the USSR under Stalin, I made a
particular point about political herd behavior and groupthink.

The fact that conformity is not enforced by secret police is beside
the point, and in a way it is even more pathetic. There was a time
in this country when people took pride in thinking for themselves
and being individualistic, now all they want is to watch the tube
and eat pork rinds.

Offending some people is a duty and an honor.

[The Magistrate]

12. Well Said, Mr. Mildred!

[forgethell]

17. Stalinist

implies governmental control. Just because people do not think as you do, does not make them a "herd". If everybody thought progressive thoughts, would that make them a "herd"?

If you want people to believe as you do, it is your job to convince them. If they are well off enough and contented enough, that all they need to do is watch tv and eat pork rinds, well, hell, why shouldn't they? Your problems and concerns are not necessarily theirs.

You are absolutely correct, though. It is not only an duty and honor to offend some people, it is a downright pleasure, indeed. Only, then you can't really complain if they go to the effort to offend you, too.

[BlackFrancis]

18. like he has the power to do that

Precisely because of freedom the methodology of control had to be refined through propaganda. The free press has a credibility that carries far more weight than any government censored press. The powerful control the press and presents you with choices that are limited.

Choice A) Deal with Iraqs massive weapons stockpile that we assure you exists through multinational cooperation

Choice B) Clear the decks now! We are about to get nuked!

Now America has a big conversation about our options. It's very slick and people get had without even realizing it.

[forgethell]

27. People being

fooled is hardly the same as people being forced. It may not be good, but it is hardly "Stalinist".

Anyway, don't we have anybody on our side that can do the same? Or are they that much smarter than us?

the truth is out there, compadre.

[BlackFrancis]

35. compete how?

I'm not chicken little saying the sky is falling. The internet among other things is a media democratizing force, things are better now than they were say fifteen years ago. However the idea that individuals can compete with the media borg is just ludicrous.

[forgethell]

38. Well, I like the

idea of liberal talk radio myself. Any news on how Al Gore's little project is coming. Then George Soros could possibly fund something. Heck, how do I know? I only know that progressive information is out there for people who are interested. Uninterested people will generally not vote. So the real situation, IMHO, is that we must present our case in the best, and most persuasive, light to the voters. I don't believe that can be done by insulting their intelligence, or telling them they are Stalinist, or live in a Stalinist country. Regardless of our own personal opinions, there is a smart way, and a not so smart way to run an election.

Now, if, like Mr. Mildred, you do not care to persuade other people, if you are only venting, then I guess you can say what you want without worrying about 2004.

[BlackFrancis]

41. "liberal" is part of the problem

The fight between "liberal" and "conservative" is completely fake. It's like the fights between elk or deer who have their horns set at angles to make sure they really aren't going to do any damage.

The real questions aren't even asked. Like I said before, the "liberal" argument is usually predicated on the same notion as the "conservative" argument. Take the fake choice we debated about Iraq, I never heard one person seriously put out for consideration that Iraq was basically sitting on it's thumb and powerless to do any harm to anyone. I knew it, Will Pitt wrote a book and spelled out a compeling case why he knew that was so. It wasn't unknowable, but here we had this big fake fight about how to deal with this non-existant problem.

Take Israel, there is absolutely no debate whatsover. The only argument in congress is to give them more or less money despite the fact that only 1% of Americans think we should increase military aid to Israel. Every great once in awhile you get a Palestinian and an Israeli who only talk about current events. The coverage has gotten so bad that settlements are now referred to as "neighborhoods". Unless you are an extremely informed person and know the names of the settlements you have no way of knowing if what was attacked was some ultra-zionist outpost or if it was Acre.

These are the big, life and death issues and they are the ones that are given the most spin and bullshit of all. When it comes to foreign policy there is a demonstrable show of control of information from the government and the media (which are tied together very tightly). They will let you fight all day long about gay marriage or the ten commandments or anything else that doesn't screw around with their bottom line but serious issues are very tightly controled and that you don't see it only demonstrates it's effectiveness.

[bluesoul]

42. When there will be real LIBERAL big media

then we can talk. Where you will have people saying that Bush is a war criminal before multimillion audiences heard and seen weekly that the whole war in Iraq was a big fat lie and that all those should be held responsible. Will I see that on Fox, CNN, ABC, CBC? Up to now it's only right conservative and less conservative (DLC types)...

[bemildred]

19. "Stalinist implies governmental control."

Indeed. An astute observation.

I did not ask anyone to agree with me, rather the opposite, I
suggested they should stop mainlining slop from the tube and
start thinking for themselves. But then, it has already become
quite clear that precision in language is wasted on you.

It is not my job to convince anybody of anything, I don't care
much if they agree with me or not. I'm doing fine. If they
are content to behave like sheep and be shorn, that is only
to be expected.

Please be assured I will not complain about any attempts to
offend me. One has to have a thick hide to last long here.

Edit: think ->> thick

[forgethell]

22. Here's what you said

"The USA, for all its individualistic
rhetoric and violent propensities is politically almost
Stalinist in its conformity. "

Where is the precision in language in that? Nowhere. But I disagree with both your chaaracterization of the American people, and your conclusions. There is plenty of diversity of opinion, even on TV.

And I see no reason for a thick hide. The stuff on this baord is always pretty mild, compared to real-life.

[bemildred]

23. Like I said, it was wasted on you.

You are welcome to disagree with me.
I did not bring up being offended, you did.

[BlackFrancis]

24. there are limited choices presented

about prearranged subjects that really don't mean much of anything.

[bemildred]

25. I must say I am glad you managed to focus on the

complete sentence that time, instead of just the word
"Stalinism". That was an improvement, and we ought to
give credit where it is due.

[forgethell]

26. Your mistake is

in thinking that because nobody wants to hear what you say, that the culture is repressive. Maybe you are just wrong. Maybe the majority is wrong. But regardless of HOW they come to their conclusions, and whther or not they are correct, every individual, including those in the majority, has a right to his opinion.

And as I say, you at least, seem to think they are disagreeing with you. That doesn't make you repressed or oppressed, only depressed. And angry.


"Stalinist" does not mean everybody thinking alike. It means they think alike because they are made to by threat of death. As long as this country can be home to both DU and FreeRepublic, to Michael Moore and Sean Hannity, then it cannot failry be described as Stalinist.

They reason I am taking this much time on this question is that if you do not like the way things are going, then you must work to change them. One sure way to work against the defeat of * is to tick off sufficient numbers of people by calling them stupid and evil, by insulting their country & cultlure. OK, it's not you job to persuade anybody, and I know I am a very eccentric character. Even my wife tells me so. But in that case, what is the point in expressing your opinion at all?? This is not a facetious question.

[bemildred]

28. Sir, please, get rid of your television now.

There may still be some chance your mind will recover
if the polluting influence is removed. In any case allow
me to extend my sympathies, it must be very difficult for you.

[forgethell]

29. So you can't answer my arguments

and you are reduced to ridiculous personal insult??

I do wish to correct an error that I made. You were very "precise" when you used theh word "Stalinist". It means gulags, midnight arrests, starvation genocide of millions, show trials, assassinations. It does not mean people that disagree with you argue with you or refuse to buy you products, or refusse to shut up and let you spout your own opinions unopposed, as you seem to think that it does.

The use of the word was offensive, and it is my belief that you intended it to be offensive, and that you tried to weasel out of the plain meaning of the word when you were called on it. this is a cowardly and dishonest act. I know that you are better than that, and I feel extrermely sorry for you.

[bluesoul]

30. The truth is offensive indeed

considering Bush, the neocons, Patriot Act and other neofascist policies that they would like to impose on the USA. If you don't see the very troubling things going on....

[forgethell]

33. Now I never

said that troubling things weren't going on. I said it wasn't Stalinist. Mr. bemildred claimed to be precise, and he was. But he was wrong, IMO. You'll also notice that he doesn't address anything that I say, but likes to resort to personal attacks. that's Ok, as he said, you need a tough hide.

[BlackFrancis]

34. check out "manufacturing consent" some time

What you see as an improvement over low-grade thuggish Stalinist tactics is really just a refinement of thought control apparatus.

[bemildred]

37. Use the ignore feature, Sir.

Less time will be wasted.

[forgethell]

39. Nah,

I never put anyone on ignore. I'm interested in their ideas, and how they think. Good advice, though. You can ignore me, too.

[bemildred]

40. I will, Sir.

[bemildred]

31. Ah, there's the tough hide from the "real world" again.

Like I said, offending some people is a duty and an honor.

[BlackFrancis]

32. We don't have show trials and assassinations?

[forgethell]

36. Certainly

not in any Stalinists numbers. I'm sure a few Islamists are being offed in Asia. there's Guantanomo. OK, Michael Jackson is going to be a great hit on TV, but he's not a political prisoner.

Have I missed anything? What Democratic or other progressive pesons are in danger of being shot for expressing thier opinions? Look, I don't like Bush* better than any of the rest of you, but I think there is plenty to bash him with without showing ourselves to be over the bend to the voters. Just my opinion, of course, I could be wrong. Maybe there's nothing there, and we have to scrap up silliness? Is that what you think?

[edzontar]

20. Oh Yeah, right, there is no government mind-control in the US

We may not be in Stalin's Russia, but the threat of fascism and totalitarianism has never felt more real to me than it does right now.

Maybe much of the Media whoring and mind-control is voluntary--but it is not ALL voluntary--government pressure and censorship is on the increase every day.

Just ask the producers of "The Reagans" if they felt pressure from the Big G--remember the talk about "licenses"...?

[forgethell]

21. Censorship??

what prior restraint, backed by legal force, has been inflicted? Market forces do not count as censorship.

Maybe we aren't getting our message out. but that's our fault and we will have to do better.

You know what? I don't consider threats to the licence to be censorship, either. This power has always been used, for good, or ill by both Democratic and Republican administrations. So if I am willing to use it for my side, I simply will not complain about the other side using it. I'll just have to try to get my boy into the White House.

[Aidoneus]

6. sorry, I must've missed it.

which Yediot piece are you referring to? haven't been following things too closely for a few days.. thanks.

[tinnypriv]

7. Was in Friday's edition

Interview with 4 ex-Shin Bet heads. Cited everywhere (which Yediot subsequently got quite smug about on Sun, but that's another topic).

I'll PM it. It's got a line for every idiotic "pro-Israel" argument we see in here. I'm going to be citing it for, ooo, the next year or so. :)

[jplawne]

10. Not really anything

I am glad that there is debate in Israel about the proper tools to fight Palestinian Movements terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens. I only wish Palestinian civil culture had as much room to criticize their own strategy and government to an extent that it could actually make a difference.

The below editorial I believe makes the point convincingly that these Shin Bet Heads are not objective, non-partisan commentators but members of Labor Governments and ascribe to a particularly Leftist political view that was discredited;
-from 1994 to 2000 while Palestinian terrorism increased to unprecedented levels under 'Peace Now' Labor governments and while the PA was in control over most of the territories
-In 2000 when Arafat rejected the peace offer without offering a counter proposal other than increased violence.

These Shin Bet heads did not offer any insight or behind the scenes understanding of what is really going on that most Israelis don’t already know. They offered their opinion, which Israelis have democratically rejected- the idea that by negotiating with Palestinians, terrorism would stop and demands for all of Israel would disappear. Palestinians have proven Labor naive and wrong and destroyed the 'Peace Now' movement with their violence and bigotry.

Oh and can we do without the verbal assaults such as idiotic.


The Jerusalem Post, Nov. 17, 2003]

In its Friday edition, Israel's largest newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, led with a banner headline, "We are on the way to catastrophe" – a rough paraphrase of a joint interview with four former heads of the Shin Bet security service. Yesterday, the newspaper followed up with a self-congratulatory report covering the "global echo" the interview produced in the world's newspapers.

This is manufactured news, but the artificiality of it is not our complaint. It is certainly legitimate for newspapers to pull together and creatively package a message from newsmakers under the rubric of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Yet the local and international attention this "story" has garnered is nothing to be proud of, either on the journalistic or national levels.

The reason is that all four of the former Shin Bet heads are either politically identified or discredited, or both. It is as if The New York Times had gathered former secretaries of defense who served under Democratic presidents to jointly criticize President George W. Bush. Mildly interesting, perhaps. Material for global front page coverage – not on the basis of any straight news judgment. Avraham Shalom, the least known and most veteran of the group, was its only member appointed by a Likud government, that of Menachem Begin. But Shalom stepped down following the Bus 300 Affair, and was later given clemency by the president along with other Shin Bet officials. Ya'acov Peri was appointed in 1988 by the unity government of Yitzhak Shamir and Shimon Peres, when Yitzhak Rabin was defense minister. He headed the Shin Bet during most of the "first intifada" and stepped down seven months before Rabin's assassination. His dovish views and association with the Labor Party have been established for some time. Carmi Gillon was appointed by Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 and took the brunt of the blame for failing to prevent Rabin's assassination, though that responsibility should logically be shared by his predecessor, since he had been on the job for such a short period. Finally, Ami Ayalon was appointed by Shimon Peres, and has put forth, along with Palestinian intellectual Sari Nusseibeh, a diplomatic initiative along the lines of the Clinton parameters. It is therefore anything but news that we hear from these men the standard mantras of the Left: the claim if we do not hurry and pull a diplomatic solution from a hat, Israel will cease to be a Jewish state, a democracy, or both. If anything, the former security chiefs seem to be in a time warp. Gillon, for example, remembers fondly that under the Rabin and Peres governments, there was a clear direction: "That we should fight terror as though there were no peace process, and continue the peace process as though there were no terror." Ayalon argues, "In this terrible situation, where civilians are slaughtered in restaurants and buses, in my opinion there is no other way but to take unilateral steps," such as withdrawing from the Gaza Strip. All four of the participants, according to the newspaper, agreed on this point. These supposedly apolitical voices have spoken and their prescriptions are in: negotiations under fire and unilateral withdrawal. How many times do the people of Israel have to resoundingly reject such formulas before it will no longer be considered so enlightened to offer them again? Twice the Labor Party ran campaigns in which it advocated negotiating under the threat of terrorism, and twice it was rejected by a landslide. Yet lately the public has been treated to three media flashes: the dissenting pilot's letter, Yossi Beilin's Geneva Initiative, and now the four Shin Bet chiefs. Perhaps if the public is told often enough that it has changed its mind, then fact will follow fiction. We too are frustrated with the government's seeming contentment with an ongoing stalemate with no end in sight and little evident direction. But if elections were held tomorrow, we believe that the public would once again defeat the advocates of unilateral surrender and choose those who believe that there can be no peace until the Palestinians are forced or choose to abandon terrorism. The public is not always right, but in this case we believe it has much greater strength, acuity, and wisdom than those who seek to unseat its elected leaders. What is more, it is precisely the advocates of surrender who, by giving Palestinians who push the terror strategy hope, are prolonging the war.

[bluesoul]

11. Leftist views?!?

Haha, this is a LEFTIST board mr. maybe you're on the wrong board or something. Yeah those leftists/liberals/peace activists sure are misguided and wrong about everything. The "right" side says so. AHA, ok...

And then you quote JPost a rightwing source to counter that. I rest my point people, this is just awesome..

[bemildred]

13. This piece is discussed in it's own thread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.org/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=31999

[Aidoneus]

14. what "Peace Now" Labour governments?

.

[tinnypriv]

15. Yeah yeah

Have you read the Yediot article?

Simple yes or no will suffice.

EDIT:

For your information, some arguments are idiotic. Forgetting that Neyen-yahoo was actually in charge at one point during what you call a continuous "Peace Now" government from 1994-2000 is an example of one.

:dunce:

Calling Avraham Shalom a member of a Labor government is another. He served under a joint Likud/Labor coalition and was involved in the no 300 bus affair (why don't you google it).

:dunce:

Ami Ayalon never served under a Labor government. That's another.

:dunce:

I presume there is no need to continue.

[Jim Sagle]

16. Not on my account, that's for sure.

:boring: