A R C H I V E S
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
| Isreal view on attack |
|---|
| amatullah |
| 03/25/02 at 10:42:04 |
| An interesting and distrubing Israeli view of the "planned upcoming" attack on Iraq by the U.S. and on the Palestinians by Israel. The question is what are the Muslims doing? From Ha'aretz Friday, March 22, 2002 Nisan 9, 5762 Israel Time: 08:30 (GMT+2) "Secrets, smoke and lies" by Gideon Samet As if blood were not enough, these gloomy days are clouded with lies. Our conflict is complicated enough when the truth is told. It is particularly difficult to deal with, when each side is constantly lying. The culture of the political lie is as ancient as politics itself, but there are moments in the life of a nation when only the truth can cope with the gravity of a crisis. Israel, the Palestinians - and, unfortunately, the Americans - don't cease wrapping their plans to get out of this mess in pillars of smoke. Should we believe, for example, that the U.S. is really and truly trying to reach an agreement between the Palestinians and us in the foreseeable future? The question is not being asked with impudence toward our American friends. They want peace. However, on their way to achieving that very difficult goal they face more urgent matters. And some of those tasks contradict the purpose of peace. Attacking Iraq, for example. The Americans must assume that Israel will not agree to a withdrawal to the 1967 borders. Therefore, too early a drafting of the final agreement maps will antagonize the Arab capitals that America needs on board to deliver its blow to Iraq. Why does Washington need that headache? Thus, the impending assault on Iraq is hidden behind a thick curtain of smoke imbued with lies. It is impossible to get a clear picture of what took place during the key conversation this week between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and U.S. Vice President Richard Cheney. According to some reports, Cheney outlined the strategic concept, in which Iraq is the main target. Other reports denied that. The discussions went on for three hours. Even the defense minister and foreign minister don't know the real truth. They were kept away. But in addition to a few close aides, and the fly on the wall of the room in the King David Hotel, there was someone else in the room: businessman Arye Genger, confidant of the prime minister. Sharon is ready to trust him, not his most senior ministers, when the naked truth may have been laid out on the table. It is most important to know if America wants to postpone the political discussions until it finishes with Iraq. If this is so, until it finally turns to deal with us, it cannot offer the Palestinians, and Arab capitals that support them, any form of political horizon. And without such a view, no real cease-fire is possible. &jbsp; It's doubtful that even for the honor of meeting Cheney, Arafat can give the emergency order to cease the violence. Arafat's lie is that during the entire period he was unable to give the order. The American lie is that even if Arafat does give it, he won't get a solid promise for a political quid pro quo that he could sell to his people. And is it true that Sharon has no intention of making a political move? Or is it just a lie being told by his opponents? Sharon is the personification of post-modernist thinking in which it is impossible to accurately distinguish between truth and falsehood, fact and fiction. Was Jane's Foreign Report, the respected journal, accurate this week in its report about Sharon's intentions? There was something familiar in the story: the prime minister has a "grand plan" for war with the Palestinians. It will break out at the same time as the U.S. attack on Iraq, about which Israel will receive advance warning. After defeating the Palestinians, Sharon will make them a generous political offer. Is there secret coordination between Sharon and the Bush administration over such a horrifying scenario, like there was over Lebanon 20 years ago? We may never know. Nor will we know if the assassinations and incursions into the cities of the West Bank were effective. A Military Intelligence report revealed this week says - somewhat retroactively - that they were not. On the contrary, says the report, the attacks increased the Palestinians' motivation for violence, just as was predicted by a few commentators who dared challenge the stubborn majority. We won't know the truth about these important matters, nor about smaller, but not less important ones. Did IDF troops, as the Palestinians claim, descend to the level of pillaging during the raids into the West Bank? Or is that just another fantasy? To what extent is Sharon affected by the competition with Netanyahu, and to what measure does that race influence the prime minister's moves? Again, we may never know if the new theory that predicts a moderation in Sharon is true or false: Knowing that he can't beat Netanyahu from the right, it would be better to overtake him from the center. Even something that was on TV over and over again, seen by hundreds of millions of viewers is shrouded in fog, dressed in doubt. A German television investigation says now that 12-year-old Mohammed a-Dura was killed on the second day of the intifada by Palestinian fire, not Israeli. The truth won't be helped by the IDF Spokesman's decision this week to cease allowing media crews to accompany military operations. The Falklands War was conducted without the press, except for a few court reporters. Maybe that's how to quietly be victorious. Or maybe the truth is too depressing for a nation in crisis, and it would be best to do without it. |
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board |