Re: OT: Israel vs Palestine

In article 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
Hasmonean Tazmanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Pete McCutchen wrote:
> > On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:39:44 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
> 
> > I think you have the timing off, but let's suppose you're right.  He
> > knew that visiting the Temple Mount in public with security (which he
> > probably needed, to be honest) would cause great angst among the
> > Palestinians.

His security force was a small army and a clear and intentional 
provocation; he needed to provoke a Palestinian uproar in order to 
insure a win for himself in the election, and, alas, that is exactly 
what he got.  It was a blatantly politicel maneuver with predictable 
results, but I don't see that his actions were any more "sane" than 
those of the Palestinians.  

> > In other words, in your version, Sharon knew they were
> > insane, and took advantage of it.  That doesn't change the basic fact
> > of their insanity.

Or his aggressive insistence on war with them as a way of a) keeping 
himself and his party in power and b) "justifying" increased oppression 
of Palestinians and the Right wing program of ethnic cleansing of the 
whole of Israel.   

> Maybe this was a political gesture the significance of which you simply 
> did not understand.

Exactly.  In a fight like this, gestures pack huge power which appears 
just loopy to outsiders, like the Orange march through Catholic areas
of Dublin every year; it's deliberate provocation, among many other 
elements that it would probably take many Irish people to unpack for us.

> > Just yesterday, in Samarrah apparently the "46 dead killed" fight 
> between resistance fighters and US troops was a lot more idiotic than 
> you think.  Apparently the resistance fighters ran away but the US 
> opened fire randomly on pilgrims -- thinking that their black clothes 
> were fedayeen uniforms, but -- a woman and child died-- they were 
> innocent pilgrims (pilgrims almost always wear black.)  Samarra is one 
> of the most sacred sites for the Shias.  This is the place where the 
> Imam Mahdi was said to have been born.

Ah, well.  This is why we will not wind up with Iraq as a comfy client 
state, ie colony, despite all the neo-cons' puffing and blowing on the 
subject.  We are too ignorant to run a successful empire overseas.  The 
Brits at least had vastly talented linguists and students of ancient 
history who had a wierd kind of love affair with the various colonies.   
We don't.  We have Marines who just want to go home, and who the hell 
can blame them?

C
-- 
Crow