 |
What They've Thought
|
||||
|
|
||||
What They Thought June 11, 2006 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
|||||
As the price of gasoline and the myriad products that utilize petroleum in their manufacture rises, Americans are going to ask why the Congress has resisted accessing the billions of barrels’ worth of oil and natural gas in our offshore continental shelf. As the realization of how dependent we are on the importation of Middle Eastern oil, plus the fact that U.S. dollars fund avowed enemies such as Iran and, in South America, Venezuela, Americans are going to ask why we do not tap our own Alaskan and offshore resources. As a matter of national security and as a significant boost to the American economy, it makes no sense to not assure and achieve a higher level of energy independence. So why, in mid-May, did the House of Representatives reject an end to the quarter-century ban on oil and natural gas drilling in 85 percent of America’s coastal waters? At the time, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, issued a statement that both defied logic and flatout lied, saying the vote against offshore drilling was great victory for consumers who have seen prices rise prodigiously. “In the meantime, working families are turning their wallets inside out to fill their gas tanks. It is outrageous to ask families to dig even deeper to subsidize oil drilling on undersea lands that belong to the American people.” Americans are paying more because the global price of a barrel of oil has been increased by fears of military conflict in the Middle East, probably initiated by Iran. Americans are paying more because, in 2005, Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes destroyed 115 oil platforms and damaged another 50, along with 183 pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico and refineries in Louisiana. Despite this, the U.S. Mineral Management Service (MMS) reported that there were no significant oil spills from offshore platforms and no oil reached the coastline. And, no, Americans do not “subsidize” oil drilling. Pelosi’s boogeyman of “Big Oil.” Indeed, as a report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration noted in 2005, the MMS “collects and disperses billions of dollars in revenue from the sale of mineral leases. Offshore leases brought in revenues of $5.2 billion in 2000. This represents 73.1 percent of the $7.1 billion in revenues collected from all Federal and American Indian mineral leases that year.” As for those big profits enjoyed by “Big Oil”, it’s worth noting that a single offshore drilling platform costs about $100 million dollars to build and that comes after the equally enormous costs of exploring for oil and natural gas resources. And “Big Oil” not only pays big taxes on its profits, but also employs thousands of Americans in the process. According to the Consumer Alliance for Energy Security, the Offshore Continental Shelf (OCS)—85 percent of which is off-limits to exploration—is estimated to have enough natural gas to heat 100 million homes for the next 60 years and enough oil to drive 85 million cars for 35 years. Thanks to the vote in the House, it remains off-limits. When the House of Representatives voted to open the Arctic Refuge to oil drilling in late May, Rep. Pelosi again issued a statement decrying “the same, tired ideas on energy such as opening the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. We should not sacrifice the Arctic coastal plain, one of America’s last truly wild places, for the sake of a small amount of oil.” Small? Well, if anyone considers an estimated 10.4 billion barrels to the nation’s oil supply “small”, then one wonders what they consider large? The vote was 225 to 201. In truth, only 2,000 of the nearly 20 million acres of ANWR would be needed for oil and gas production, contributing billions in tax revenue, and creating or sustaining thousands of American jobs. Opening ANWR and the Offshore Continental Shelf would bring many benefits. Put simply, more oil and natural gas means lower prices. With it come greater national security and more independence from the vagaries of Middle Eastern politics. Speaking for the Democrats and echoing the cries of environmental organizations opposed to energy independence, Rep. Pelosi called for “home-grown renewable energy, innovative technologies, and efficient use of energy in our homes, vehicles, workplaces, and factories.” Blah, blah, blah! This is the kind of empty environmental rhetoric that has left Americans paying higher prices for oil and natural gas than ever before. It posits the use of wind and solar energy on a scale that is neither viable, nor realistic because neither will ever produce enough energy to replace conventional sources. Rep. Pelosi said that, “America’s farmers will fuel our energy independence,” apparently by “rapidly expand[ing] the production and distribution of biofuels, encourage[ing] the deployment of new engine technologies for flex fuel, hybrid and biodiesel vehicles; and encourage[ing] cutting-edge research to develop the next revolution in renewable energy.” The notion that America or any of the other industrialized nations of the world will be able to depend on energy sources from corn and other agricultural products in the near future is absurd. Moreover, it ignores the vast reserves of known and yet to be discovered of oil and natural gas that exist. The problem, of course, is getting Congress to permit America to actually access its own resources! The effort to open a relatively small portion of ANWR has been stalled for three decades. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act was passed in 1953! It authorized the Department of the Interior to lease defined areas for development. According to the Energy Information Administration, “The offshore has accounted for about one-quarter of total U.S. natural gas production over the past two decades and almost 30 percent of total U.S. oil production in recent years.” “In 2003, MMS estimated that there was 406.1 trillion cubic feet of remaining undiscovered technically recoverable natural gas and 76 billion barrels of oil in U.S. offshore regions.” So why, in 1990, did former President George Walker Bush enact a blanket moratorium on all unleased areas offshore of North and Central California, Southern California except for 87 tracts, Washington, Oregon, the North Atlantic coast, and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico coast? The moratorium was extended in 1998 by former President Clinton through 2012. Why has the Congress of the United States refused to permit the exploration and extraction of our nation’s own natural gas and oil resources? Why does a coalition of 27 of the nation’s leading environmental organizations continue to campaign against access? And why do ordinary Americans have to remain at the mercy of Middle Eastern nations and major suppliers like Venezuela? There are literally trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and billions of oil barrels extant in the offshore continental coast of the United States. Every day on 4,000 offshore platforms natural gas and oil is extracted from Federal waters in an environmentally sensitive manner. There is an extremely dangerous game being played by the White House, Congress, and environmental organizations that is placing the economy and the security of America at great risk. If energy independence is what this nation needs— and it does — it is ours for the taking. |
|||||
How is it that the left just can’t seem to be thankless enough towards the military? It’s a difficult job and nobody has to do it, but yet they struggle on. Is it solidarity through mutual stupidity? Maybe that’s it, I don’t know. But they are the biggest supporters of thoughtlessness and liberty without responsibility I‘ve ever seen. I suspect one could find more wisdom in a kindergarten class just about anywhere. I picked that grade because they are just starting to the clear the slate of any individual thought and haven’t begun the indoctrination process yet at that age. Where do they find their heroes? It is as though they follow a street sweeper as it cleans up in the French Quarter in New Orleans. They grab the heartbroken drunks that were swept up and offer them one last chance to stand for something, even if it’s stupid. We’ve got Cindy Sheehan and Michael Berg. He should change his name to Borg because he truly has been assimilated into the collective. He actually identifies more with Zarqawi, who cut his son's head off, than he does with anyone over here that is straight and non-communist. How is it that he can do that? It’s because his grief was turned to something else by a bunch of snakes in our midst taking advantage of our freedom of speech. Looking at these people it is understandable that Mrs. Sheehan’s son decided to join the military and go fight a war. It is even more understandable why Berg’s son decided to go to war torn Iraq to be in the middle of that mess, even if not allowed to have a firearm or weapons of any sort because he was a contractor. I suspect it was so he could show his dad what a man is and what it means to be principled. It is interesting to see what these people are like though isn’t it? This is where the left has to draw from in order to find their voice. They are like the ambulance chasers they rely on as a party for financial support. They seek out those who have suffered a loss and then with a Pecksniffian-like sleaziness they move in for the psychological kill. Their version of world history goes back a whole twenty years or so. They understand nothing and believe that they know, unlike the communist leaders of the past, how to make it work. What a lovely fantasy that is…let’s bring on a few more million deaths in honor of that truly awesome fantasy of collectivism gone right. It hasn’t been claimed yet but at some point the left will undoubtedly state that “Zarqawi rolled off of the makeshift stretcher and onto his face because he feared he was going to get the Abu Ghraib treatment. He was going to cooperate because he didn’t want to be beaten too, not after almost being blown up. He was scarred for life by what happened at Abu Ghraib. He was such a great humanitarian and like Osama would have built schools instead of blowing them up if it wasn’t for us. Like many of us on the left he understandably had serious issues with Christians and Jews. He shall be missed and we would like to express our sincerest apologies to our Jew hating brethren in the mid-east that our military didn’t miss this time. We were hoping they wouldn’t get him so we could use that as an excuse to reduce their funding. But alas they’ve now shown they can be effective. What’s a traitor to do?” I’m happy to know that Zarqawi got to see that the people who were there were our military men and women and he had actually lost. I know that Osama was crushed to see this had finally happened and their man in Iraq wasn’t with them any more. To know that Osama sat there in horror because of this terrible event while I smiled to myself cheered me to no end. I know that isn’t a very nice thing to say but here it is for you in a nutshell; I sat in horror as the Towers came down, knowing that Osama and company partied their pointy little heads off in their own backwards way. Well as they say in France “C'est La Guerre.” Or “That’s war.” Somehow it seems so wrong to quote the French on such a matter. The only war they’ve ever won was also against themselves, so they also lost it. Somehow that reminds me of the Democratic Party. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
Two and a half years ago, I wrote a column called “So Long, and Thanks for all the Fish,” in which I came out against the Iraq War before war supporters coming out against the Iraq War was cool. I’ve always looked back upon that column fondly, but I have to admit it created a moral dilemma for me. As I told some friends at the time, coming out against the war almost felt like coming out of the closet. All of a sudden, I’d done something which seemed to be completely at odds with my very manhood. I knew people would never look at me the same way again. And for some reason, this made me feel like I needed a new brand of hair gel. I don’t expect what I’m about to say here to carry the same weight as my anti-war coming out party. But in a way, what I’m about to say feels pretty much the same to me. Something has been on my mind the last few months, which I can no longer ignore and certainly can’t continue to deny. After many years, I have finally — and perhaps irreversibly — grown equal parts sick and tired of my once-favorite sitcom, Seinfeld. I still think it’s funny, and I still think it’s brilliant, but as hard as I try, I just can’t watch it anymore. Not five times a day in syndication. Not even once. Someday, I’m sure I will find it enjoyable again. But at this point, if I never saw a single episode for the rest of my life, I would live. To understand why I think my waning interest in this show is column-worthy, let me put it this way: There’s a better than not chance that you know exactly which episode the term “column-worthy” is semi-referring to (i.e., the sponge episode). Seinfeld has become deeply ingrained in modern American culture. It’s not just a sitcom. It’s a common denominator. Some might even call it a language. Few of the people I know stopped speaking that language when Judge Vandelay sentenced Jerry, Elaine, George, and Kramer to prison for being bad Samaritans in the final episode eight years ago. Many folks still swear by this show. And as little as a year ago, I did, too. But I can’t take it anymore. I just can’t watch it now. Six months ago, I found myself starting to feel bad whenever I stumbled upon a rerun. I would quickly change channels, as if I was hiding from some sort of social responsibility. Today, I no longer even feel bad. If I come across a rerun, I just curl my lip and keep moving. This isn’t like me. I’m really not a lip curler. What I am, though, is bored. And I don’t think it’s the show’s fault. I think it’s the fans. I think it’s anyone who not only still feels the need to reference Seinfeld in casual conversation, but the need to smirk in the process, as if there’s anything clever about quoting a show that everyone knows every line to, that went off the air almost a decade ago. I don’t expect this to sit well with too many people, but someone has to say it already. Someone needs to point out that all these smirking Seinfeld references are only cheapening the show. I hate to break it to you, America, but there’s no longer anything interesting about real people celebrating the fake holiday of Festivus. And when you talk about needing “hand” in your relationships, it no longer tells me you’re keen to the hilarious difficulties men and women have faced in their efforts to get together over the years. It tells me you’ve learned next to nothing about those hilarious difficulties since the final episode of Seinfeld. That was 1998. This is 2006. For God’s sake, get with the program. We can all find the humor in licking cheap envelopes or not being allowed to eat soup. But if you feel the need to reference George’s dead fiancée or the infamous Soup Nazi when someone licks an envelope or orders soup in public, I no longer think you’re creative or hip to pop culture. What I think is that Seinfeld died eight years ago and you haven’t stopped sitting shivah for it. You’re still mourning “the show about nothing,” which essentially means you’re a person about nothing. Normal people have moved on and found new favorite sitcoms. Watch Curb Your Enthusiasm. Watch My Name Is Earl. Watch The Office. Trust me. They’re good. I’m not saying we should stop liking Seinfeld, and I’m certainly not saying we should forget it. I’m just saying we’re still obsessed with quoting a show where the main character wears tight black jeans and white sneakers. That sort of thing shouldn’t fly in post-9/11 America. It gets to a point where enough is enough. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
This week, Congress will vote to send more than 20 billion of your hard-earned dollars overseas, when it passes the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for 2007. Our annual foreign aid bill is one of the most egregious abuses of the taxpayer I can imagine. Not only is it an unconstitutional burden on America’s working families, but this yearly attempt to buy friends and influence foreign governments is counterproductive and actually results in less goodwill toward the United States overseas. Why is foreign aid so bad? Isn’t it our obligation to help those less fortunate? What is not mentioned by proponents of foreign aid is that it very seldom gets to those who need it most. Foreign aid is the transfer of US dollars from the treasury of the United States to the governments of foreign countries. It is money that goes to help foreign elites, who in turn spend much of it on contracts with US corporations. This means US tax dollars ultimately go to well-connected US corporations operating overseas. Foreign aid distorts foreign economies and props up bad governments. It breeds resentment among citizens of foreign countries, who see the United States as keeping oppressive governments in power. Also, it is important to remember that forced charity is not charity at all. While I believe strongly in the moral value of helping the less fortunate, charity must come voluntarily from the heart, not under threat from the IRS. This year’s bill is even worse than last year’s bill. Aside from the almost 600 million dollar increase, the bill will spend half a billion dollars on something called the “Trade Capacity Enhancement Fund.” This is nothing but an enormous fund to bribe foreign governments to “liberalize” their trade policies. As one of the strongest proponents of free trade in Congress, I know well that open and free trade is its own reward. Countries that trade freely with each other are wealthier and far less likely to go to war. We shouldn’t kid ourselves: this new program is not about free trade. Its purpose is to encourage countries to enter into new so-called trade agreements with the US government. Government to government trade agreements produce government-managed trade relationships, which are not free trade at all. This fund is a colossal waste of money that will result in less free trade worldwide. Also, this year Congress will nearly double funding for the monstrous Millennium Challenge program. This is billed as a different kind of foreign aid, in that it only goes to governments that pursue “free market” economic and social reforms. Of course this is a waste of money: governments that pursue wise economic policies will attract much more in foreign private investment than the US government can send them. The true reward for sound economic policies is increased prosperity. Foreign aid does not purchase that prosperity but in fact distorts internal markets and props up inefficient companies. Americans concerned about high taxes, out of control gas prices, and economic downturn should think hard about what the US government is doing with the money it takes from them. The greatest “foreign assistance” we can give to other countries is to demonstrate to the rest of the world that limited government and the rule of law ensure freedom and prosperity. Rep. Ron Paul Web Site Back to Top |
|||||
It was around 1400 B.C., when Moses led the Hebrew slaves out of Egypt into Palestine, the “promised land”. After the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Jewish state came to an end and the Hebrew (Jewish) people were dispersed. In the 1890’s, Jews driven by Zionism to establish a modern Jewish nation-state and flocking back to their ancient biblical homeland in British controlled Palestine, eventually became embroiled in a modern day conflict between themselves and Palestinian Arabs. During WWI, British Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour issued the Balfour Declaration; Britain would view establishing a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine, favorably. Thus, Palestine was carved into “Emirate of Transjordan” (later simply “Jordan”); the area east of the Jordan River, where Britain installed a Saudi Arabian Bedouin tribal chieftain, Abdullah ibn Hussein, to rule over Bedouin and Palestinian Arabs, and the western half; between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River, where Palestinian Arabs and Zionist Jews wrestled for control. Britain handed responsibility over the western half of Palestine to the United Nations; which partitioned it into two states, one for the Jews; which would consist of the Negev Desert, the coastal plain between Tel Aviv and Haifa, and parts of the northern Galilee, and the other for the Palestinian Arabs; which would consist primarily of the West Bank of Jordan, the Gaza District, Jaffa, and the Arab sectors of the Galilee. Jerusalem would stay under UN control. Led by David Ben-Gurion, Zionists accepted this partition plan while Palestinian Arabs and surrounding Arab states rejected the proposal. On May 15, l948, Palestinians, aided by Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, launched a war to prevent Jewish independence and to secure control of Western Palestine. This resulted in Zionists seizing part of the land designated for Palestinians, Jordan annexing the West Bank and Egypt controlling Gaza. Arabs and Jews both battled for Jerusalem and Israeli forces gained control over West Jerusalem, which became the capital of Israel. 725,000 Arabs fled to neighboring Arab countries, becoming known as the Palestinian refugees. Palestinians weren’t allowed to form independent governments in areas annexed by Jordan or Egypt. However, Arab states allowed Palestinian resistance groups, organized in l964 by the Arab League into the Palestine Liberation Organization (the PLO), to use their territory to launch raids against Israel. The stated goal of the PLO was to use armed struggle to establish an independent Palestinian state. Miserable living conditions and treatment as second class citizens led many Palestinians in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, to become guerrillas. Because of continuous guerrilla attacks launched from Egypt against Israeli settlements, Israel and Egypt fought a brief war in the Suez Canal area in l956. Israel invaded the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza strip. The UN set up an Emergency force to patrol the border. In l967, Egypt’s President Nasser moved large numbers of troops and tanks into the Sinai Peninsula and demanded that the UNEF peacekeeping force leave Egyptian territory. Israel launched a preemptive strike, resulting in the Six Day War. Israel now occupied Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, Syria’s Golan Heights, and Jordan’s West Bank. The Israel government annexed East Jerusalem. Following the Arab defeat, radical underground Palestinian guerrilla organizations (fedayeen) took control of the PLO under the direction of Yasir Arafat. Receiving their funding from the Arab states, the PLO was charged with carrying on the fight against Israel. The organization was based first in Jordan, and later, Lebanon. This is because, in l970, King Hussein feared losing control over his country and kicked the PLO out of Jordan after a war between them and his government. It was discovered in Munich, during the 1972 Olympic Games, that terrorists could not be dissuaded from carrying out heinous acts of cold blood against innocents when motivated by ethnic hatred or religious fanaticism. It also became apparent that the rest of the world could and would carry on as though the fedayeen's (men of sacrifice) acts of barbarism were of no particular cause for concern. To emphasize this, The Olympic Games continued with full media coverage after the murder of 11 members of the Israeli team by PLO affiliates referred to as "Black September". During the incident, Israel was portrayed as unyielding but the reality was that they determined no Israeli anywhere in the world would be safe if they were to negotiate with the terrorists. Yet, instead of focusing on the unreasonable demands of these terrorists who in that particular instance demanded the release of 234 jailed Palestinians in Israel, Israel was condemned by the UN Security Counsel for retaliating against PLO bases in Syria and Lebanon. To rub salt in the wound, Germany negotiated the release of three of the hostage takers that survived. In l973, on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year, Israelis were caught off guard when Egypt attacked Israeli troops, stationed in the Sinai Peninsula and Syria attacked Israeli forces in the Golan Heights. After heavy casualties, the Israeli army eventually began to win the war. The Soviet Union and United States pressured Israel to accept a U.N. cease-fire. Henry Kissinger brokered agreements with Israel and Syria and between Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat. In 1979, Egypt became the first Arab nation to sign a peace treaty with Israel and granted Israel full diplomatic recognition. Consequently, most Arab states broke off diplomatic relations with Egypt. In 1981, Sadat was assassinated. PLO official, Nabil Ramlawi, responded to the news, "We were expecting this end of President Sadat because we are sure he was against the interests of his people, the Arab nations and the Palestinian people."1 Welcomed by Muslim and Druse factions in Lebanon, Arafat’s PLO demanded Maronite Christians restructure the political system; to give Muslims, now a majority of the population, more power. Civil war between religious sects resulted in a partition of Lebanese territory. In effect, South Lebanon and the Muslim western half of Beirut became the power base of the PLO. In l982, Israel teamed up with Bashir Gemayel and his Maronite Phalangist Militia to fight the PLO. Prime Minister Begin and his Minister of Defense, Ariel Sharon, assumed if they could get rid of the PLO, they would get rid of the Palestine Problem. After the Israeli army bombarded West Beirut, Sunni Muslims asked Arafat and the PLO to leave. Shortly afterwards, Bashir Gemayel was assassinated by a bomb, set off by Habib Tanious Shartouni, a member of the pro-Damascus national Syrian Socialist Party; whose mandate was to merge Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. Israeli leadership then permitted Israeli troops to pilfer the PLO archives, and turned their heads while Phalangist militiamen avenged Bashir’s death, as well as, past tribal killings of their own people by Palestinian guerrillas. Allowed entrance to the neighborhoods of Sabra and Shatila, Phalangists massacred most of whom they encountered. Begin resigned as Israeli Prime Minister in August, l983. That same year, Israeli military began to unilaterally withdraw from Lebanon. Shiites, who initially welcomed Israelis as liberators from the PLO, grew to resent them for staying in South Lebanon in order to protect the northern Israeli border. Because of their insensitivity to Shiite religious customs, what began as a Palestinian threat turned into an Israeli Shiite conflict. All of this had the effect of ingratiating Arafat to the Palestinians. In fact, Arafat became the symbol of the Palestinian refusal to disappear. Palestinians adopted a policy of la’ am, a combination of the Arabic words for yes and no. The PLO would reject peace initiatives, but not out of hand; Palestinians living in occupied Israel would not formally recognize Israel, yet continue holding out for liberation. This was easiest for all concerned, for as much as Israeli’s expected Arabs to negotiate land for piece, few Israelis wanted to give West Bank and Gaza back. Palestinians, seemingly resigned to their second class status, benefited from improved housing, health care, electricity, jobs and economic opportunities. However, as more and more Jews built settlements in the occupied territories, the Israeli government gave both Jews and Palestinians the impression that the West Bank would never be returned. Beginning in 1987, Palestinians living in the Israeli occupied areas, instituted an Intifada; uprising, against the Jewish settlers of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In addition, terrorist groups, such as Hamas emerged in the occupied territories; preaching violence, inciting Palestinians to attack Israelis and Israeli targets, and calling for an Islamic state in both Israel and the West Bank and Gaza. This resulted in Israel restricting Palestinians' entry to Israel. Continued acts of terror by Arabs, led to increased restrictions. The Israel Defense Force presence increased after each new wave of violence. Expanding defensive measures were in a sense self-inflicted by the Palestinians. The Israeli occupation became more and more difficult for the Palestinians and the Israelis. Hamas was established for the sole purpose of destroying Israel. The Muslim religion requires total submission to God's will, regimentation of life under Islamic law, and death to infidels. After Kuwait, which supported the PLO and the Palestinian cause, was invaded by Iraq, the PLO threw their support behind Saddam Hussein, who promised to destroy Israel and create an independent Palestinian state. Upon Hussein’s defeat, many Palestinians ended up fleeing Kuwait and those who remained lost their jobs and many social services, such as free medical care and education. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Persian Gulf States won’t allow Palestinians left behind in Kuwait to immigrate into their countries. Instead of learning from Israel's experience with terrorism, each new act of violence since then has been rationalized by pacifists as deserved retaliation for some catalyst or another. Instead of determining to beat them at their own game, guerillas are given more and more recognition; legitimized if you will. They have been given roles in the United Nations, representation at the Olympics, and invitations to meet with world leaders who hope to appease their unmitigated demands. Arafat was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for for a plan to bring peace to the region, negotiated with assassinated President Anwar Saddat and President Jimmy Carter. Ironically, only six years ago, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat rejected an offer of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal (brokered by the Clinton administration) and proposed by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. A second intifada against Israel erupted, and there have been no substantive negotiations since then. Arafat’s recent demise offered hope that his successor, Mahmoud Abbas, would be a real negotiating partner for Israel. But he has been unable to control Palestinian militants, and now his party has lost control of the Palestinian parliament to the radical, militant, terrorism-supporting Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Palestinians believe the recent Israeli decision to withdraw from Gaza and surrender control of the area over to the Palestinians resulted from the Intifada. Officially, Israel was offering a concession to the Palestinians to help bring peace to Israel. The most likely scenario is that Sharon was trying to secure Israel’s boundaries, while providing the Palestinians the opportunity to create a state of their own. Regardless of his reasoning, the pullout was made in good faith, in the hope that Palestinian militants would cease their acts of terror against the Jewish citizens and further negotiations toward a Palestinian state could resume. Unsurprisingly, Israel's recent appeasement did not mollify the Palestinians; it encouraged greater aggression towards Israel. Upon the withdrawal from Gaza, Hamas claimed that their attacks drove the Zionists away. Recruiting more Arabs into their organization, Hamas declared their intention to expand their war against Israel. To that end, Hamas has smuggled weapons into Gaza from Egypt through the Rafah border crossing which was placed under Palestinian control and European supervision, as part of a U.S.-brokered deal with Israel. Forced to shut down the crossing several times, during attacks by gunmen, Israel finds itself threatening to close it, if the breach is not repaired. Meanwhile, fugitive terrorists, along with Iranian terrorism and missile technology specialists, have crossed into Gaza. They have already begun launching rockets from Gaza into Israel. Ultimately, appeasement helped Hamas to victory in the elections and gave it the power and support to launch a third Intifada. Sharon led his party to this course of action despite evidence indicating the policy would fail. Much infighting took place within the Likud party over the Gaza pullout. Benjamin Netanyahu actually resigned fearing that Gaza would become a "base of Islamic terror. Natan Sharansky also resigned; his reason being that any concessions made by Israel must be conditioned on Palestinian democratic reform. Sharon himself was compelled to leave the Likud and started a new party, with a more moderate stance toward the Palestinians. Given their violent history, it should surprise no one that Palestinian militants continue to fire rockets at what it considers to be occupied land. Hamas opposes the existence of the Jewish state and has carried out dozens of suicide bombing attacks against Israelis. They reject a two state solution. Becoming the first Palestinian prime minister from the Islamist group Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh recently took the oath of office in front of President Mahmoud Abbas in Gaza. Hamas, whose “democratically elected” Palestinian Authority Cabinet was sworn in the day after Israel's parliamentary elections, wants to talk to Israel about daily-life issues while ignoring fundamental political differences. Israel, on the other hand, wants Hamas to recognize the Jewish state, renounce violence, and respect previous peace agreements or face international isolation. If Hamas does not change, leaders of the Kadima party say the government would either implement a unilateral solution or negotiate directly with the Palestinian Authority, formerly the Palestine Liberation Organization, an umbrella group headed by the relatively weak Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, is planning to forge ahead with further withdrawals and concessions, applying Sharon's policy of disengagement to the West Bank. Wanting Hamas to recognize Israel and honor all previously signed peace agreements, the Bush administration is refusing to negotiate with any member of the new Hamas-led Palestinian government. The US-sponsored ''road map" to peace, calls on Palestinians to crack down on militant groups and calls on Israelis to stop expanding settlements as first steps toward reopening negotiations. In response, Ismail Haniyeh maintains that he is waiting for Israel to recognize a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, release Palestinian prisoners and recognize the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel. Hamas speaks of a ''long-term truce" if Israel pulls back to the pre-1967 lines, while Kadima speaks of pulling out of most of the West Bank and swapping Israeli land for some of the larger Jewish settlements there. Because Hamas is Muslim, and those who practice Islam believe that there are only two groups of people in the world, followers of Mohammed and infidels, how long can a truce actually last? Reference Links: Cambanis, Thanassis and Anne Barnard. “Hamas, Israel vow new focus.” Boston.com News April 9, 2006 Friedman, Thomas.
From Beirut to Jerusalem. New York: Doubleday, 1989. “One
Day in September.” “The
road ahead.” Newsday.com April 9, 2006 “1981: Egypt's President Sadat assassinated.” On This Day 6 October April 9, 2006 Nancy
Salvato
Web Site Contact
Back to Top
|
|||||
©2004-2006 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
|||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Friday, June 2, 2006 2:36 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
|||||
|
site content ©2002-2006 site design by |
|||||
