≡ Menu

Syria is denying Israeli allegations

Syria is denying Israeli allegations that Iraq is transferring banned weapons to them.

“This accusation against Syria is ridiculous because Syria signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and called all Arab states to make the Middle East clear of weapons of mass destruction whether nuclear, chemical or biological weapons,” a foreign ministry spokesman said in a statement faxed to The Associated Press in Damascus.

Oh, why didn’t you just say so? You say you’re innocent, therefore it must be true. You even signed a treaty! Gee, I feel so much better now. (Insert heavy sarcasm here).

{ 30 comments… add one }
  • Me 12.25.02, 9:39 PM

    Say what Mr. Sharon? Iraq shifted its WMD where? Syria?

    OK then. (insert wide-eyed naivite here)

  • Bill 12.26.02, 12:10 AM

    Israel should use the coming war with Iraq
    to make short work of the Syrians, kick
    the Syrian occupying army out of lebanon and
    smash hezbollah. It could probably be
    done in three days. Yes, the three day war.
    But then again, the trotskyites in the
    state department and the Arab controlled
    E/U-N would probably raise a howl.

  • Me 12.26.02, 5:15 PM

    Yeah, I totally agree, and then Israel should immediately begin building up settlements in “liberated” Lebanon.

  • Me 12.26.02, 7:49 PM

    Bill,

    With your obvious distaste for “Arab controlled” organisations, this should make you quite happy.

    “In the Clinton administration, the three most senior State Department officials dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli peace process were all partisans of Israel to one degree or another. All had lived at least for brief periods in Israel and maintained ties with Israel while in office, occasionally vacationing there. One of these officials had worked both as a pro-Israel lobbyist and as director of a pro-Israel think tank in Washington before taking a position in the Clinton administration from which he helped make policy on Palestinian-Israeli issues. Another has headed the pro-Israel think tank since leaving government.

    The link between active promoters of Israeli interests and policymaking circles is stronger by several orders of magnitude in the Bush administration, which is peppered with people who have long records of activism on behalf of Israel in the United States, of policy advocacy in Israel, and of promoting an agenda for Israel often at odds with existing U.S. policy. These people, who can fairly be called Israeli loyalists, are now at all levels of government, from desk officers at the Defense Department to the deputy secretary level at both State and Defense, as well as on the National Security Council staff and in the vice president’s office.”

    http://www.counterpunch.org/christison1213.html

  • jaws 12.26.02, 11:01 PM

    First off, I personally don’t trust “Counter Punch” as a fair objective source.

    Second, it’s true that in many administrations there are a lot of pro-Israeli individuals in high positions. So what?

    The exception to that trend is likely the state dept., who’se seen for beeing more arabist…

    And to paraphrase something Ben Gurion said at a conference of Jewish leaders in the US in 1950:

    “Your allegiance should first be to your home country, and then to Israel”

    I’ll dig up the actual quote soon

  • Bill 12.27.02, 6:40 AM

    Yes Me, the evil zionists, as predicted
    in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion,
    have taken over the Americn Government.

    In fact, just substitute the words “pro-Israel”
    or “Zionist” for the word “Jew” and you will
    find very little difference between what is
    written on counterpunch and neo-nazi sites like
    stormfront.

    And yes, the state department and the executive
    branch, although they deny it, are filled with arabists. read this
    article:
    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1040877994768

  • Me 12.27.02, 2:21 PM

    Jaws,
    “Second, it’s true that in many administrations there are a lot of pro-Israeli individuals in high positions. So what?”

    So when they’re involved in making US policy on the Middle East, you can bet that the policy will be tilted against Palestinian interests.

    By the way, what do you consider a fair and objective source?

    Bill,
    If you substitute the phrase “the Arabs” in your posts for each time you’ve used the phrase…well…”the Arabs,” you’ll have a good example of blatant racism.

  • jaws 12.29.02, 3:58 AM

    What’s wrong if the US’ foriegn policy is tilted against palestinian interests? (or substitute palestinian for any other country?) Israel is the US’ primary ally in the mid-east (along with Turkey and sometimes Jordan) and as such, it views ’em more favorably. As for the palestinians, there are good reasons that the US’ foriegn policy may be tilted against ’em. Here are some examples: supported Russia during the cold war, Supported Iraq during Gulf war, obvious ties to terrorism, muder of US citizens, ambassadors…….heck, this past year they even tried to assasinate Powell when he was visiting Israel (though the IDF foiled it).

    And as for an unbiased source, I like reading pieces that cite their sources and have arguments that can stand on their own.

  • Bill 12.30.02, 1:41 PM

    Me:
    “If you substitute the phrase “the Arabs” in your posts for each time you’ve used the
    phrase…well…”the Arabs,” you’ll have a good example of blatant racism. ”

    Ha Ha. How is saying “the Arabs” racist? You know your arguments are stupid
    so you call me a racist.

    Anyway, I can play that game. Your claim that
    “pro-Israel” officials (i.e. Jews and duped goyim)
    run the United States Government is blatantly antisemitic.
    BTW, counterpunch is well known for their Jew bashing
    articles, like the one which claims that Ben Gurion
    colluded with the nazis to murder European Jewry.

  • Me 12.30.02, 11:51 PM

    Jaws,

    How about non-partisan policy makers in Washington, making fair US policy on the Middle East?

    If we look at the dozens of UN resolutions that Israel is in violation of (more than any country in the world) in its illegal colonial occupation of Palestinian territory, fair US policy should support the relatively vulnerable Palestinian interests instead.

    But fairness would work against Israeli interests, and so it becomes necessary to stack the deck with as many pro-Israeli jokers as possible.

    No “unbiased sources” that you can recommend to me?

    Bill,

    -“How is saying “the Arabs” racist?”

    Take as an example senitiments you have expressed in other posts:

    -“the only thing the arab/muslim world understands is force”

    -“because to the Arabs, a piece of paper is just a piece of paper.”

    This is racism: you attribute negative characteristics to an entire ethnic/linguistic/religious group of people.

    On the other hand, pro-Israelis are certainly over-represented in the Bush administration, particularly in the department that is involved in making Middle East policy.

    This is a fact. This is not racism. “Pro-Israeli” is a political description, not a racial one.

    And though I’m not sure about Ben-Gurion, I do know that the Stern Gang (including former Israeli PM Yitzhak Shamir) did try and forge an alliance with the Nazis — not for the purposes of murdering European Jewry, but for “The establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich, [which] would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East.”

    This is a direct quote from a proposal presented to the Nazis by Avraham Stern and his gang.

    And yes, I did see it in Counterpunch. And yes, Counterpunch is anti-Zionist.

    But can you recommend to me any of the “unbiased sources” you might be reading on the subject?

    In the meantime, you can check out the article in its entirety at http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner1223.html.

  • jaws 12.31.02, 6:47 AM

    Me–

    The idea of non-partisan policy makers in washington sounds like an oxymoron (if you know what I mean). Every policy maker is going to have their own opinion, be it partisan or not.

    Right now, the US policy on the ME isn’t that fair overall either. It’s been better towards Israel under the Bush administration then during Clinton’s.

    Israel is also not in posession of any “illegally colonized land”. First off, Israel has never engaged in the process of colonialism. Here’s a good piece on the situation and Int’l law:
    http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm

    Second, it’s blatantly obvious that the UN has an anti-Israel bias. If one can’t see that, they must have their head in the sand. Furthermore, the resolutions which Israel finds herself in “violation of” are of a different class than those which Iraq is currently in violation of. This article from the economist is a good read on it:
    http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1378577
    -and-
    http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf13.html#a

    As for the article in counter-punch…it’s mostly babble…

    First off, it makes reference to Katzner, who was eventually found innocent of the charges (I think, I have to go look back at the documents).

    Nevertheless, this piece isn’t worthwhile in the least. It’s basically holocaust denier artugments regurgitated.

    It’s important to realize that the stern gang was a very small group of individuals; did not speak for the Jews as a whole, and at that time, Hitler was winning the war, and the stern gang was mad at the british for banning Jewish immigration to the Palestine Mandate. The stern gang wanted a Jewish state in Israel, and was unaware of the attrocities in Europe at the time. Rather they just wanted all the Jews in the Jewish state.

    Make sense?

  • Bill 12.31.02, 10:27 AM

    Me
    “If we look at the dozens of UN resolutions that Israel is in violation of (more than any country in
    the world) in its illegal colonial occupation of Palestinian territory”

    this is the big lie of the 21st century.

    this hysterical, hyperbolic, paranoid and incorrect
    statement just shows how much of an antisemite you are.

  • Bill 12.31.02, 10:33 AM

    “-the only thing the arab/muslim world understands is force’

    -‘because to the Arabs, a piece of paper is just a piece of paper.’

    This is racism: you attribute negative characteristics to an entire ethnic/linguistic/religious
    group of people.”

    perhaps, Me, I can refer you to the Quran. But if you
    want to get politically correct about, then just change
    “Arab/Muslim” to “Arab/Muslim countries”.

  • Jonny 12.31.02, 8:54 PM

    The methods of the pro-Israeli lobby do not include flying jumbo jets into American cities.

    Hypothetical: Israeli’s hijack planes and fly them into populated areas of France, and then say “thats because you support the Palestinians”, do you think French support for the Palestinians would incraease of decrease?

  • Me 12.31.02, 9:10 PM

    Bill,

    That’s a step in the right direction, but “Palestinian leaders,” “the Iraqi government,” etc. would be better — that way, you’d be referring to a specific geo-political organisation (ie. the Israeli government) rather than to an ethnic/religious group of people (ie. Jews).

  • Me 12.31.02, 9:13 PM

    Jaws,

    Some examples of oxymoronic thinking (if you know what I mean):

    You feel It’s not a problem that Bush administration Middle East policymakers have pro-Israeli bias, because “Every policy maker is going to have their own opinion.”

    You feel it is a problem that “the UN has an anti-Israel bias.”

    You feel that the Counterpunch article is “mostly babble” and “basically holocaust denier artugments regurgitated” (even though the article clearly refers to the holocaust: “During the world war, Brenner points out, Zionism showed its real meaning: for the sake of its ambitions, it sacrificed the blood of millions of Jews.”)

    You find it necessary (and who wouldn’t, when faced with primary sources straight from the horse’s mouth) to qualify the article’s arguments with “It’s important to realize that the stern gang was a very small group of individuals; did not speak for the Jews as a whole, and at that time, Hitler was winning the war, and the stern gang was mad at the british…”

    You say that you “don’t trust “Counter Punch” as a fair objective source.”

    You refer me to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (heavily pro-zionist) and the Jewish Virtual Library, a division of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (heavily pro-zionist).

    Doesn’t make sense.

  • Me 12.31.02, 9:57 PM

    Bill,

    -“this is the big lie of the 21st century.”

    Got proof?

    For Israeli violations of international law, see:

    http://www.cnionline.org/international%20law.htm

    For UN resolutions against Israel from 1955-1992 (65 of them), see:

    http://www.mideastfacts.com/resolutions.html

  • Me 12.31.02, 10:16 PM

    Jonny,

    -“The methods of the pro-Israeli lobby do not include flying jumbo jets into American cities.”

    No, but they do include flying an American-made F-16 fighter jet (paid for with American tax dollars) into Gaza City and firing a missile at an apartment building, killing thirteen uninvolved civilians, including nine children, and then qualifying the mission as “a success,” though a “heavy handed” one.

    Do you think international support for Israel increased or decreased on that one?

  • jaws 01.01.03, 8:32 AM

    Me–

    (rolling my eyes)…I have seen many first hand documents regarding Zionism and the holocaust. No, Zionism did not deliberately sacrifice Jews in europe to achieve their goals. Rather, the opposite is true. The British (at the behest of the arabs) banned Jewish immigration into the Palestine Mandate; and by doing so prevented the possibility that Jews could’ve been saved.

    Also, the argument that the Zionist leaders turned their backs on the Jews of Europe isn’t true; afterall, what about the partisans who left the Palestine Mandate to help liberate the Jews of Europe?

    And it is also important to note that for the context of studying history, the Stern Gang was an extremely small minority group; and in no way represented the major leaders of the Zionist movement at the time.

    As for the sites I refered you to, the article at the JCPA site is also available elsewhere (as are similar docs. saying the same thing). It’s the context of the piece that’s important.

    As for the links from the book: “Myths and Facts”, which is based on fact, I don’t see a problem with it. Same with the article from the economist. Againl it’s the content of the piece which I’m implying is important.

    Finally, again, I have no problem with any “Bias” that members of the bush admin. have towards Israel. There have been admins and figures that have had anti-Israel biases (e.g. Carter; Weinberger…) It is one issue that some voters look for in candidates.

  • Me 01.01.03, 6:34 PM

    Jaws,

    If it’s ‘content’ that you’re concerned about, read and respond to arguments rather than ditching a piece because it happens to be appear in CounterPunch.

    The point I’m trying to make is that there IS no unbiased journalism, as there is no unbiased policymaking.

    But the governments of democratic countries should at least try for a semblance of balance in the view-holders they invite into their administrations — a chance to debate the issues from multiple perspectives — as they make policies which affect their citizens as well as the international community.

    To stack the deck instead with pro-Israelis calls into question the US’s status as an “honest broker” in bringing about a “just resolution” to the ongoing conflict.

  • Me 01.01.03, 6:53 PM

    By the way,

    Still no proof that:

    1)Iraq possess WMD

    2)Iraq transferred its WMD to Syria

    3)Israel is not colonizing Palestinian territory.

    In fact, occupying the Palestinian territories, transferring out their Arab populations, building Israeli-controlled “settlements” there, and then transferring in a Jewish-only Israeli population to live there seems abundant proof to the contrary.

  • J.M. Heinrichs 01.01.03, 8:36 PM

    Interesting, but the two of you should exchange addresses and carry on in private.

    Cheers

  • jaws 01.02.03, 4:12 AM

    “The point I’m trying to make is that there IS no unbiased journalism, as there is no unbiased policymaking. ”

    Were this not the case then someone like O’reilley would be out of the job 😉
    I never said their wasn’t unbiased journalism; rather I read most things with a (few) grains of salt. Especially those pieces were the “spin” is very evident, in which case, I just try to cut it off.

    I also don’t think that the US has much weight in being an “honest broker” either. Nor do I really see any third country being one; as these third parties are usually looking out for their personal interests first (before those of the other two parties). And in the case of the US, this often involves a lot of “arm-twisting” (financially, diplomatically, etc.) It’s part of the bigger “game” that gets played.

    As for Iraq and WMD. I don’t really think that the UN inspections are really gonna turn up anything….mainly b/c saddam is playinhg a “shell game” with his WMD, and some reports even say he’s burying ’em under hospitals and schools (which is possible, being as sick and twisted as he is).

    As for the WMD to Syria thing, that may be more based on Intellegence. However, Iraq has been shipping arms illegally to Syria (and then to Hizbullah), which was proven yesterday by the large explosion in Lebanon that occured at a terrorist training camp (when a missile with apprx. 1 ton of explosives detonated). [the story was on the AFP wire and in Ha’aretz]

    As for Israel building settlements, I’ll refer you to the earlier piece. Many of the “settlements” Were built-up fresh from the ground. And will also pose another question to give thought to: Jews had lived in the West Bank and Gaza throughout history, with the exception of 1948-1967, when they were forcibly uprooted…..why can’t they return to their homes?

  • Bill 01.02.03, 6:30 AM

    I think that the Jews that were kicked
    out of Medina by Muhammed should be allowed
    to return. Of course, there were that many
    Jews refugees, since most Jews living on the
    Arabian peninsula were murdered in the
    first Muslim genecide. The first out of many.

  • Bill 01.03.03, 1:00 AM

    Another Jew murdered by peace loving Arabs – this
    time a particularly brutal fashion.

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1041482445154

  • Bill 01.03.03, 1:15 AM

    Good news from Israel. On a ‘birthright Israel’
    two Jews from the fsu find out they are related.
    Thank G-d there is an Israel.

  • Me 01.03.03, 8:45 PM

    “Jews had lived in the West Bank and Gaza throughout history, with the exception of 1948-1967, when they were forcibly uprooted…..why can’t they return to their homes?”

    With the declaration of the state of Israel, 385 out of 475 Palestinian cities, towns and villages were razed to the ground, disappearing from the map. The 90 remaining were denuded of land, confiscated without compensation. 30,000 Palestinian homes have been bulldozed and the land of the owners confiscated.

    Why can’t they return to their homes?

    What else but a colonizing logic would dictate, for example, that Jewish settlers in the West Bank are entitled to eight times more water than the Palestinians from whose farms the water is siphoned?

    You’re far from making your argument that Israel is not a colonizing power.

    K. Nakamuro if Japan in a letter published in Ha’aretz on Aug. 8, 2001: “If Zionism means that Palestinians cannot have their basic human rights, it seems pretty clear that Zionism is a racist ideology.”

  • Bill 01.04.03, 12:58 AM

    A Wild Ass of a man stabs a Rabbi in
    Paris shouting “Allah Akbar”.

    http://www.wiesenthal.com/social/press/pr_item.cfm?ItemID=6982

  • Bill 01.04.03, 2:02 AM

    Here are pictures of unarmed Palestinian
    children who want to live in peace with Israel.

    http://www.adl.org/israel/photo_gallery.asp

  • jaws 01.05.03, 7:24 AM

    Me–

    During the 1948 war, a majority of arabs left their homes based on assurances from the arab leaders from other (surrounding) countries that the Jews would be defeated.

    However, the Jews frequently begged the Arabs to stay–they wanted them there (really). The IDF only set out to take-over arab cities that posed a strategical/military threat–for example, cities on the road to Jersualem that were used to launch attacks. Records also show that IDF soldiers were ordered not to take anything from these towns or to destroy anything.

    However, there were some cases in which the IDF did destroy the houses, b/c they were used as military bases/launching points.

    Suprisingly, the soldiers of the newly formed IDF came upon many vacant houses as the residents of the villages had fled either at hte insistance of their neighbors (or for other reasons). When the IDF came across these houses, they left them as they were.

    So what happened with most of these abandoned houses?

    Israel experienced a large immigrant influx after 1948, and as such, needed to provide homes for the country’s new residents–and many of the vacant homes were given to immigrants. Other, destroyed houses had their materials recycled (Remember this is post-WWII era) and these materials were put to use in other construction.

    As for the arabs returning to their homes:

    Ben Gurion wanted to make arrangements about the return of some “refugees” as part of deliberations regarding a peace agreement and the fate of Jews in arab countries (this was in ’48) see:
    Howard Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time p. 335

    Also, Israel didn’t ignore the refugees property, rather” Custodian of Abandoned Property “to prevent unlawful occupation of empty houses and business premises, to administer ownerless property, and also to secure tilling of deserted fields, and save the crops (see Schechtman, The Refugee in the World p268)

    There was also another consideration that some in the Israeli gov’t had. FM M. Sharett saw letting the arabs return as “Suicidal Folly”. Why? Beacuse the arab (countries) saw the return of these “refugees” as a fifth-column, and ultimately a liquidation of the Jewish state. See: (Beirut al Massa, July 15, 1957), (Al-Misri, October 11, 1949), Al Said, (April 6, 1950)

    Regarding Colonization: Colonialism means living by exploiting others, but what could be further from colonialism than the idealism of city-dwelling Jews who strive to become farmers and laborers and to live by their own work?
    – Yehoshofat Harkabi,

    As for the water situation,
    Also, Mr. Nakamuro, while entitled to his opinion, is incorrect in his overall analysis.

Leave a Comment

Next post:

Previous post: