sraeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has been so busy as of late, it's understandable if he missed an anniversary last month — the end of the Franco-Algerian war.Posted on 04/03/2002 2:14:39 PM PST by RCW2001
Israel Loses by Sinking
To the Terrorists' Level
sraeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has been so busy as of late, it's understandable if he missed an anniversary last month — the end of the Franco-Algerian war.
Before that war was over in 1962, at least 250,000 Algerians and 25,000 French soldiers had been killed. Add to that total about 4,500 European settlers and maybe as many as 150,000 Harkis — Algerians who worked, and sometimes fought, for the French. They were slaughtered at the war's end.
I summon up the Algerian war because I have long thought it was the direction the Palestinian insurrection would inevitably take. It's not just that both societies are overwhelmingly Muslim, but that they both consider themselves occupied by colonizers who, in turn, consider themselves to be virtually indigenous. Remember, Algeria was not a French colony. It was part of France.
And remember, too, that the French did not fight halfheartedly. From the very beginning of the war, the French responded to guerrilla and terrorist tactics with extreme repression. Assassinations were common, torture routine. The French considered their enemy barbaric. They descended to that level themselves.
The Battle of Algiers is now being fought in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, Haifa and Netanya — anywhere a suicide bomber can infiltrate. It is being fought, too, with increasingly desperate Israeli tactics: first, preemptive assassination, and now, a virtual reoccupation of the West Bank.
The turn the war has taken may be lost on Sharon and, it seems, President Bush, but not on some of those involved. "If they kill us, we kill them," said Muhammad Odeh. "It will never stop." Odeh knows whereof he speaks. His son, Abdel Basset, blew himself up in Netanya last week, killing 22 others at a Passover Seder.
Another observer, astute Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea, said something similar: "You can kill, deport and deter professionals. There is no military way to fight suicide bombers."
I understand Sharon's rage and why he lashes out at Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat who is, for sure, complicitous in the suicide bombings. It is how I felt Sept. 11, down by the World Trade Center. This is how Bush feels, too. But this understandable and even laudable desire for revenge-cum-justice has led him to essentially endorse Sharon's actions. Bush does not seem to appreciate that even when it comes to terrorism, distinctions have to be made. Downtown Manhattan or the Pentagon is not Israel or the West Bank.
The deeper Sharon plunges the Israeli military into the West Bank, the greater the peril. He and they must then swim in a sea of sharks in a culture where suicide bombers are valued, praised. He can, if he so chooses, even get rid of Arafat. But even that, in the long run, will not change matters. A new leader will arise. The struggle will continue.
The Palestinians' terrorism is inexcusable, but not inexplicable. It is their chief weapon, and, moreover, it works. It will persist until Palestinians feel that their political concerns are addressed.
The tragedy is that the major parties ostensibly agree: There should be a Palestinian state, and Israel should be entitled to live in peace. For that to happen, though, first Israel must get out of the West Bank and abandon most (not all) of the settlements. A retreat to the 1967 borders might well be a capitulation to terrorism, but it also would be in Israel's best interest.
The French, who now lecture the U.S. on human rights, proved in Algeria that nothing could prevail over an enemy that fought dirtier, meaner and with more determination than they could. There is a lesson there for Ariel Sharon and George Bush. Take it — or repeat it.
This is news to me. The Arabs don't believe Israel should be entitled to live in peace.
This is a typically stupid leftist liberal statement. Our gov't only just realized that you have to employ informants who are just as bad as the terrorists if you're going to infiltrate the terror organizations. You send a thief to catch a thief...
Nonsense. I don't know and nobody knows how long it will persist. What we know is that the 9/11 terrorists were not Palestinians and the Indian and Paki Muslim terrorists are not Palestinians and the Filipino Muslim terrorists are not Palestinians. Get a clue, whoever you are (i.e. the author) it's something else that drives them. Get educated too, these questions have been answered before.
Right here.
Maybe so...but there will be a few less Palestinian terrorists at the victory party.
We may not have a choice. Supposedly, Syria is moving its troops in Lebanon toward the Israeli border. Now just suppose that Israel decides that it must strike pre-emptively, so Israel sends aircraft to bomb the Syrians in the Bekkaa Valley. This in turn brings Lebanon and Syria into play. Saddam may see this as his chance to get involved. Egypt and Jordan mobilize because of pressure by their populations.
As the situation deteriorates, and the Arabs begin an oil embargo as a weapon. This threatens the E.U and Japan who are major users of Mid East oil. The embargo will raise oil prices world-wide and threaten economies globally. Will the U.S. just stand by and let it happen?
If your enemy is willing to fight dirtier than you, you will necessarily lose.
Hmmm. But for some reason sinking to their level doesn't work.
This is patently ludicrous, hypocritical, and no doubt the musings of a complete (leftist) jackass.
Let's examine what else history teaches us:
Blow the motherf@ckers to next year. Works every time.
For your very own personal example, let's play a visualization game, OK?
Think Kamikaze suicide warrriors.
Picture that? Good.
Now think Hiroshima.
Excellent.
And finally, think BOOM!
See, works every time.
Wrong! Algeria was a colony.
The tragedy is that the major parties ostensibly agree: There should be a Palestinian state, and Israel should be entitled to live in peace. For that to happen, though, first Israel must get out of the West Bank and abandon most (not all) of the settlements. A retreat to the 1967 borders might well be a capitulation to terrorism, but it also would be in Israel's best interest.
Wrong again! The "Palestininans" have never agreed that "Israel should be entitled to live in peace."
Who wrote this garbage? Why did you refrain from posting the author's name? I know it wasn't Josef Goebbels; we hanged him.
(Sorry, random thoughts, I'm all over the place here.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.