SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsWar


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (2932)8/25/2001 3:39:52 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER
   of 23264
 
Re: I am repeating what the main negotiators, primarily Yossi Beilin, Saeb Erekat and Dennis Ross said was the cause. (Read Dennis Ross's interview in the New York Times Magazine)They are in a position to know. You are distorting the record.

Well... I guess all I have to do to answer you is pulling out your own words (from post #2933) --with a somewhat different spin....

"What is presented on TV or the New York Times does not have much to do with what went on in the negotiations. The Jewish political world is continually drunk on its own rhetoric. Much easier to talk about hamas and jihad and driving Arafat out of Palestine than to sell hard compromises to the people. Particularly for Sharon, who is flatfooted, bloodthirsty, and counterproductive.

Besides, as I've said before, the Western world doesn't want the Israelis to come to terms with their Arab neighbors; then the Middle East would cease to be a useful bogey in front of Western public opinion and most of the European regimes would lose a major rallying point that always directs their people's anger outward, towards the Arabs."

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (2933)8/25/2001 3:59:39 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER
   of 23264
 
Footnote to my previous post -- Jerusalem as the only stumbling block in the Middle East negociations:

Jerusalem Quarterly File

Double Issue 11-12, 2001

The Prospects for a Shared Jerusalem

Laura Fragiacomo

jqf-jerusalem.org

Excerpt:

Salim Tamari also refuted the claim that Jerusalem is an open city delineating the type of discriminatory policies faced by Palestinians that would indicate that simply respecting each other's legacy in the city is not enough. He reminded the audience that while Israelis are free to move and settle anywhere within Jerusalem, Palestinians are barred from visiting or from even reclaiming their properties in West Jerusalem: "As long as one group is denied access to the other side of the city, then we have to treat the colonial presence of the city on the Arab side as a colonial or settler presence." According to Tamari, the illegal presence of 200,000 Israeli settlers in East Jerusalem was a key reason for the collapse of the discussions on Jerusalem during the Camp David talks. Whereas Ben-Meir referred to the presence of settlers in East Jerusalem as a historical right, Tamari argued that these settlers were "imported" into East Jerusalem to ensure a Jewish majority in the Palestinian areas of the city. The importing of Jewish residents is part of an overall plan by the Israeli government to reduce the proportion of Palestinian residents in Jerusalem. The effects were felt in 1985 when, for the first time since the Israeli occupation of 1967, Israeli Jews formed the greater part of East Jerusalem's population. The tactics of the Israeli government are various and irreversible. Strict and discriminatory building codes favoring Jewish residents have forced Palestinian residents to the margins of the city or the West Bank; once they live outside of Jerusalem boundaries, the Israeli government accuses them of leaving the city and strips many of them of their residency. Tamari also discussed how damaging the Oslo process has been for the Palestinian people. Economic life, for instance, has been stunted, as continual closures imposed on Palestinian areas have severed the West Bank and Gaza from Jerusalem - their main metropolitan center and commercial marketing outlet.

[...]

While Tamari and Khalidi unsurprisingly pointed to the status quo of the Israeli occupation as the root cause for the failure of the Oslo/Camp David framework, Ben Meir called for its formalization within the negotiations framework: "Both sides should continue to administer their holy places as they have" since Israel captured the Old City in 1967. The Palestinians have been exercising de facto sovereignty over their holy shrines and educational institutions. Israel should now formalize this arrangement by extending extraterritoriality to the Palestinians over the entire area called Haram al-Sharif - including much of the Old City where a majority of Palestinians reside. This solution "could satisfy the Muslim needs without compromising the integrity of a united city." Rashid Khalidi countered that such a plan will not lead to a satisfactory or equitable solution for the sharing of Jerusalem's holy places: "The status quo has led to killings, on three occasions in ten years of Palestinian worshippers on the Haram al-Sharif. This, to my way of thinking, is not an acceptable status quo. People were shot down in 1990, 1996, and 2000 in one of the holiest places in Islam." The status quo has led to "violence in holy places all over Palestine - in both Jewish and Muslim holy places," he reiterates.

Interestingly, one of the main discussion points of Daniel Seidemann is that there is no status quo per se in Jerusalem, alluding to the fact that Jerusalem's current reality is one of instability and constant flux. Although the city is seen as the "detonator" of the current uprising, which is blamed on Sharon's visit to the Haram al-Sharif, the city remains quiet on the surface. Yet Seidemann urged people not to be deceived by the apparent calm: "Jerusalem is like an atomic device. When it blows, watch out..." He believes that expectations of Palestinians in East Jerusalem are high and that they will not accept a continuation of Israeli hegemony. Seidemann issued a "dire" warning, saying the Intifada will find its way into Jerusalem, especially if the current move towards unilateralism is completed: "Unilateral withdrawal is almost like a surgical removal between Israelis and Palestinians. Nothing will motivate the Palestinians in Jerusalem more than if they are to be sealed from their hinterland in Ramallah."
[snip]

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Thomas M. who wrote (2922)8/25/2001 4:33:48 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER
   of 23264
 
Follow-up to my Byzantine Alliance scenario or how Europe's deceitfulness towards Arabs might further wreak havoc on the Middle East...

Jerusalem Quarterly File

Double Issue 11-12, 2001

Time to Change: The European Role in Jerusalem

Issa Kassissieh


Author's Note:
This article was written prior to the passing of Mr. Faisal Abdel Qader al-Husseini. The staff at the Orient House vow to continue the legacy of Mr. Husseini and to maintain the Orient House as the PLO Headquarters in East Jerusalem.


jqf-jerusalem.org

Excerpt:

Europe's policy towards Palestinians in Jerusalem can be characterized as following the line of least resistance. Over the past three years, Europe has slowly regressed in its willingness to meet Palestinian officials in Jerusalem during diplomatic visits and to maintain a balanced position vis-à-vis the Israelis and Palestinians. European financial contributions to Jerusalem and its institutions have also been largely symbolic. This lack of support comes in spite of the letter from Shimon Peres to the former Norwegian Foreign Minister Johan Holst, dated October 11, 1993, in which the Israeli Foreign Minister stated that support for East Jerusalem institutions should be "encouraged." Financial assistance to East Jerusalem has also dropped off despite the growing needs in the city after Israel imposed the military closure in 1993.

Europe's unwillingness to implement policies that might effectively deter Israel from consolidating its status quo on Jerusalem's final status and to support Palestinian institutions only contributed to the unequal power balance. Such inequality created the setting for Camp David where the Palestinians were forced into a lose-lose position: the Israeli stand on Jerusalem, based on 34 years of creating facts on the ground, was presented to the Palestinian side in a "take it or leave it" manner. As the Israeli ideas only allowed for the creation of distinct Bantustans and did not satisfy the Palestinians' minimal strategic demands for developing East Jerusalem, the Palestinians naturally expressed their reservations. While the Palestinians did not wholly reject the Israeli ideas, they were subsequently condemned for not accepting the proposal in its entirety.

Europe has erred in interpreting the past flexibility of the Palestinians, particularly in regards to Jerusalem, as a willingness to make concessions on the city; this has become a costly misinterpretation. On paper, Europe continuously calls for the adherence to international law and UN resolutions on Jerusalem; yet in practice international laws are not enforced. Israel thereby is given the leeway to issue inflammatory statements, such as the recent one issued by the Israeli Security Minister Uzi Landau calling for the shutting down of a dozen Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem, including the Orient House. The ability of Israel to make such provocative declarations with no recrimination from the international community only encourages the Israeli right wing.

Europe must reconsider its passive policy towards Palestine and Jerusalem in particular. Its failure to play a strong role in the Middle East has contributed to today's destabilized environment. Europe cannot afford to remain locked into a cycle of having to compensate the Jews for its role in their past suffering; instead it must recognize today's requirements and set out to curb injustice where injustice thrives. Not doing so will diminish Europe's stature in Palestine and the entire Middle East. As Faisal Husseini would always reiterate, "If the Palestinian secular and moderate leadership loses the flag of Jerusalem and the Palestinian state; if it is unable to fulfill the promises made at Madrid, then other radical nationalist movements will pick up the flag." If this occurs and Europe cannot curb Israeli violations in the occupied territories then extremism will spread, destabilizing not only the Middle East but also possibly Europe itself. Europe has reached another crossroads in its history with the Middle East and now has the opportunity to right the wrongs of the past.
________________

Indeed we're in for the worst-case scenario: as the US retreats on the diplomatic sidelines, Europe trades off its long-standing pro-Arab/Palestinian inclination against a higher-profile role in the region --on Israel's terms...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Tom Clarke who wrote (2901)8/25/2001 5:17:29 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER
   of 23264
 
Now that Condit story becomes interesting....

August 25, 2001

Condit faces punishment by Democrats

By Joyce Howard Price and Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


The House minority leader yesterday called Rep. Gary A. Condit's statements in his interview with Connie Chung "disturbing and wrong" and said he and fellow Democrats will consider punishing Mr. Condit by removing him from the House intelligence committee.
[snip]
washtimes.com

LOL! Fancy that! Mr Condit belonged to the House intelligence committee?! Enjoying access to CLASSIFIED stuff... Could it be that Miss Chandra Levy was a decoy? Condit framed up in a honey trap?? You tell me.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)


To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (2938)8/25/2001 2:34:43 PM
From: Tom Clarke
   of 23264
 
I doubt she was a decoy, but she may have stumbled across sensitive info while plunking around on Condit's computer and had to be dispatched by black ops.

Thats one theory. I lean to the theory that Condit's Hells Angels buddies took care of his problem.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (2938)8/25/2001 3:03:16 PM
From: alan w
   of 23264
 
Condit faces punishment by Democrats
By Joyce Howard Price and Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The House minority leader yesterday called Rep. Gary A. Condit's statements in his interview with Connie Chung "disturbing and wrong" and said he and fellow Democrats will consider punishing Mr. Condit by removing him from the House intelligence committee. Top Stories

"I think it fell way short. It all adds to the general perception that politics are no-good and politicians are a bunch of bums," Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in an article posted on the newspaper's Web site yesterday.

Richard A. finally got something right.

alan w

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (2935)8/25/2001 6:33:57 PM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 23264
 
You can turn my words around, but it doesn't answer my point (what a surprise) and it is complete nonsense -- the Jewish political world does not include Europe last time I checked, nor do the Europeans have a big stake in continued Mideast conflict. Quite the reverse. They would do better trading with a prosperous Middle East.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: alan w who wrote (2940)8/26/2001 8:43:19 AM
From: Andy Thomas
   of 23264
 
intelesting condit article:

Almost all observers and pundits agree that Thursday night’s interview with Connie Chung on ABC was a public relations disaster for Gary Condit. How could that have happened to a seasoned campaigner who has been in politics for thirty years and had the benefit of expert (and expensive) advice from legal and public relations professionals?

Panelists on both network and cable outlet television shows, from across the political spectrum, seem to have arrived at a consensus explanation. First, they postulate (some from alleged "inside" information), there was a conflict between advice from the lawyers and the PR people and the lawyers prevailed. With this the author can agree.

Secondly, they give us two options. Either Condit’s legal team (headed by lead attorney Abbe Lowell) was grossly incompetent, or Condit ignored their advice and tried to do it "his way." This writer rejects both of those choices.

Abbe Lowell is regarded among his peers in elite Washington legal circles as one of the premiere attorneys at combining legal strategy with PR "spin," one of the reasons he was chosen to defend Bill Clinton at the former president’s Senate impeachment trial.

From Condit’s mechanical and repetitive "non-answers" to some of Chung’s questions, it was obvious he was regurgitating memorized statements from a script. It is reasonable to assume that script was prepared by the legal team, which had advised him not to admit to anything.

Following that advice, Condit appeared to be calling a number of people liars including the D.C. police, Mrs. Levy, Chandra’s aunt, Anne Marie Smith, Joline McKay and Chandra herself. The result may have been a nearly complete destruction of Condit’s credibility in the public’s perception casting doubt on his clear and unequivocal denials of having anything to do with Chandra’s disappearance. That may have been the exact result Condit’s legal team desired.

In the author’s article of August 18th entitled "Levy/Condit – Amazing Coincidences" the following statement was made, "This writer does not believe that Condit and his staff requested these lawyers. They were most likely assigned there as a team with a containment strategy to ensure that no mention is made of the CIA/drug and OKC bombing (Timothy McVeigh) subjects in connection with Chandra Levy’s disappearance."

That statement was prompted by the author’s belief that Chandra’s disappearance likely has nothing to do with her affair with the congressman but with "dangerous knowledge" she acquired on her intern job at the Bureau of Prisons.

For this writer, that theory was given added credence with the presence of attorney Beth Wilkinson on the Condit legal team. Wilkinson was involved with the prosecution in both the Noreiga (CIA/drug connection) and Timothy McVeigh (OKC bombing) trials. Her apparent assignment was to keep any reference to government involvement in both subjects out of the public record, at which she was eminently successful. (See the aforementioned article for particulars.)

Chandra Levy was no ordinary intern as developed by this writer in a series of articles. (See list of related articles below available on request to jimrarey@provide.net.) By education, training, temperament and resulting from her duties at the Bureau of Prisons, she was in a position to have gained knowledge on one or both of these subjects that made her dangerous to powerful people resulting in her abduction and presumed death.

In this writer’s opinion, Condit’s political career was already irretrievable before the Chung interview, which may explain why Condit went along with such an obvious trashing of his credibility. On the other hand, he may have been made an offer he "couldn’t refuse," either join in the misdirection of public attention or join Chandra.

The day after the ABC interview, Democrat support for Condit started to crumble beginning with the statement of the House Minority leader made Friday morning. That was followed by criticism from Democrat Rep. Cooley from Condit’s neighboring district in California. The minority leader implied that Condit would be removed from his sensitive position on the House Permanent Select House Committee on Intelligence. Expect calls for his resignation from congress to increase from both sides of the aisle.

So what is the likely result of the Condit interviews on TV and in magazines? As counter-attacks are mounted by those maligned by Condit in the interviews, his credibility will sink to even lower depths. The public will suspect (without any evidence) that he was somehow involved in Chandra’s disappearance. A search for such evidence (which may not exist) will divert the public’s attention from what this writer believes should be the focus of investigation. That is Chandra’s contacts and activities at the Bureau of Prisons.

Chandra was involved in making arrangements for journalists covering the execution of Timothy McVeigh. To this writer’s knowledge, none of those journalists have been interviewed by authorities.

Chandra had applied for a permanent full-time job at the FBI before she was unceremoniously fired from her intern job. What was the status of that application at the time of her disappearance? Who did she list as references on her application and who, if anyone gave her letters of recommendation to supply with the application?

What is the real reason for Chandra’s early release from her internship? There is some dissembling going on in the Bureau on that question.

There is little reason to believe the FBI will pursue this avenue with any vigor, particularly in view of the person in charge who also headed the "investigation" of Vince Foster’s mysterious death and labeled it a suicide.

Unfortunately (in the absence of new and startling evidence) the likely ending to the tragedy of Chandra Levy will be a gradually fading from the news until the next sensational scandal hits the headlines when it will then join the ranks of other unsolved Washington mysteries.

Related Articles (in chronological order)

Condit’s Rock and a Hard Place

Condit: The Circling of the Wagons

Chandra’s Dangerous Knowledge

Chandra: Unraveling Government Cover-ups?

Levy/Condit – Amazing coincidences

Permission is granted to reproduce this article in its entirety.

The author is a free lance writer based in Romulus, Michigan. He is a former newspaper editor and investigative reporter, a retired customs administrator and accountant, and a student of history and the U.S. Constitution.

If you would like to receive Medium Rare articles directly, please contact us at jimrarey@provide.net.

Although not necessary, we would appreciate an indication of the city and/or state or country (If outside the USA) in which you are located to give us an idea as to where our articles are being received.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: Andy Thomas who wrote (2942)8/26/2001 11:45:56 AM
From: Thomas M.
   of 23264
 
Interesting, indeed . . .

Tom

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Thomas M. who wrote (2943)8/26/2001 12:39:19 PM
From: Tom Clarke
   of 23264
 
Speaking of the OKC bombing, this article is excellent.
geocities.com

This is an interesting one, too.
texasmonthly.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10