You wanted to say...:

minyoo - 2003-05-28 12:46:58
...That made me totally confused. I always saw the shrub administration as being totally pro-Israel ass who doesn't give a damn about Palestine, but this is way too confusing. Sanctions against Israel? Never saw that one coming.
Ravyne - 2003-05-28 12:54:26
Neither did I. That's why I am wondering what the Bushites are up to now. Has me pretty freaked out too.
phreak13 - 2003-05-28 15:39:42
Palestine once was its own state,then after world war II America split it in half to make a state for Jews who escaped and or survived the halocaust in Europe. Get rid of Israel,Palestine never wanted it in the first place. America has no right to force anything on Palestine,Iraq or any other middle easten country. We fight for freedom and rights remember?
OrdinaryKat - 2003-05-28 16:59:14
Sometimes there are tricks up people's sleeves that only the elitists in the public know- congratulations for being one of the few to realize what actually happens in the government. I salute you and have a lot of respect for you because of this.
Ravyne - 2003-05-28 23:09:30
Actually Phreak13, it was Britain who split up the area to make way for Israel. Most of the carving of the Middle East was done by the British Empire at the time.
tigerknight - 2003-05-29 01:09:59
Ravyne - America would never place sanctions on Israel, not of any kind. But all that would be necessary to topple any Israeli government would be a delay on the $3 billion, or a denial of loan guarantees and interest revenue (which actually comes to many more billions of dollars in value). It isn't that the U.S. must try to hurt Israel--it is that Israel is highly responsive to mere hints of pressure from the U.S. The last time a U.S. president asserted such pressure was Bush, Sr. Jr. may lack any of Sr.'s acumen, but a few of the Realpols have influence even among the nest of Neocons.
Ravyne - 2003-05-29 01:21:59
It wasn't ME who said they were planning on using sanctions. It was BUSH who said it. So go fuss at him.
tigerknight - 2003-05-30 02:28:40
Bush used the term "sanctions" against Israel (as opposed to, against the parties that are not cooperating with the peace, which is typical code for the Palestinian Authority)? Do you have the reference--if he actually used the word "sanction" with any indication they might be used against Israel, that's a much bigger political blunder than Sharon's "gaffe" of calling the "Occupation" an "occupation" rather than an "administration." But I would have thought I'd have seen it elsewhere. (I've worked on campaigns to apply sanctions, so I follow this one pretty closely--but if you caught something I missed, I'd be grateful for the reference).
tigerknight - 2003-05-30 06:40:41
By asking for a direct cite, I was looking for something other than the article you provided. The "sanctions" in that article go no further than reviewing the use of U.S. military equipment in the Occupied/Administered Territories--and I haven't heard a senior policymaker express support. BTW--reviewing the use of the U.S. weapons is about as minimal a "sanction" as can be imagined, since the U.S. reviews the use of munitions provided to every other country (ie., cluster bombs in Turkey and AWACS in Saudi Arabia--both of which have been publicly reviewed, like nearly every other overt provision of weapons): if "review" is a sanction, then that means the current weapons are NOT reviewed. Thus, Israel has a unique subsidy--carte blanche, overt authorization to use American weapons as it pleases--and the "sanction" consists of reviewing whether the unique subsidy should be retained. 'Course, I'd like to see what else was on the list.

so tell me...:

who are you?:
where can I email you?:
do you have a URL to share?:

Ahhhh...thanks, I needed that!

back to the entry - Diaryland