LowerCaseRepublican

Ghost, homosexuality as a term was not put into the Bible until 1899 and is not found in any of the original translations of the Bible. Homosexuality and The Bible by Walter Wink Sexual issues are tearing our churches apart today as never before. The issue of homosexuality threatens to fracture whole denominations, as the issue of slavery did 150 years ago. We naturually turn to the Bible for guidance, and find ourselves mired in interpretive quicksand. Is the Bible able to speak to our confusion on this issue? The debate over homosexuality is a remarkable opportunity, because it raises in an especially acute way how we interpret the Bible, not in this case only, but in numerous others as well. The real issue here, then, is not simply homosexuality, but how Scripture informs our lives today. Some passages that have been advanced as pertinent to the issue of homosexuality are, in fact, irrelevent. One is the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Gen. 19:1-29). That was a case of ostensibly heterosexual males intent on humiliating strangers by treating them "like women" thus demasculinizing them. (This is also the case in a similar account in Judges 19-21) Their brutal behavior has nothing to do with the problem of whether genuine love expressed between consenting adults of the same sex is legitimate or not. Likewise, Deut. 23:17-18 must be pruned from the list, since it most likely refers to a heterosexual prostitute involved in Canaanite fertility rites that have infiltrated Jewish worship; whether these males are "gay" or "straight", a mature same sex love relationship is not under discussion. Several other texts are ambiguous. It is not clear whether 1 Cor. ^:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 refer to the "passive" and "active" partners in homosexual relationships or to homosexual and heterosexual male prostitutes. In short, it is unclear whether the issue is homosexuality alone or promiscuity and "sex for hire." Putting these texts to the side, we are left with 3 references, all of which unequivocally condemn same sex sexual behavior. Lev. 18:22 states the principle: "You (masculine) shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." The second (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." Such an act was regarded as an "abomination" for several reasons. The Hebrew prescientific understanding was that male semen contained the whole for nascent life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubating space. Hence, the spilling of semen for any non-procreative purpose--in coitus interruptus (Gen. 38:1-11), male homosexual acts or male masturbation-- was considered tantamount to abortion or murder. Female homosexual acts were consequently not so seriously regarded and are not mentioned at all in the Old Testament (but see Rom. 1:26). But Israelites also affirmed sexual intercourse for pleasure and companionship and permitted it during pregnancy and after menopause, when conception was not possible. Birth control as such is not mentioned in the Bible; but the Talmud lists exceptions when an "absorbant" could be used by a minor, a pregnant woman or a nursing wife. But generally the injunction to "be fruitful and multiply" prevailed (Gen. 1:28). One can appreciate how a tribe struggling to populate a country in which its people were outnumbered would value procreation highly, but such values are rendered questionable in a world facing uncontrolled overpopulation. In addition, when a man acted like a woman sexually, male dignity was compromised. In was a degradation, not only in regard to himself but for every other male. And the repugnance felt toward homosexuality was not just that it was deemed unnatural but also that it was considered alien behavior, representing yet one more incursion of pagan civilization into Jewish life. On top of that is the more univeral repugnance heterosexuals tend to feel for acts and orientations foreign to them (Left handedness has evoked something of the same response in many cultures.) Whatever the rationale for their formulation, however, the texts leave no room for maneuvering. Persons committing homosexual acts are to be executed. this is the unambiguous command of the Scripture. The meaning is clearer: anyone who wishes to base his or her beliefs on the witness of the Old Testament must be completely consistent and demand the death penalty for everyone who performs homosexual acts (That may seem very extreme, but there actually are some "Christians" urging this very thing today. But it is unlikely that any American court or religious body would condemn a homosexual to death, even though Scripture clearly commands it.) For Christians, Old Testament texts have to be weighed against the New. Consequently, Paul's unambiguous condemnation of homosexual behavior in Rom. 1:26-27 must be the centerpiece of any discussion. "For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error." No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those whom he condemned were heterosexuals who were acting contrary to nature, "leaving", "giving up" or "exchanging" their regular sexual orientation for that which was foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life or perhaps even genetically in some cases. For such persons, having heterosexual relations would be contrary to nature, "leaving", "giving up" or "exchanging" their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them. In other words, Paul really thought that those whose behavior he condemned were "straight" and that they were behaving in ways that were unnatural to them. Paul believed that everyone was "straight". he had no concept of homosexual orientation. The idea was not available in his world. There are people that are genuinely homosexual by nature (whether genetically or as a result of upbringing nobody really knows and it is irrelevent). For such a person it would be acting contrary to nature to have sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex. Likewise, the relationships Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships between consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple. That was something Paul simply could not envision. Some people assume today that venereal disease and AIDS are divine punishment for homosexual behavior; we know it as a risk involved in promiscuity of every stripe, homosexual and heterosexual. In fact, the vast majority of people with AIDS the world around are heterosexuals. We can scarcely label AIDS a divine punishment, since non-promiscuous lesbians are at almost no risk. And Paul believes that homosexual behavior is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is manifested by a wide variety of species, especially (but not solely) under the pressure of overpopulation. It would appear then to be quite a natural mechanism for preserving species. We cannot, of course, decide human ethical conduct solely on the basis of animal behavior or the human sciences but Paul here is arguing from nature, as he himself says, and new knowledge of what is "natural" is therefore relevent to the case. Nevertheless, the Bible quite clearly takes a negative view of homosexual activity, in those few instances where it is mentioned at all. But this conclusiion does not solve the problem of how we are to interpret Scripture today. For there are other sexual attitudes, practices and restrictions which are normative in Scripture but which we no longer accept as normative: Old Testament law strictly forbids sexual intercourse during the 7 days of the menstrual period (Lev. 18:19; 15:19-24), and anyone in violation was to be "extirpated" or "cut off from their people" (kareth, Lev. 18:29 a term referring to execution by stoning, burning, strangling or to flogging or expulsion; Lev. 15:24 omits this penalty). Today many people on occasion have intercourse during menstruation and think nothing of it. Should they be "extirpated"? The Bible says they should. The punishment for adultery was death by stoning for both the man and the woman (Deut. 22:22) but here adultery is defined by the marital status of the woman. In the Old Testament, a man could not commit adultery against his own wife; he could only commit adultery against another man by sexually using the other's wife. And a bride who is found not to be a virgin is to be stoned to death (Deut. 22:13-21) but male virginity at marriage is never even mentioned. It is one of the curiousities of the current debate on sexuality that adultery, which creates far more social havoc is considered less "sinful" than homosexual activity. Perhaps this is because there are far more adulterers in our churches. Yet no on, to my knowledge, is calling for their stoning, despite the clear command of Scripture. And we ordain adulterers. Nudity, the characteristic of paradise, was regarded in Judaism as reprehensible (2 Sam. 6:20, 10:4, Isa. 20:2-4; 47:3). When one of Noah's sons beheld his father naked, he was cursed (Gen. 9:20-27). To a great extent this nudity taboo probably even inhibited the sexual intimacy of husbands and wives (this is still true of a surprising number of people reared in the Judeo-Christian tradition). Ther were no doubt exceptions; the rabbis speak of nudity in the public baths, just as many of us grew up swimming nude at the old swimming hole. Attitudes vary widely but today wer are not so likely to regard what we believe to be appropriate nudity as a sin. The Bible itself is not of one mind on the subject: God apparently instigates the nakedness of Isaiah as a prophetic warning of approaching captivity (20:2-6). Polygamy and concubinage wer regularly practiced in the Old Testament. Neither is ever condemned by the New Testament (with the questionable exceptions of 1 Tim. 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6). Jesus' teaching about marital union in Mark 10:6-8 is no exception since he quotes Gen. 2:24 as his authority and this text was never understood in Israel as excluding polygamy. A man coiuld become "one flesh" with more than one woman through the act of sexual intercourse. We know from Jewish sources that polygamy continued to be practiced within Judaism for centuries following the New Testament period. So if the Bible allowed polygamy and concubinage, why don't we? A form of serial polygamy was the levirate marriage. When a married man in Israel died childless, his widow was to have intercourse with his eldest brother. If he died without producing an heir, she turned to the next brother and if necessary the next and so on. Jesus mentions this custom without criticism (Mark 12:18-27). Jews had virtually ceased to practice this custom by the time of Jesus, replacing it with the halitzah ceremony, which freed women from the obligation. I am not aware of any Christians who still obey this unambiguous commandment of Scripture. Why do we ignore this law and yet preserve the one regarding homosexual behavior? The Old Testament nowhere explicitly prohibits sexual relations between unmarried consenting heterosexual adults as long as the woman's economic value is not compromised, that is to say, as long as she is not a virgin. There are poems in the Song of Songs that eulogize a love affair between unmarried persons, though commentators have often conspired to cover up the fact with heavy layers of allegorical interpretation. In various parts of the Christian world, quite different attitudes have prevailed about sexual intercourse before marriage. In some Christian communities, proof of fertility was required for marriage. This was especially the case in farming areas wherer the inability to produce children-workers could mean economic hardship. Today, many single adults, the widowed and the divorced are reverting to "biblical" practice while others believe that sexual intercourse belongs only within marriage. Both views are Scriptural. Which is right? The Bible virtually lacks terms for the sexual organs being content with such euphemisms as "foot" or "thigh" for genitals and using other euphemisms to describe coitus such as "he knew her". Today most of us regard such language as "puritanical" or prudish, though we in the church continue to show great reticence in public discussion of sex. But do we want to revert to biblical practice? Semen and menstrual blood rendered all who touched them unclean (Lev. 15:16). Intercourse rendered one unclean until sundown; menstruation rendered the woman unclean for 7 days. "Clean" and "unclean" do not refer to dirt but to a liminal state that recognizes the holiness of sex. Today most Christians treat semen and menstrual fluid from a completely secular point of view and regard them not as ritually unclean but only perhaps as messy. In short, Christians no longer treat these fluids biblically. Social regulations regarding adultery, incest, rape and prostitution are, in the Old Testament, determined largely by considerations of the males' property rights over women. Prostitution was considered quite natural and necessary as a safeguard of the virginity of the unmarried and the property rights of husbands (Gen. 38:12-19; Josh. 2:1-7). In later Jewish texts, a man was not guilty of sin for visiting a prostitute, though the prostitute herself was regarded as a sinner. Paul must appeal to reason in attacking prostitution (1 Cor. 6:12-20); he cannot lump it in the category of adultery (vs. 9). Today we are moving with great social turbulance and at a high but necessary cost, toward a more equitable, non-patriarchal set of social arrangements in which women are no longer regarded as the chattel of men. We are also trying to move beyond the double standard. Love, fidelity and mutual respect replace property rights. We have, as yet, made very little progress in changing the double standard in regard to prostitution. As we leave behind patriarchal gender relations, what will we do with the patriarchalism in the Bible? Israelites normally practiced endogamy -- that is, marriage within the 12 tribes of Israel. There were exceptions, however. Joseph married the Egyptian Aseneth, Moses married Zipporah and the Cus***e woman and Esther married Ahasueros. Until recently a similar rule prevailed in the American south, in laws against interracial marriage. We have witnessed, within the lifetime of many of us the nonviolent struggle to nullify state laws against intermarriage and the gradual change in social attitudes toward interracial relationships. Sexual mores can alter quite radically even in a single lifetime. The law of Moses allowed for divorce (Deut. 24:1-4); Jesus categorically forbids it (Mark 10:1-12; Matt. 19:9 softens his severity). Yet many Christians, in clear violation of a command of Jesus, have been divorced. Why, then, do some of these very people consider themselves eligible for baptism, church membership, communion and ordination but not homosexuals? What makes the one so much greater a sin than the other, especially considering the fact that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality but explicitly condemned divorce? Yet we ordain divorcees. Why not homosexuals? The Old Testament regarded celibacy as abnormal and 1 Tim. 4:1-3 calls compulsory celibacy a heresy. Yet the Catholic Church has made it mandatory for priests and nuns. Some Christian ethicists demand celibacy of homosexuals, whether they have a vocation for celibacy or not. But this legislates celibacy by category, not by divine calling. Others argue that since God made and women for each other in order to be fruitful and multiply, homosexuals reject God's intent in creation. But this would mean that childless couples, single persons, priest and nuns would be in violation of God's intention in their creation. Those who argue thus must explain why the apostle Paul never married. And are they prepared to charge Jesus with violating the will of God by remaining single? Certainly heterosexual marriage is normal, else the race would die out. But it is not normative. God can bless the world through people who are married and through people who are single and it is false to generalize from the marriage of most people to the marriage of everyone. In 1 Cor. 7:7, Paul goest so far as to call marriage a "charisma", or divine gift, to which not everyone is called. He preferred that people remain as he was -- unmarried. In an age of overpopulation, perhaps a gay orientation is especially sound ecologically! In many other way we have developed different norms from those explicitly laid down by the Bible. For example, "If men get into a fight with one another and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity!" (Deut. 25:11) We, on the other hand, might very well applaud her for trying to save her husband's life! The Old and New Testaments regarded slavery as normal and nowhere categorically condemned it. Part of that heritage was the use of female slaves, concubines and captives as sexual toys, breeding machines, or involuntary wives by their male owners, which 2 Sam. 5:13, Judges 19-21 and Num. 31:18 permitted -- and as many American slave owners did some 150 years ago, citing these and numerous other Scripture passages as their justification. The point is not to ridicule Israel's sexual mores. Jews right up to the present have been struggling with the same interpretive task as Christians around issues of sexuality. The majority of US Jewish groups have gay rights policies and have been involved in the same kinds of debates over homosexuality, masturbation and nonprocreative sexual intercourse as their Christian neighbors. The point is that both Jews and Christians must reinterpret the received tradition in order to permit it to speak to believers today. These cases are relevant to our attitude toward the authority of Scripture. They are not cultic prohibitions from the Holiness Code that have been set aside by Christians, such as rules about eating shellfish or wearing clothes made of two different materials. They are rules concerning sexual behavior and they fall among the moral commandments of Scripture. Clearly, we regard certain rules, especially in the Old Testament, as no longer binding. Other things we regard as binding, including legislation in the Old Testament that is not mentioned at all in the New. What is our principle selection here? For example: virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting: incest rape adultery intercourse with animals But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors which we generally allow: intercourse during menstruation celibacy (some texts) exogamy naming sexual organs nudity (under certain conditions) masturbation birth control And the Bible regarded semen and menstrual fluid as unclean which most of us do not. Likewise the Bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn: prostitution polygamy levirate marriage sex with slaves concubinage treatment of women as property very early marriage And while the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it. In short, of the sexual mores mentioned here, we only agree with the Bible on for of them and disagree with it on sixteen! Surely no one today would recomment reliving the levirate marriage. So why do we appeal to proof texts in Scripture in the case of homosexuality alone when we feel perfectly free to disagree with Scripture regarding most other sexual practices? Obviously, many of our choices in these matters are arbitrary. Mormon polygamy was outlawed in this country, despite the Constitutional protection of freedom of religion, because it violated the sensibilities of the dominant Christian culture. Yet no explicit biblical prohibition against polygamy exists. If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these biblical sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit. We cannot then take even what Paul himself says as a new Law. Christians reserve the right to pick an choose which sexual mores they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing just that. And this is true of evangelicals and fundamentalists as it is of liberals and mainliners. The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is simply that the Bible has no sexual ethic. There is no Biblical sex ethic. Instead, it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand year span of biblical history. Mores are unreflective customs accepted by a given community. Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits we allow and many that it allows we prohibit. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country or culture or period. The very notion of a "sex ethic" reflects the materialism and splitness of modern life, in which we increasingly define our identity sexually. Sexuality cannot be separated off from the rest of life. No sex act is "ethical" in and of itself without reference to the rest of a person's life, the patterns of the culture, the special circumstances face and the will of God. What we have are simply sexual mores which change sometimes with startling rapidity, creating bewildering dilemmas. Just within one lifetime we have witnessed the shift from the ideal of preserving one's virginity until marriage to couples living together for several years before getting married. The response of many Christians is merely to long for the hypocrisies of an earlier era. I agree that rules and norms are necessary; that is what sexual mores are. But rules and norms also tend to be impressed into the service of the Domination System and to serve as a form of crowd control rather than to enhance the fullness of human potential. So we must critique the sexual mores of any given time and clime by the love ethic exemplified by Jesus. Such a love ethic is non-exploitive, it does not dominate, it is responsible, mutual, caring and loving. Augustine already dealt with this in his inspired phrase "Love God and do as you please." Our moral task then is to apply Jesus' love ethic to whatever sexual mores are prevalent in a given culture. This doesn't mean everything goes. It means that everything is to be critiqued by Jesus' love commandment. We might address younger teens, not with laws and commandments whose violation is a sin but rather with the sad experiences of so many of our own children who find too much early sexual intimacy overwhelming and who react by voluntary celibacy and even the refusal to date. We can offer reasons not empty and unenforceable orders. We can challenge both gays and straights to question their behaviors in the light of love and the requirements of fidelity, honesty, responsibility and genuine concern for the best interests of the other and of society as a whole. Christian morality after all is not an iron chastity belt for repressing urges but a way of expressing the integrity of our relationship with God. It is the attempt to discover a manner of living that is consistent with who God created us to be. For those of same sex orientation, as for heterosexuals, being moral means rejecting sexual mores that violate their own integrity and that of others and attempting to discover what it would mean to live by the love ethic of Jesus. Morton Kelsey goes so far as to argue that homosexual orientation has nothing to do with morality any more than left handedness does. It is simply the way some people's sexuality is configured. Morality enters the picture when that predisposition is enacted. If we saw it as a God given gift to those for whom it is normal, we could get beyong the acrimony and brutality that have so often characterized the unchristian behavior of Christians towards gays. Approached from the point of view of love rather than that of law, the issue is at once transformed. Now the question is not "What is permitted?" but rather "What does it mean to love my homosexual neighbor?" Approached from the point of view of faith rather than works the question ceases to be "What constitutes a breach of divine law in the sexual realm?" and becomes instead "What constitutes integrity before the God revealed in the cosmic lover, Jesus Christ?" Approached from the point of view of the Spirit rather than the letter, the question ceases to be "What does Scripture command?" and becomes "What is the Word that the Spirit speaks to the churches now, in the light of Scripture, tradition, theology and yes, psychology, genetics, anthropology and biology? We can't continue to build ethics on the basis of bad science. In a little remembered statement, Jesus said "Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57). Such sovereign freedom strikes terror in the hearts of many Christians; they would rather be under law and be told what is right. Yet Paul himself echoes Jesus' sentiment when he says "Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!" (1 Cor. 6:3 RSV). The last thing Paul would want is for people to respond to his ethical advice as a new law engraved on tablets of stone. He is himself trying to "judge for himself what is right." If now new evidence is in on the phenomenon of homosexuality, are we not obligated -- no, free -- to re-evaluate the whole issue in the light of all the available data and decide what is right, under God, for ourselves? Is this not the radical freedom for obedience in which the gospel establishes us? Where the Bilbe mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct. The Bible sanctioned slavery as well, and nowhere attacked it as unjust. Are we prepared to argue today that slavery is biblically justified? One hundred and fifty years ago, when the debate over slavery was raging, the Bible seemed to be clearly on the slaveholders' side. Abolitionists were hard pressed to justify their opposition to slavery on biblical grounds. Yet today, if you were to ask Christians in the South whether the Bible sanctions slavery, virtually everyone would agree that it does not. How do we account for such a monumental shift? What happened is that the churches were finally driven to penetrate beyond the legal tenor of Scripture to an even deeper tenor, articulated by Israel out of the experience of the Exodus and the prophets and brought to sublime embodiment in Jesus' identification with harlots, tax collectors, the diseased and maimed and outcast and poor. It is that God suffers with the suffering and groans toward the reconciliation of all things. Therefore, Jesus went out of his way to declare forgiven and to reintegrate into society in all details, those who were identified as "sinners" by virtue of the accidents of birth or biology or economic desperation. In the light of that supernal compassion, whatever our position on gays, the gospel's imperative to love, care for and be identified with their suffering is unmistakenly clear. In the same way, women are pressing us to acknowledge the sexism and patriarchalism that pervades Scripture and has alienated so many women from the Church. The way out, however, is not to deny the sexism in the Scripture but to develop an interpretive theory that judges even Scripture in the light of the revelation of Jesus. What Jesus gives us is a critique of domination in all its forms, a critique that can be turned on the Bible itself. The Bible thus contains the principles of its own correction. We are freed from bibliotry, the worship of the Bible. It is restored to its proper place as witness to the Word of God. And that word is a Person not a book. With the interpretive grid provided by a critique of domination, we are able to filter out the sexism, patriarchalism, violence and homophobia that are very much a part of the Bible, thus liberating it to reveal to us in fresh ways the inbreaking, in our time, of God's domination free order. --Walter Wink is a Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York.

Daniel Pipes? BWHAHAHAHAHA. Daniel Pipes is a very controversial scholar who received a PhD from Harvard University in 1978. As his web page, www.danielpipes.org, states: "He spent six years studying abroad, including three years in Egypt. Mr. Pipes speaks French, and reads Arabic and German. He has taught at the University of Chicago, Harvard University, and the U.S. Naval War College. He has served in various capacities at the Departments of State and Defense, including vice chairman of the presidentially-appointed Fulbright Board of Foreign Scholarships." Mr. Pipes has followed his father in the study of history. His father was a Russian historian who discussed the Russian people in about the same way as Daniel does Muslims and the Palestinians. His father's work has been critiqued by many. Numerous scholars believe that the work done by Pipes's father is nothing more than knee jerk anti-communist reactionism. In his books, he has extreme contempt for the Soviet people and many in the historical community doubt many of his assertions because of his strong biases. Some in the historical community have said that the elder Pipes's bias was that nothing that happened to the Soviet people were of any consequence because they were filthy communists. Substitute Islam in for communism and this is the type of ideology that has rubbed off on his son. He puts Palestinians in the same light. I could discuss a lot of Daniel Pipes's positions but I'd rather let his words do the talking for me. The presence and increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims...will present true dangers to American Jews. (Address to the American Jewish Committee, October 21, 2001) I make the same point respectively to audiences of women, gays, civil libertarians, Hindus, Evangelical Christians, atheists, and scholars of Islam, among others, all of whom face 'true dangers' as the number of Muslims increases...(The Nation, November 11, 2002) Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene...All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most. (National Review, 11/19/90) Iranians and Pakistanis, to take two groups of non-Arabs, are at least as widely conspiracy-minded and as anti-Semitic as, say, Tunisians and Kuwaitis. (Commentary, September 1, 1999) ...black converts tend to hold vehemently anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic attitudes. (Commentary, June 1, 2000) ...a well-established tradition of American blacks who convert to Islam turning against their country. (Jewish World Review, 2002) Muslim population in this country is not like any other group, for it includes within it a substantial body of people...who share with the suicide hijackers a hatred of the United States. (Commentary, November, 2001) "10 to 15% of Islam are potential killers" (Information Times) This is from a Salon.com interview with Pipes: PIPES: Now, they [CAIR] don't say that [they want to impose Islamic law in America] in black and white in their writings. I can't prove that to you. I can tell you that there are all sorts of intimations of it. I can tell you I can sense it. I can make this case, but I can't make it specifically for CAIR SALON: Saying Muslims want to create a Muslim state in America, does that strike you as alarmist at all? PIPES: How could that be alarmist when I can see signs all around? Look, I have a filter. I've studied Islam and Islamism for 30 years. I have a sense of how they proceed and what their agenda is like. And I see it. You don't When asked about a statement by an American Muslim leader who wanted to see a Muslim president by 2020, Pipes replied: It's like saying I want a fascist president. The interviewer also asked Pipes about his recent statement recommending the vigilant application of social and political pressure to ensure that Islam is not accorded special status of any kind in this country." Pipes explained that their [American Muslim] acceptance would go beyond what I consider normal acceptance. They want the rules to be rewritten for them. They want a whole host of ways that Islam and Muslims have special status. Salon also questioned Pipes about his recommendation that officials need to scrutinize the speech, associations, and activities of potential visitors or immigrants for any signs of Islamist allegiances and keep out anyone they suspect of such ties. Pipes replied: Look, I like this country as it is and I don't want it to turn into something quite differentIf you want to see an Islamist country, then you will have the opposite view from mineThe danger is within He can make the case but he has no facts. Way to go, Mr. Pipes! Here comes the religious freedom train, last stop you. The United States Institute of Peace (USIP), created by Congress in 1984 "to promote the prevention, management, and peaceful resolution of international conflicts," has become the latest flashpoint in the philosophical dispute over how peace is defined and best pursued. Utilizing $16.2 million supplied by US taxpayers, the institute's 70 employees fund research, give scholarships, publish books, and even sponsor the National Peace Essay Contest for high-school students. The USIP will gain greater visibility when it constructs its new headquarters on the Washington Mall. Do you want Mr. Pipes to be in an Institute of Peace when he has said the following things? He even has no experience in conflict resolution or peace work. Pipes Opposes Israel and Palestinian States Co-Existing Instead, the President outlined his vision for a "provisional" Palestinian state and demanded an end to what he called "Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories." Both of these constitute very major benefits to the Palestinians; as such, they represent rewards for suicide bombings, sniper attacks, and the other forms of terrorism. (National Post, June 25, 2002) These plans, of which the best known is the Bush administration's "road map," run the gamut from tough-seeming to appeasing. But they have two qualities in common. All of them give up on the Oslo-era assumption of Palestinian-Israeli comity as the basis for negotiation. But at the same time, all of them proceed from a fundamentally flawed understanding of the conflict and therefore, if actually implemented, would be likely to increase tensions it is a mistake to discuss "final-status" issues, i.e., how things will look when the conflict is over. (Commentary, February 2003) Pipes Opposes US efforts to Revive Peace Talks The Bush administration should take two steps to speed this process: Let Israel respond as it sees best, and stop bestowing undeserved gifts on the Palestinians (the latest: promises of a state in 2003). (New York Post, January 7, 2003) For the U.S. government, this means halting counterproductive efforts at brokering a cease-fire... (New York Post April 2, 2002) The new administration has already implemented two excellent policy changes concerning the Middle East: a focus on containing Iraq and a retreat from Arab-Israeli negotiations. (Wall Street Journal, March 30, 2001) The premise behind these statements is that diplomacy plus compromises can end the Arab-Israeli conflict. (New York Post, May 6, 2002) The short-term goal is not to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict, but to enhance Israeli deterrence capabilities. (Jerusalem Post, December 6, 2000) Pipes Is a Bitter Opponent of the Oslo Peace Process Third, and most profoundly, the [Mitchell] report emphasizes getting the two parties back to the negotiating table, as though this were an end in itself. It seems oblivious to the important fact that negotiations over the past eight years did not bring the parties closer to a settlement but, to the contrary, exacerbated differences and had a role in the outbreak of violence. (Washington Times, May 30, 2001) Thus have Israeli policies since 1993 brought the region closer to all-out war than at any time since the mid-1960s. (Jerusalem Post, January 31, 2001) Pipes Advocates Israeli Military "Victory" Over Palestinians Palestinians need almost as much to be defeated by Israel as Israel needs to defeat them. (Jerusalem Post, April 25, 2001) Talk-talk is always better than war-war, but in some cases an aggressor cannot be dissuaded by talk alone, and so war is a necessity. Sadly, that is the case with the Palestinians today. (Washington Times, May 30, 2001) First and foremost, it means that Israel's enemies must be convinced that they have lost. Actually, not all its enemies, just the Palestinians. (Commentary, February 2003) The implication is clear: if Israel is to protect itself, it must achieve a comprehensive military victory over the Palestinians (New York Post April 2, 2002) History teaches that what appears to be endless carnage does come to an end when one side gives up. It appears increasingly likely that the Palestinians are approaching that point, suggesting that if Israel persists in its present policies it will get closer to victory. (The Only Solution Is Military, New York Post, February 25, 2002) Encourage Israel to appear fearsome. (Jerusalem Post, December 6, 2000) Thus all who hope for a resolution of the Palestinian problem should urge the Sharon government to squeeze the PA just as hard as it can. (Jerusalem Post, March 14, 2001) Pipes Has Repeated Predicted That an Israeli Military Solution Is at Hand History teaches that what appears to be endless carnage does come to an end when one side gives up. It appears increasingly likely that the Palestinians are approaching that point, suggesting that if Israel persists in its present policies it will get closer to victory. (The Only Solution Is Military, New York Post, February 25, 2002) I predict that this round of the Palestinian war on Israel, now 19 months long, will collapse fairly soon - probably well before the end of this year. (Los Angeles Times, May 6, 2002) The current campaign of Palestinian violence will end before long, probably by the end of 2002. (Slate, May 21, 2002) Appearances to the contrary, Israel is defeating the Palestinians. (Israel is Winning, New York Post, August 6, 2002) Pipes Is Opposed to Ending the Israeli Occupation Israelis may well tire of keeping ultimate control over the West Bank and Gaza, but the just-deceased Oslo experiment in Palestinian autonomy (1994-2002) demonstrates that they have no choice. (Wall Street Journal, at April 15, 2002) No more Israeli territorial concessions. (Jerusalem Post, December 6, 2000) On the minus side, Sharon has indicated a troubling intention to reach a "long-term peace agreement" with the PA, something that is plainly unrealistic. (Jerusalem Post, March 28, 2001) ...the land-for-peace premise was false (New York Post, June 4, 2002) Pipes Is Opposed to Israel's Withdrawal from Lebanon in Accordance with Security Council Resolution 425 The paralyzing divisions of the '90s have nearly disappeared, as have the self-hating "post-Zionism" themes (which ridiculed Israeli patriotism) and the defeatism (which prompted a unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon). (New York Post, December 17, 2001) when Israel did the world's bidding and retreated from Lebanon, it disastrously reduced its own security. (Wall Street Journal, April 15, 2002) Mr. Pipes and his supporters, however do not relay the stories of Baruch Goldstein, who massacred scores of Muslims kneeling in prayer during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan -- or of Allan Goodman, who entered the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and started firing shots randomly at Muslims. These are two American-Jews, among the thousands of illegal settlers who exported violence and terror from America to the Palestinian Territories. Regardless of how many columns Pipes wrote on Islam, Muslims and Arabs, his writings lack an empathetic understanding of Muslims. He never explores Muslim or Arab feelings and perceptions. He writes from a position far away, looking down in disgust at them and obsessively looking for dirt to smear their image in public discourse. The tone is always accusatory, hostile and blaming, destroying any possibility of discussion, communication or dialogue. In his own words: "The Palestinians are a miserable people ... and they deserve to be." Pipes' scholarship lacks an appreciation of Islamic traditions, history or culture. Rather, Pipes consistently attacks any positive portrayal of Islam, Muslims or Arabs, such as the positive portrayal of Islamic history and beliefs in public schools and the PBS documentary "Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet." Pipes' boasts of a doctorate from Harvard, yet he falsely claimed that Muslims have no real religious attachments to the city of Jerusalem. When he cannot prove his wild accusations, he resorts to paranoia suspicions, claiming to have a special mental "filter" which allows him to detect those who want to "create a Muslim state in America." Pipes claims it is "militant Islam" and Muslims he is attacking. However, he gives no measurable criteria to differentiate between a "radical Muslim" and a moderate one. More troublesome is that Pipes supports Mujahedeen-e Khalq, a group designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department. The MEK even attacked US forces in the 1970s. But, the MEK is in agreement with many of Pipes' policies because the MEK want to get rid of Iran's government. One gets the impression that if you disagree with his political views, you're a Muslim radical. He has even gone to the extent of creating a group called Campus Watch which collects dossiers on students and professors deemed critical of Israel or his anti-Islamist crusade (and the Crusade pun is intended).

Even if you lower the Pentagon budget by 15%, you could pay for all sorts of social welfare programs, Head Start, etc. That still gives us billions of dollars for "defense" and increases adequate funding for social programs.

I've said before I don't condone Arafat and think he sucks...but I understand the reasoning behind a random guy getting pissed enough to wanna do something to attack a group that's harmed them the way the Israeli "Defense" Force has.

Ah, but you said Arab newspapers were propaganda machines and thusly not be believed. So that makes that whole statistic suspect. Or do you just get to pick and choose what you believe out of the source after you name it bulls***?

I guess they come from the Rudy Guiliani School of Art -- If I can't understand the meaning, it's not art!

I am focusing on the analogy. The fact remains, they knew that he was a lying murderer (I'm sure you know that the CIA helped him murder thousands of Communist insurgants so he could take power in Iraq) So, giving weapons to a guy we already know will murder people at the drop of a hat is good foreign policy? http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html We knew Saddam was all about murdering and doing whatever it took to keep power...and we continued to supply him with weapons. And please, tell me how the Iraqi torture of people trying to harm Saddam's regime is more morally corrupt than the US torturing people it believes to be overthrowing their power. I'd really like to hear this one.

I don't think he's suggest that it's not true. It's common knowledge that the bin Ladens are really rich. However, a lot of the funding for weapons and training in guerrilla warfare was given by the CIA in our proxy war with Russia in Afghanistan.

So, a perceived insurgant to one ruler's power, then torture is bad. But a perceived insurgant to our power is morally just?

IlliniBob, there's a difference between a car and DEADLY CHEMICAL WEAPONS. I didn't know that lying blood soaked murderers had apologists. As for the torture, the torture devices being exported are by US corporations but the ban on sales can be enforced by Bush. He has chosen not to enforce it and allow the sale of leg irons. As for torture that the US is committing, we have been bringing suspects to Pakistan and other countries where torture is allowed. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/World/G...eQuestions.html http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...,909164,00.html

They could have made a better case than lying out their ass with plagiarized reports, outright lies citing UN reports that don't exist etc. then. Even the most conservative person can agree with that.

None of it is relevent? The fact remains that you can do a simple LexisNexis search and find out that the Hallabjah attacks of 1988 are mentioned by Bush over 40 times in his speeches as a reason to invade Iraq. Only problem is that this attack was made possible by our weapons that we gave Saddam. Yeah, see it was our weaponry that made that happen. And hey, MrEye, I don't hear you complaining about the torture that the US is doing to people we have in custody. I guess torture is bad when one person does it but not another? /Orwellian doublethink, much?

Halliburton Subcontractor Threatens to Withhold Food from Troops In "U.S. General Criticizes Halliburton," the Wall Street Journal reports: The top U.S. military officer in Iraq has criticized Halliburton Co. as stumbling in one of its most pressing assignments: the construction of new bases for U.S. troops in Iraq. The critique by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, laid out in a draft letter to senior Army officers, marks the Army's first open criticism of Halliburton's conduct on the ground in Iraq and Kuwait. Until now, the Houston-based contractor has insisted the Army has been satisfied with its performance despite continuing fights with Pentagon auditors over alleged overbillings and shoddy record-keeping. Gen. Sanchez's letter, which made the rounds in Washington last week, addresses efforts by Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root subsidiary to help the Army consolidate to fewer, but larger, bases around Iraq without interrupting military operations. In Baghdad, Iraq, for example, U.S. troops are moving from 26 bases to as few as six. But in the letter, Gen. Sanchez says KBR hasn't said precisely when it will have these consolidated bases ready for new troops. Army officials say KBR's shortcomings on the base construction have complicated the largest troop rotation since World War II. As bad as this is, it's not shockingly unexpected. But what should have jaws hitting the floor is this revelation: The letter also criticizes KBR for late payments to food subcontractors, said Army officials, who gave details of the letter but declined to provide a copy. At least one subcontractor has threatened to withhold food service to about 2,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq, leading the Pentagon's inspector general to investigate KBR food-subcontractor complaints that KBR isn't paying its bills on time. Withholding food from troops during a war? Sounds like treason to me.

return -- by david rovics (a Jew, in case anybody is wondering) i can't help it. i don't care how far you think the analogy extends itself. when i see you making that bus driver climb up and down on and off the roof of his bus for your amusement for hours in the hot sun i think of how we once had to dance and sing for them while they shot our parents. when i see you keep that woman and her husband at the checkpoint while she's in labor and you stand there listening to her scream watching as she gives birth on the back seat of a taxi i think of the walls around our own ghetto and how we had to crawl through the sewers looking for rats to eat while we could hear their children playing on the other side. when i see you crush that house and kill that woman and her baby with your armored bulldozer because they didn't have a permit i think of the way we were once forced to leave our homes at the point of a gun. and when i hear your general say that in order to deal with the intifada you must learn from the tactics of another general one mr. stroop in warsaw i think of how they bombed our buildings shot us as we fell from the roofs. and i remember how we wished we could kill their babies, too. and i feel sick. sick of your displaced anger sick of your self-deception sick of your attempts to deceive the rest of the world sick of your accusations of anti-semitism sick of your occupation sick of your apartheid state sick of zionism. because standing here in auschwitz, birkenau and warsaw i see jenin, jaffa and rafah. and i think of our ancestors the jewish palestinians who spoke so eloquently in their arabic language. but the dead cannot speak. and now i find myself again behind the wall of a ghetto standing with millions of other palestinians. and i find myself shouting thawra! thawra! hatta al-naser! tomorrow in jerusalem! al-awda return.

I4E, the fact that not every Palestinian believes in Arafat does not seem to sink into your (seemingly empty) skull. Not every Israeli agrees with what the blood soaked thug Ariel Sharon is doing. I'm not about to make the statement that every Israeli wants the complete annhilation of the Palestinian people...as you are seemingly advocating. Arafat and his followers make up a fringe minority, just as the right wing Likud-niks do in Israel. I do not see you relaying the stories of Baruch Goldstein, who massacred scores of Muslims kneeling in prayer during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan -- or of Allan Goodman, who entered the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and started firing shots randomly at Muslims. You reap what you sow, I4E. I know many Jews that don't like the policies of the Israeli government. Does that make them anti-Semites? Or how about Jews Against the Occupation? And it's common knowledge that the Israeli "Defense" Force has inflicted numerous wounds that even Jewish human rights groups have found to be offensive in nature (shots to the back etc.) As to your statement that Arafat must do more to stop terror. The basic assumption behind the Israeli claim that Arafat "must do more" to stop attacks on Israel is that the primary role of the Palestinian Authority is not to work for the security and well-being of the Palestinian people, but rather to guarantee the security and safety of Israeli occupation forces, settlers and civilians, even while Israel rules millions of disenfranchised Palestinians, and continues to seize their land by force. Even if such an arrangement were politically tenable, the realities of the past ten years made it impossible. The Palestinian Authority is not a sovereign state, but a quasi-authority which at the height of its power was only given control over 17.2% of the Israeli occupied West Bank (so called "Area A" under the Oslo and subsequent accords). Even Israel with all its military and economic might could not guarantee its own safety when it controlled every inch of the West Bank. Over the past 18 months, Israel has systematically attacked all the facilities of the Palestinian Authority, including police stations, prisons and intelligence headquarters, and killed and assassinated many Palestinian security officers. Hence while crippling and killing the Palestinian security forces, Israel makes the ludicrous demand that these same forces go out and work on Israel's behalf. Israel has further undermined its own claim that Arafat is "in control" of all the violence, by continuing to demand that he act while he is a prisoner of the Israelis in two rooms of his Ramallah headquarters, with no outside contact, no electricity and barely enough food and water. The suicide bombings which have followed the brutal Israeli re-invasions of almost every major West Bank town since late March 2002 prove conclusively that there is no level of violence or ruthlessness that either Israel or the Palestinian Authority can employ that will eliminate those determined to answer the suffering of millions of Palestinian civilians under decades of Israeli military occupation by inflicting suffering on Israeli civilians. The only way to end suicide bombings and other kinds of Palestinian violence is to end the extreme violence of the Israeli military occupation which produces and fuels both Palestinian resistance against the occupation forces and violent attacks against Israeli civilians. Absent a political process explicitly designed to end the occupation, there is little reason to believe that such attacks can or will end. And hey, I4E, here's a simple banner that will explain why Israel is getting attacked. It's from a Jews Against the Occupation rally in Israel.

Ad hominem. When you can't disprove the statements made, always resort to baseless accusations and assertions that are not true in order to deflect not dissecting the points made in the argument. Can't adequately discuss why the IDF shot an 8 year old unarmed boy in the head? Call the opponent a neo-Nazi for no f***ing reason and that's sure to stop any questioning! You are a thinly veiled racist Zionist. You're idiocy to not even debate the points I have made is beyond insane. Perhaps getting yourself educated and not being a racist asshat who believes certain people are sub-human might help you out. Besides, I seem to remember a certain guy who thought a certain group of people were sub-human and wanted to eliminate them all. Yeah, you probably know the name. Your entire speech is f***ing dripping with irony.

Go straw man argumentation! When you can't beat the point they made, misrepresent it! Let's not make mention of the idea that 'homosexuality' (the word) was not introduced into the Bible until 1899 when they translated it that way either.

If you've got specific sources, cite them. Just claiming there are newspapers out there, that does nothing. C'mon build your case. I'm waiting... I'm not defending Arafat. I'm fighting Likud-nik Zionist right wing bulls***. There's a difference.

Where's your proof. I have well documented evidence. You've got reactionary ravings. Gee, I wonder whose argument is stronger.

One of the most powerful myths propagated in the US media today is that at the Camp David summit in July 2000, then Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak made an amazingly generous offer to the Palestinians that Yasir Arafat wantonly spurned, broke off negotiations and then launched a violent uprising against Israel. No element of this, the most cherished of media myths is true. In fact, Barak's offer was anything but generous. It was Israel that broke off the negotiations, and the committee headed by former US Senator George Mitchell found no evidence to back the Israeli claim that the Palestinian Authority had planned or launched the Intifada. This myth was given life in large part by President Clinton who immediately after the Camp David summit broke his promise to Arafat that no side would be blamed for failure, and went on Israeli television declaring that while Barak made bold compromises for peace, Arafat has missed yet another opportunity. Let's go through the evidence bit by bit. Barak's "generous" offer What Barak offered at Camp David was a formula for continued Israeli military occupation under the name of a "state." The proposal would have meant: no territorial contiguity for the Palestinian state, no control of its external borders, limited control of its own water resources, and no full Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory as required by international law. In addition, the Barak plan would have: included continued Israeli military control over large segments of the West Bank, including almost all of the Jordan Valley; codified the right of Israeli forces to be deployed in the Palestinian state at short notice; meant the continued presence of fortified Israeli settlements and Jewish-only roads in the heart of the Palestinian state; and required nearly 4 million Palestinian refugees to relinquish their fundamental human rights in exchange for compensation to be paid not by Israel but by the "international community." At best, Palestinians could expect a kind of super-autonomy within a "Greater Israel", rather than independence, and the devolution of some municipal functions in the parts of Jerusalem inhabited by Palestinians, under continued overall Israeli control. See maps showing what the Israeli proposals would have looked like in reality at www.electronicIntifada.net/coveragetrends/generous.html. John Mearsheimer, professor in the department of political science at the University of Chicago, recognized the limitations of what Palestinians were being asked to accept as a final settlement, concluding that: "it is hard to imagine the Palestinians accepting such a state. Certainly no other nation in the world has such curtailed sovereignty." [source: "The Impossible Partition," New York Times, January 11, 2001] The reality was far from the wild claims routinely made on the editorial pages of American papers that Barak had offered the Palestinians, 95, 97 or even 100% of the occupied West Bank. Barak himself wrote in a New York Times Op-ed on 24 May 2001 that his vision was for "a gradual process of establishing secure, defensible borders, demarcated so as to encompass more than 80 percent of the Jewish settlers in several settlement blocs over about 15 percent of Judea and Samaria, and to ensure a wide security zone in the Jordan Valley." [source: "Building a Wall Against Terror," New York Times, 24 May 2001]. In other words, if Barak intended to keep 15 percent of "Judea and Samaria" (the West Bank), he could not have offered the Palestinians more than 85 percent. No one can seriously talk about Israel being willing to end its settlement policy if 80 percent of its settlers would have remained in place. Robert Malley who was Clinton's special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs, participated in the Camp David negotiations. In an important article entitled "Fictions About the Failure At Camp David " published in the New York Times on July 8, 2001, Malley added his own, insider's challenge to the Camp David myth. Not only did he agree that Barak's offer was far from ideal, but made the additional point that Arafat had made far more concessions than anyone gave him credit for. Malley wrote: "Many have come to believe that the Palestinians' rejection of the Camp David ideas exposed an underlying rejection of Israel's right to exist. But consider the facts: The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel. They accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs. They accepted the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem -- neighborhoods that were not part of Israel before the Six Day War in 1967. And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees. No other Arab party that has negotiated with Israel -- not Anwar el-Sadat's Egypt, not King Hussein's Jordan, let alone Hafez al-Assad's Syria -- ever came close to even considering such compromises." Malley rightly concluded that, "If peace is to be achieved, the parties cannot afford to tolerate the growing acceptance of these myths as reality." The negotiations continued. While it is true that the July 2000 Camp David summit ended without agreement, the negotiations did not end. They restarted and continued until Barak broke them off in January 2001. Since then Israel has refused to enter political negotiations with the Palestinians. On 19 December 2000, six months after Camp David, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators returned to Washington and continued with negotiations. These negotiations were based on a set of proposals by President Clinton which went beyond Barak's offer of July 2000, but still fell short of minimum Palestinian expecations. Nevertheless, the Palestinians went on with the talks. By some accounts these were proving fruitful. The Los Angeles Times reported on 22 December 2000, that: "Amid signs that the two sides appear to be edging toward some sort of compromise on the emotional issue of Jerusalem, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators worked through the start of the Jewish Hanukkah holiday Thursday expressing a rare shared optimism." [source: Los Angeles Times, December 22, 2000. "Hopeful mood fuels talks on Mideast peace; Negotiations: Israelis, Palestinians work through Jewish holiday as signs surface of a compromise."] In January 2001, the talks moved to Taba, Egypt, where they reportedly continued to make progress. They broke off at the end of January, and were due to resume but Barak canceled a planned meeting with Arafat. Shortly thereafter, Barak lost the election to Ariel Sharon, and the talks have never resumed. The New York Times reported on January 28, 2001: "Senior Israeli and Palestinian officials concluded nearly a week of stop-and-start negotiations in Taba, Egypt, tonight by saying jointly that they have "never been closer to reaching" a final peace accord but lacked sufficient time to conclude one before the Israeli elections on Feb. 6..... At a joint news conference in Taba, Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami of Israel called the two-way talks, from which the Americans were conspicuously absent, "the most fruitful, constructive, profound negotiations in this phase of the peace process." He said the two sides hoped to pick up where they left off after the elections -- although his boss, Mr. Barak, is expected to lose." Source: New York Times, January 28, 2001, "Mideast Talks End With Gain But No Accord." So how is it then that all these commentators and Israeli officials continue to deny that talks which the Israeli foreign minister at the time called "the most fruitful, constructive, profound negotiations," never took place? How is it that so many continue to claim that it was the Palestinians who walked away from the bargaining table when it was Israel that stopped the talks and refuses to resume them?

Here's a little evidence that Israel would f*** with us, Tex. http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/moorer-liberty.htm In the following article, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff accuses Israel of intentionally attacking the USS Liberty. This conclusion was reached by an independent commission comprised of the following: Admiral Thomas Moorer: former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (under President Nixon) Four-Star General Ray Davis: former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the most-decorated living Marine until his recent death (his honors include the Purple Heart, two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star, two Legion of Merit awards, and the Congressional Medal of Honor) Rear Admiral Merlin Staring: former Judge Advocate General of the Navy Admiral James Akins: former United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia This essay originally appeared in the Houston Chronicle, 09 Jan 2004.

100% correct, Tex. Why is it a patriotic American quality to blindly follow a leader?

Bush Fights Firefighters with Fire Molly Ivins, AlterNet March 9, 2004 Viewed on March 14, 2004 AUSTIN, Texas -- Living proof that the Democrats haven't gotten any smarter since the last time they ran a candidate for president. Much huffing (and a huffy Democrat is a terrifying sight) over the fact that George W. Bush used images of 9-11 and of the firefighters at Ground Zero to tout his candidacy in his first campaign ad. How crass, said the D's. Exploiting a national tragedy for political purposes -- oh, how tacky. Dammit, the problem is not that the ad is in bad taste, the problem is that Bush screwed the firefighters in a famous case of his favorite bait-and-switch tactic, and now he has the chutzpah to exploit them anyway and that, my friends, is gall. Bait, switch and then claim credit anyway. For those of you who have forgotten what happened (apparently including the entire Bush campaign): Shortly after the 9-11 attacks, President Bush promised a $3.5 billion aid package to provide equipment and training in dealing with such attacks to local police and fire departments. For over 18 months, no money appeared, and when money finally did appear, it was nowhere near the promised levels (hey, he had to cut those taxes on the richest 1 percent of Americans). Furthermore, the New York City firefighters who worked Ground Zero were specifically screwed. They were promised $90 million to monitor the long-term health effects of breathing in all that ash for months while they cleaned up. The money was to have been included in the overall post 9-11 aid package for New York City, but it got shifted to another bill that Bush rejected the following August. About half the workers screened before the money ran out suffered from respiratory problems. Republicans in Congress twice voted down first-responder money. New York's congressional delegation, led by Sens. Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, put up a huge battle before the long-promised $90 million was finally pried out of a reluctant Congress and White House, but the responder money is still not fully funded to this good day. Despite disingenuous statements put out by the White House ("There's more assistance going to state and local officials than ever before"), Bush is still behind on his initial commitment. You do not have to be an ace Washington reporter to figure this out. Ask your local fire department. You can see that this is already shaping up as a campaign where the media observe Kerry under a microscope (has he switched to earth-tones yet?) and neglect to point out the obvious facts about Bush's record. Kerry, say the Republicans solemnly, is given to flip-flopping. Kerry is? Let's just start counting off the top of our heads: George W. Bush was opposed to a commission to investigate how and why 9-11 occurred, but then he changed his mind and backed it. (Political pressure.) He was certainly opposed to a commission to investigate the intelligence failures on Iraq, but then he changed his mind and backed it. (Political pressure.) He now brags, "I went to the U.N. (before invading Iraq)"? Who recalls why he changed his mind about doing that? He originally said he not only did not need to consult the United Nations, he said he did not even have to consult the U.S. Congress. Anyone remember how Bush, the corporate ethicist of Harken Energy, opposed the Sarbanes-Oxley bill? Sarbanes-Oxley was a mildly reformist piece of legislation deemed slightly necessary in the wake of the staggering accounting scandals that caused the collapse of Enron, Tyco and WorldCom. There seemed to be a new record-bankruptcy every week, but our president didn't think we needed any new laws to prevent such things, my no. When did he change his mind and decide to sign it? After it passed the House of Representatives with one vote against it. Remember when we weren't gong to negotiate with North Korea? Then we weren't gong to negotiate with North Korea again, but we would "talk" to North Korea, but only in multilateral "talking," until Bush changed his mind yet again and now we're in multilateral negotiations. Remember when the United Nations was "unnecessary" and "irrelevant," and boy was Bush ever ready to tell them to go jump in the lake? We now think the United Nations is so useful and necessary, we call on it not just for Iraq, but Haiti and other trouble spots, as well. Remember when we didn't need any civilian or international advice about how to pacify and reconstruct Iraq, our military could do it just fine, thank you? Remember when "nation-building" was a dirty word? Boy, that John Kerry, he just flip-flops all the time, doesn't he?

The US sponsors terrorism too. We've done it for 50 years. Get off the moral high horse claiming other countries sponsor terrorism when we do the exact same thing. Doesn't justify Saddam's doing it but don't act like our farts don't stink.