Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
what should us do
negotiate intensely 0%
retaliate 33%
support israeli positions 21%
support palestinian positions 7%
un peacekeepers 2%
eu peacekeepers 2%
run off to tahiti with natalie portman and fuck the US 33%

Votes: 42

 what now for US Israel-Palestinan policy?

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Sep 11, 2001
Whether or not the World Trade Center/Pentagon disaster was caused by elements within the country, foreign nation-states or foreign terrorists, it probably is linked to American policy in Israel.

What is next for America's policy in Israel?


More stories about Politics
Capital Punishment Should Serve the People
America the Beautiful
Luv Yr Enemies: Viva Chile y el General Pinochet!
Reparation and reconcilation - the time is right.
Abortion or Treason? Towards a more populous America
Conscription: the return of American values
The Terrible Truth About Gun Owners
Gutless In Seattle
A paean to masochism: A new philosophy of life.
Isolationism Versus Go-F*ck-Yourself-ism
America is still the greatest
"Cowardly" terrorists
Adequacy sheds light at our darkest hour
Chile to bomb the U.S.A.
You are not Irish, They are not Republicans. Please stop sending them money and guns.
Kill Yr Idols: Usamah bin Muhammad bin Laden
An Early Analysis of Today's Attacks
On the Establishment of a Palestinian State
Achieving Justice for bin Laden
Ban All Guns Now!
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, terrorism, and decolonisation
It's time to surrender.
Why Supporting Israel Helps Everyone
America's Case for Packing Heat
What To Do About Arafat?
Save America's Gangs
Reasserting America's Manhood
Ancient History for Ignorant Americans
Kill Yr Idols: The American Electorate
America is Better than God
Beam Me Up: There's No Intelligent Life in Congress

More stories by

Hump Day News Wrap-Up #1: Where is Chandra Levy?
The cultural and economic benefits of smoking
Germany Eats Young in Attempt to Globalize
Philip Morris Is Right
In Praise of Censorware
Milosevic, Sovereignty, and the War against Terrorism
Something Patriotic that The Geeks Can Do Right Now
Wil Wheaton Moves Beyond Wesley To Internet Stardom
Why They Should Abolish the World Series
Looking For A Few Good Crusaders
Welcome to the Third World
Britney Spears' Six-Inch Secret
An Adequate Look at Insider Trading
Google Needs a Winston Smith
America's Case for Packing Heat
What To Do About Arafat?
Koleen Brooks Has Got The Right Stuff
Shit or Get Off the Pot
The first question to ask is: why was this attack perpetrated now, and not earlier?

I believe that this is because of a profound lack of engagement and interest in Israeli-Palestinian affairs by the United States government.

Bush's strategy was to hold back on sending high level delegations to Israel, because he feared a loss of prestige of America's negotiators if they went in and the violence continued. This is what happened to Clinton; after the historic Camp David accords, the violence flared up again and Clinton's negotiating power was diminished.

Bush erred in the other direction, unrealistically abstaining from negotiation "until there was an end to violence on both sides." Other Arab states called for his involvement... now we see that their warnings were correct, and we have been too late. Many, many people have died because of Bush's "forbearance" and his regard for "prestige."

Of course, any Bush action or change of policy towards the Middle East will now be interpreted as a reaction to the terrorists -- either a capitulation or a retaliation.

The traditional response to such an attack would be a military response, like our bombing of Lybia after the Lockerbie, Scotland disaster. However, this would pose several risks.

First, violent response to violence escalates conflict, increases support for terrorism, and plays into terrorist hands.

The immediate granting of concessions to the Palestinians, or to the Israelis, for that matter, would be seen similarly. Forceful support of Israeli stances, such as the negation of the Oslo accords and the recent "cooling down" ceasefire plan, would play into terrorist hands as described above. But, so would forceful support of Palestinian stances encourage terrorists to bomb in order to gain victories or concessions.

I see that the only solution then is to intensify negotiations, placing all possible resources on the ground in Israel. Powell and Bush should spend a long time there- weeks and months must be devoted to the negotiations, as the Clinton team did.

Alternative negotiators and plans, such as the introduction of UN monitoring troops and/or EU peacekeeping monitors should also be considered.

We cannot, as a nation, lose any face by responding to this tragedy by intensely negotiating. In fact, after this tragedy, Bush would damage American prestige more by not ramping up the negotiation effort.

UK Reaction

British Prime Minister Tony Blair was quick to seize on the opportunity afforded by the WTC and Pentagon atrocities. Speaking at the TUC conference he said "This mass terrorism is the new evil in our world today. It is perpetrated by fanatics who are utterly indifferent to the sanctity of human life and we, the democracies of this world, are going to have to come together to fight it together and eradicate this evil completely from our world."

The UK government is making clear to America that its policy of isolationism is untenable, and appears to be saying “Here we are, available as your allies and ready to help”. The subtext, beneath the platitudes and expressions of regret, is that America must commit itself more fully to the world and world affairs, and that the UK is one of the very few nations it can trust in this endeavour. Britain will make available all military personal and bases, and share all intelligence fully with America, doubtless in return for favours.

The UK often takes advantage of disastrous times internationally. Although the USA flirts with Pacific Rim nations such as China and Japan, the UK is well aware that when the chips are down, old friends are called upon first of all, and it knows it can extract valuable geopolitical advantages from American help, as it did frequently during WWII and the years of the Cold War.


Bush should go to NYC and help clear rubble (none / 0) (#1)
by Adam Rightmann on Tue Sep 11th, 2001 at 01:10:06 PM PST
and let his brain trust and VP handle these tough decisions. I do think greater negotiation is the key, along with allowing increased amounts of Palestinians to emigrate to the US to open gyro and falafel shops. Everone wins, Bush gets good photo ops, Palestinians get American homes, and we get cheap gyros.

A. Rightmann

Bah (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 08:30:31 AM PST
Immagration can be a most effective tool for terrorism.

"One should always forgive one's enemies, but not before they are hanged"
-- Heinrich Heine
1797 - 1856

wow, how irresponsible. (1.00 / 1) (#2)
by shren on Tue Sep 11th, 2001 at 01:31:13 PM PST
Unless you know something I don't, you are irresponsible to postualte who is and isn't guilty in this matter. Congratulations, you've just joined the mainstream press in posting unbacked scandal to attract readers. This is the moment that you have sold out.

Does that mean we get money? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by elby on Tue Sep 11th, 2001 at 01:35:07 PM PST
Well, does it?

I think generally most people believe that until proven otherwise, this is related to US policy in Israel. A lot of things point that direction.

Until we find out if it is something else, should we just not conjecture at all and sit here talking about the horrible TRAGEDY like everyone else instead of exploring possibilities?

Piss off.

Oh My (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 08:27:20 AM PST
Indeed. Isreal can surely expect our full attention now. Further, I doubt we will be critizing their assasinations of terrorist leaders, in the near future.

"Violence never settles anything."
-- Genghis Khan
1162 - 1227

However, with 5,000+ casualties, one can certainly expect vegenance. Jesus said of course that we should: "turn the other cheek" and all that. We must remember however, that in the USA, church and state are most seperate. We will take a heathen's share of blood for our losses.

Good day,


found the link i read earlier... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by elby on Tue Sep 11th, 2001 at 01:56:14 PM PST

Suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden warned three weeks ago that his followers would carry out an "unprecedented attack" on the United States, an Arab journalist told Reuters.

"It is most likely the work of Islamic fundamentalists. Osama bin Laden warned three weeks ago that he would attack American interests in an unprecedented attack, a very big one," said Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi.

"Personally we received information that he planned very, very big attacks against American interests," he said. "We received several warnings like this. We did not take it so seriously, preferring to see what would happen before reporting it."

Nothing new (none / 0) (#6)
by westgeof on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 07:39:41 AM PST
Terrorists are always sending in warnings of attacks. If even half of these warnings were serious, the whole world would be covered in rubble. We need a little more to go on than random threats from madmen.

As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

Hardly a random threat... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by finn on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 08:36:45 AM PST
USAMA BIN LADEN [FBI Ten Most Wanted List]

Dude, this is (allegedly) the guy who killed more than 200 people attempting to destroy two US embassies, and attempted to destroy an American warship. He considers himself at war with the US. Threats from this guy should be taken very seriously.

Anyway, supposedly the "intelligence community" had other information about largescale attacks on US resources for some time before this, but considered the threat to be against targets not on mainland USA.

Still nothing new (none / 0) (#8)
by westgeof on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 01:20:00 PM PST
If we took every warning true, including those from Bin Laden, then we wouldn't have the time to effectively investigate any of them. Believe it or not, this guy warns of an attack on a regular basis. I can't remember if it's monthly or weekly, but it's hard to take anyone seriouly who keeps thowing out these warnings. (Maybe that's why he does it, so he can say he did warn us, so it can hardly be considered an attack on the unwary.

As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

It's not about newness... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by finn on Thu Sep 13th, 2001 at 07:03:12 AM PST
Umm, I think I see. If someone makes threats against the USA, and only occasionally follows through with those threats, then you should ignore all threats from this man?


Dude, surely it makes sense to accept all of his threats as serious, and take precautions. No-one is harmed by being prepared, and people might be unharmed because of it.

No, not really (none / 0) (#10)
by westgeof on Fri Sep 14th, 2001 at 09:37:16 AM PST
It's about how seriously we can take these threats. Of course you can't ignore it, but by saying we should have know is pure hindsight.

My point is that threats like this come in every day, and you have to take them with a grain of salt. You say no one is unharmed by being cautios, and I agree that is technically true. However, if we took the necessary precautions for every warning, the airlines would never resume activity. No persons, foriegn or local, would be allowed to enter or leave the country. Everyone would have to give up their automobiles, and even public transportation would be halted. You can forget about all sporting events, and all other mass gatherings for that matter. The list goes on; Terrorists threaten just about everyone and everything.

Every can be wary, but if we jump everytime somone yells 'Boo' then the terrorists have already won.

As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

Erm... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by iat on Tue Sep 11th, 2001 at 02:01:44 PM PST
Congratulations, you've just joined the mainstream press in posting unbacked scandal to attract readers. This is the moment that you have sold out.

How does that differ from what we usually do? (Apart from the obvious fact that we don't usually attract readers). By your logic, we sold out on day one. - love it or leave it.

Indeed (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 08:21:29 AM PST
Oh, and lets not forget Tony Blair's personal intrest in his show of sympathy: The IRA.

He need not our help, merely our .... understanding as he "witchhunts" them into extinction.


Gotta Love the Rock on Him,



All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to