ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Bolloxed it up pretty well, though, didn't they?

Perhaps a state of high piss-off isn't the best mood to plan a military conflict in.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, it would have been better had Israel gone into Lebanon well before they got so pissed-off. They should have gone in soon after they learned that Hezbollah was installing rocket firing sites in south Lebanese neighborhoods.

But like too many Americans, not enough Israelies could be convinced how serious was threat with which they were confronted.

I bet you even now fail to comprehend the nature and magnitude of the danger presented humanity by ICT = Islama Caliphate Totalitarians (e.g., al-Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Taliban, Baathists, et al).

Bad Faith and the Destruction of Palestine

by Jonathan Cook
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=9771 "The occupation of Gaza did not begin this year, after Hamas was elected, nor did it end with the disengagement a year ago. The occupation is four decades old and still going strong in both the West Bank and Gaza. In that time Israel has followed a consistent policy of subjugating the Palestinian population, imprisoning it inside ever-shrinking ghettos, sealing it off from contact with the outside world, and destroying its chances of ever developing an independent economy."

I'm not going to take time to look it up, but based on myriad posting in this thread that suggest it, I'm going to venture that each time Israel put more pressure on the Palestinians, it was an action following still another terrorist attack by a Palestinian terrorist group sanctioned by Arafat. Remember that Arafat/Palestinian leaderhsip rejected every initiative offered for Palestine to have the land and freedom to do their own thing.

The anti-Israel historians so often fail to mention that part of the equation.

Undoubtedly, because it is a Foxism--which is to say, you made that **** up on the spot.

Yes, as Setanta points out so well, the right wing is always making up '****" on the spot. That is all they can do but November will put them in thier place. A revolution is coming and the conservatives will be swept out of office. An impeachment for Bushie? Why not? They impeached Clinton for nothing.

Hey Possum, do you have one of those blue-cake deoderants in your sink to cut the odor of your taking a wiz in the sink?

Yes, as Setanta points out so well, the right wing is always making up '****" on the spot. That is all they can do but November will put them in thier place. A revolution is coming and the conservatives will be swept out of office. An impeachment for Bushie? Why not? They impeached Clinton for nothing.

Quite right Possum, ethics especially about seducing young boys is almost never a consideration of american voters, we like our congressmen to be pro-active in all venues.

Yes, as Setanta points out so well, the right wing is always making up '****" on the spot. That is all they can do but November will put them in thier place. A revolution is coming and the conservatives will be swept out of office. An impeachment for Bushie? Why not? They impeached Clinton for nothing.

Israel Withdraws Last Troops From Lebanon

Time to talk peace

By Shulamit Aloni
YNET
24.9.06
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3307081,00.html

Israel`s leaders must change mindset, engage in dialogue with Palestinians

In a few months, we will mark 40 years of `enlightened` occupation by our famed army in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Israel pretends to be an enlightened state and signatory of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which rules that `The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies` (Israel ratified the Convention in 1951.)

Over the years we deported, robbed land and stole water, destroyed crops, uprooted trees, turned every village and town into a detention camp, and set up hundreds of communities on land that doesn`t belong to us.

We allowed the settlers to make a living by providing them with huge amounts of money (more than 5 times per capita compared to residents of southern development towns.)

We paved roads for Jews only, a case of blatant apartheid, while defending it using witty Jewish self-righteousness in the absence of fair and public reporting of the budgets involved, deeds committed, expropriation of land, and disregard for vandalism.

Morality, justice, law and order stopped at the Green Line. Lawlessness prevailed right under the noses and protective and soothing hand of the IDF and police, as lawbreaking settlers made their own laws undisturbed, and at times with the kind help of authorities.

Every illegal settlement enjoys water, hydro, and a paved road. The permanent residents, the natives, which the Israeli regime had to take care of, became seemingly non-existent. As if they are there but not there at the same time. The government only notices them if they bother it by filing complaints.

It`s no wonder that the leader of a political movement in Israel and a Knesset member can declare that we should expel the Palestinians (and also Israel`s Arab citizens) in order to take over what is still left to them.

But as we usually present it - we`re the victim while they`re the murderers with blood on their hands. We never report the number of Palestinians we murdered from the sky and killed by fire - women, children, the elderly, whole families, thousands of them.

No wonder they hate us

Aerial bombings kill wanted suspects, while eliminating many civilians - yet the hands of the pilot are `clean` of any blood. After all, the victims were killed at the press of a button while their killers returned home safely. None of them committed suicide to kill wanted suspects, who by the way are not a `ticking bomb` and no evidence exists against them.

At times it appears that the IDF, particularly during the last, needless Lebanon war, turns the Gaza Strip into live-fire training grounds for all army branches. Is it a wonder they hate us, and is it a wonder they elected Hamas in free elections, the same Hamas whose establishment we encouraged in order to undermine the PLO?

Many peace-making windows were opened over the years. We hindered all of them, because we coveted the whole of the Territories. We had the Oslo agreements. Twenty countries, which in the past had no ties with us, recognized Israel. We had welfare, international ties were blossoming, peace was at our gates - but we didn`t want to make concessions.

Rabin was murdered for the sake of the settlers, and the job of burying peace-making attempts was completed by Ehud Barak with his `There`s nobody to talk to!` spin. In order to establish himself in power, Barak also allowed Arik Sharon to visit Temple Mount with armed escorts, even though he was asked by Arafat the night before not to allow this due to the frustration and fury among Palestinians.

Now, another possibility for dialogue has opened. Yet our government is again turning its back on it. They don`t know how to and don't want to talk. Just now we brutally destroyed half of Lebanon at an immense cost and turned a million civilians into refugees in their own country.

Another superb achievement by the IDF and government of Israel. We`re willing to resort to any provocation and blow any incident out of proportion, just to hold on to the regular pretext that `There`s nobody to talk to`, and that we don`t talk to terrorists.

Kahane won

Yet the acts we undertake by starving, curfews, deportations, the theft of water and land, false arrests, and targeted killings - all those are, of course, not terror, because the acts are undertaken by a national army through the power of a decision made by legitimate government.

Wonderful, it turns out we forget the fascist states (including Stalin`s USSR) that were very legitimate according to their own logic, while committing a plethora of terror acts.

The time has come for the government of Israel to start talking peace, and end the excuses for disqualifying and boycotting Palestinian representatives. The use of arms does not have to be the first reaction. Starvation, imprisonment, and expropriation by an occupying force attest to an unwillingness to reach an agreement and an addiction to greed.

This is reminiscent of Benny Elon comments: `We`ll embitter their lives so that they transfer themselves elsewhere.`

One cannot escape the impression that the racist and brutal declarations by Effie Eitam gave public expression to government policy over the years. We must note that the courts - the defenders of law and order, including the High Court of Justice - were partners to the developments that led to the legitimization of parties and Knesset members reminiscent of the racist, crude words uttered by MK Eitam.

In fact, it appears that Meir Kahane won, and we continue in his path - we don`t talk, but rather, only kill, raze homes and roads and bridges, cut off electricity, fill prisons with women and children and elected officials, because all of them are the `terrorists` while we, the Jewish state, need to be defended from them. We`re always the ultimate victim.

As Golda Meir said: `I don`t forgive the Arabs for forcing us to kill them.` There you go, she`s the killer, yet she`s the victim.

For our sake, the citizens of Israel, and for the sake of brining peace and quiet - government leaders, start talking and keep doing it until you reach an agreement.

Unruly sons will be brought back into the country, we`ll be respecting UN decisions and international conventions, we`ll earnestly memorize the universal human rights declaration and our own declaration of independence, we`ll rehabilitate our soul, and we`ll attempt to establish a democratic country governed by the law and justice. Shana Tova.

I was privileged to hear Shulamit Aloni speak some years ago and she is a remarkable woman. She represents one of the best that the Left has to offer and her remarks in this essay are no doubt heartfelt and no doubt at least some of the criticism of less than stellar treatment of the Palestinians is true.

The one fact she overlooks, however, is the same that the Left often overlooks in our world. Diplomacy has been going on for decades, but the Israelis are in a position of doing diplomacy with people who want them dead. Until diplomacy includes a pledge from the Palestinians to stop murdering Israelis and enforcement of that by the Palestinian leadership, the Israelis cannot be expected to believe any talks/diplomacy/negotiations will result in anything other than more terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens.

I don't think, Aloni overlooks a point. She most probably doesn't weight it it the way you do.

(Why is it a privilege to hear her, btw? You can do so in other countries without being 'selected' or similar: you just go to place where she speaks.)

Diplomacy has not been going on for decades. What happens in these peace deals is that the United States and Israel offer things and Palestine is told to accept it or they are accused of just wanting to reject everything.

In the last deal with Arafat and Sharon, what happened was that Israel was still going to have control of Jerusalem, which meant that Muslims would still have to go through Israel check points to go their holy places.

http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive2005/january/arafat_sharon_intifada.htm

Furthermore, now Hamas without coming out and saying they accept Israel is theory accepting Israel because they say they are willing to accept the pre 1967 land for their state. In 1967 Israel existed, so Hamas is in effect saying that they accept Israel. It is a step.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_williams/2006/09/reopening_the_roadmap_to_peace.html

NO!
Hamas is not saying they recognize Israel's right to exist. They are merely perpetrating their same old fraud of saying: Israel give us land and maybe we will recognize Israel's right to exist.

In the past, those implied maybes bought only more terror to Israel's people after Israel did in fact gave up more land.

When Hamas specifies exactly what land Israel must give up to Hamas in return for Hamas formally -- and not merely implicitly -- recognizing Israel's right to exist, then Israel should examine carefully what land Israel would continue to hold after giving up that Hamas requested land. If Israel would be left with too little land to continue to defend its existence, then that Hamas offer would be a fraud like its current offer.

This seems to be as appropriate a thread as any to post this. William F. Buckley agrees with the conclusion that a lot of us have reached. What Israel, and all of us, are up against is not people seeking land or justice. They want it all. (Emphasis mine)

October 01, 2006
Making Way for Jihad
By William F. Buckley

The categorical opponents of the detainee bill should spend an unhappy hour reading the new book by Mary Habeck. She is a scholar at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins, and her book, "Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror," is published by Yale University Press. The book undertakes to tell the reader things about the jihadist offensive that we should know about, properly concern ourselves with, and take into account when weighing legislative initiatives.

The scene in Washington, in a word, was as follows. The president, who is commander in chief of our armed forces and, as such, principal agent of the national security, took to Congress an impasse. It had been created by the Supreme Court. Exercising, quite properly, its authority to opine on deviations from past constitutional practice having to do with human rights, the court ruled that we could not legitimately proceed, as we have been doing in Guantanamo, to detain foreigners for interrogation and other purposes without reference to such constitutional narrative as is implicit under habeas corpus. That doctrine specifies that the American citizen is the master of his own movements -- putting the burden of respecting that sovereignty on the government.

However, the protection of habeas corpus does not necessarily extend to those who are not U.S. citizens, which is what the current controversy is about. The Geneva Conventions, so often adduced in the congressional debate of the last few weeks, are designed to shed light on the standing of foreigners who find themselves behind bars set up by the U.S. military. The conventions cited are inadequate to current purposes, because those conventions sought to illuminate our authority over persons who had served or were serving in armies against which the United States contended in war.

The problem crystallized soon after Sept. 11, namely what exactly do we call people who are suspected of participating in activity mortal to U.S. interests, but who do not wear any badge of allegiance to any formal foreign body? President Bush took what can perhaps be criticized as the easiest way out: He simply assumed authority over them and their movements.

Moreover, he went further than merely detaining them. Many were suspected of being privy to organized activity against us, of the kind that mention of Sept. 11 calls vividly to mind. Some of these suspects have been handled, we are led to believe, in ways that would not befit, nor be tolerated in, the handling of orthodox prisoners.

Necessarily, with the intervention of the Supreme Court, we needed to come up with a vocabulary appropriate to the challenge. This, Congress has pretty much decided, can be effected by a new nomenclature. It would continue to give the U.S. military authority to detain suspects and to interrogate them vigorously, though not brutally, in the effort to contain the terrorist movement.

How is that movement relevant? "The question of offensive jihad is ... complex and controversial," writes Habeck. "The most widely respected Islamic authorities ... all assume that Muslims have a duty to spread the dominion of Islam, through military offensives, until it rules the world. By the 'dominion of Islam' these authorities did not mean that everyone in the world must convert to Islam, since they also affirmed that 'there is no compulsion in religion,' rather that every part of the Earth must come under Islamic governance and especially the rule of the sharia.

"Azzam's definition of offensive jihad (Azzam is the principal modern theorist of militant Islam) follows this traditional understanding of jihad, noting that it is a duty for the leader of the Muslims 'to assemble and send out an army unit into the land of war once or twice every year.'" The jihadist is obliged to perform with all available capabilities "until there remain only Muslims or people who submit to Islam."

The author reminds us that Azzam's explanation of offensive jihad is "a recounting of the interpretations of the most respected traditional Islamic authorities. To deny this fact would be to deny one of the main reasons that jihadis have gotten a hearing in so much of the Islamic world today."

It is clearly wrong to assume that every Muslim is a jihadist. But it is also wrong to assume that every jihadist is heretical to his faith; and we end with real questions about how to deal with real people whom we catch with gunpowder stains on their robes. We have gone through a conventional constitutional modification, in the evolution of our commitment to prevail over the jihadists, and we need not apologize for it.
SOURCE

I fail to see how your article in any way is connected to the previous conversations or the thread. Perhaps you could explain the connnection.

You have surely noticed that the organizations in Iran, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere including Hamas and Hezbollah promoting attacks against Israel, the USA, and the developing democracy in Iraq are all Jihadists. And you don't think that is relevant?