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

Quote:

Thursday, 22 March 2007, 13:10 GMT

Bolton admits Lebanon truce block

A former top American diplomat says the US deliberately resisted calls for a immediate ceasefire during the conflict in Lebanon in the summer of 2006.

Former ambassador to the UN John Bolton told the BBC that before any ceasefire Washington wanted Israel to eliminate Hezbollah's military capability.

Mr Bolton said an early ceasefire would have been "dangerous and misguided".

He said the US decided to join efforts to end the conflict only when it was clear Israel's campaign wasn't working.

The former envoy, who stepped down in December 2006, was interviewed for a BBC radio documentary, The Summer War in Lebanon, to be broadcast in April.

Mr Bolton said the US was deeply disappointed at Israel's failure to remove the threat from Hezbollah and the subsequent lack of any attempt to disarm its forces.

Britain joined the US in refusing to call for an immediate ceasefire.

'Damn proud'

The war began when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, but it quickly escalated into a full-scale conflict.

BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall says the US-UK refusal to join calls for a ceasefire was one of the most controversial aspects of the diplomacy.

At the time US officials argued a ceasefire was insufficient and agreement was needed to address the underlying tensions and balance of power in the region.

Mr Bolton now describes it as "perfectly legitimate... and good politics" for the Israelis to seek to defeat their enemy militarily, especially as Hezbollah had attacked Israel first and it was acting "in its own self-defence".

Mr Bolton, a controversial and blunt-speaking figure, said he was "damned proud of what we did" to prevent an early ceasefire.

Also in the BBC programme, several key players claim that, privately, there were Arab leaders who also wanted Israel to destroy Hezbollah.

"There were many not - how should I put it - resistant to the thought that the Israelis should thoroughly defeat Hezbollah, who... increasingly by Arab states were seen as an Iranian proxy," said UN special envoy Terje Roed Larsen.

More than 1,000 Lebanese civilians and an unknown number of Hezbollah fighters were killed in the conflict.

Israel lost 116 soldiers in the fighting, while 43 of its civilians were killed in Hezbollah rocket attacks.

Source

0 Replies

Egypt: Israel must accept Arab peace plan before talks with PA

By The Associated Press

Egypt said Friday that Israel should approve in principle the 2002 land-for-peace Saudi peace initiative before negotiations with the Palestinians could begin.

"Israel must announce first that it is accepting the initiative, then we start searching for a mechanism of negotiations, for a peaceful settlement for the conflict," said Egyptian Deputy Foreign Minister Hani Khalaf.

The Arab plan offers Israel recognition and peace in return for full withdrawal from the land Israel captured in the 1967 Six Day War, plus the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. It also calls for allowing Palestinian refugees the right to return to homes in Israel.

The plan, first proposed at the Beirut Arab Summit in 2002, is expected to be revived at the upcoming Arab Summit later this month in Riyadh, the Saudi capital.

Israel initially rejected the plan, and is particularly opposed to its granting the right of return to Palestinian refugees and their descendants.

However, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Thursday that the plan could provide a convenient basis for renewed talks with Arab moderates. His remark was seen as indicating a tentative interest in the initiative after the failure of other avenues toward peace. The Egyptian official hinted that if Israel accepted the plan in principle, negotiations could begin on its specific points.

"Israel should not make any requests to reformulate the initiative before negotiations, as the process of negotiations in itself will bring modifications," Khalaf said.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/841328.html

0 Replies

Walter, during the Lebanon war the Jerusalem Post reported that Bushie was pushing Olmert to bomb Damascus. That would possibly have led to all out world war. Certainly to much more bloodshed here, there and everywhere.

0 Replies

So what is Iran up to here?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42721000/gif/_42721549_gulf_map_416x270_4.gif

UK sailors captured at gunpoint

Fifteen British navy personnel have been captured at gunpoint by Iranian forces, the Ministry of Defence says.

The men were seized at 1030 local time when they boarded a boat in the Gulf, off the coast of Iraq, which they suspected was smuggling cars.

The Royal Navy said the group was on a routine patrol in Iraqi waters and were understood to be unharmed.

But Iranian state television quoted the Iran foreign ministry as saying they had illegally entered Iranian waters.

The Associated Press news agency is quoting US Navy official, Commander Kevin Aandahl, as saying that Iran's Revolutionary Guard were responsible.

Mr Aandahl is also reported as saying the naval force had told them in a radio message that the British were not harmed.

We understand that they were in two boats that were operating in Iraqi waters

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has demanded the immediate and safe return of the HMS Cornwall servicemen.

She added that she had called for a "full explanation" from Iran and had left them in no doubt that she wanted the group and their equipment back immediately.

The task force's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, said he was hoping there had been a "simple mistake" over territorial waters.

"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they [British personnel] were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may claim they were in Iranian territorial waters.

"We may well find that this is a simple misunderstanding at the tactical level."

Helicopters had reported seeing two British boats being moved along the Shatt al-Arab waterway to Iranian bases and there had been no evidence of fighting, he added.

He said that despite scant communication, the 15 people were understood to be safe and had reacted in an "extremely professional way, in line with the rules of engagement".

Mrs Beckett said: "We understand that they were in two boats that were operating in Iraqi waters in accordance with the Security Council Resolution 1723 in support of the government of Iraq to stop smuggling."

On Friday afternoon, the Iranian ambassador in London, Rasoul Movahedian, met permanent secretary, Sir Peter Ricketts, at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The foreign secretary said the meeting had been "brisk but polite" and said the British ambassador in Iran had also been speaking to officials in Tehran.

The MoD said it had contacted relatives of the group, which comprised eight sailors and seven marines.

There has been no official response so far from Iran, where many ministries and official buildings were closed for a public holiday.

However, state television has reported that the British envoy was summoned to Iran's foreign ministry.

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague and Sir Menzies Campbell, leader of the Liberal Democrats, have both backed the call for the group's immediate and safe return.

The incident comes at a time of renewed tensions with Iran over its nuclear programme and follows claims that most of the violence against UK forces in Basra is being engineered by Iranian elements.

British army Colonel Justin Maciejewski, who is based in Iraq, said Iran was providing "sophisticated weaponry" to insurgents and "Iranian agents" were paying local men to attack British troops.

Iranian officials have in the past denied such claims.

In 2004, Iran detained eight British servicemen for three days after they allegedly strayed over the maritime border.

The UK claimed the men were "forcibly escorted" into Iranian territorial waters.

The men were paraded blindfolded and made to apologise on Iranian TV before their release was agreed.

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Robbins said the difference this time was that the present Iranian government under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was much more hardline.

"The political climate is worse with Britain among those confronting Iran over its controversial nuclear programme," he added.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6484279.stm

0 Replies

Yep, that has been posted a couple of times - even with an own thread - since Friday. (And there were some developments since the time your quote, Foyfyre, was published and today.)

While I still think that this will and similar to 2004, I agree with what Admiral West said:

Quote:

So we try to downplay things. Rather then roaring into action and sinking everything in sight we try to step back and that, of course, is why our chaps were effectively able to be captured and taken away.

If we find this is going to be a standard practice we need to think very carefully about what rules of engagement we want and how we operate. One can't allow as a standard practice nations to capture a nation's servicemen. That is clearly wrong.

0 Replies

Hi Walter, I~~m now in rio. Saw a PM from Joe, and since I don~~t have PM priviledges, please inform him I would love to join you guys to the cub game. T.

0 Replies

It's worth listening to Hagee's speech before the AIPAC. It's in three parts. The audience is scarier than Hagee. He's a powerful speaker and I can see how he can sway the minds of ignorant dogmatic drones. People like him can do great harm to America.

Quote:

TV Evangelist John Hagee Wants War With Iran, and He Wants It Now!
by Bill Barnwell

If anyone still thinks that the radical end-times "prophecy" movement is not a threat to peace and stability, think again. At the popular level, in terms of the TV preachers and the hot-selling prophecy books, the dispensational pre-trib stuff still reigns supreme. Most conservative-leaning Evangelical churches in America today are heavily influenced by popular dispensational theology to some extent. Even churches and pastors that don't teach pretribulationalism still are influenced by dispensationalism to varying degrees.

The most dangerous element of this prophetic paradigm, however, is its doom-and-gloom view of the world. And in most cases, those who have a fascination with the end of the world have a particular fascination with war and militarism as well. More problematic, it assumes that their wars of choice are not just their own foreign policy preferences or personal opinions. Rather they are ordained by God. In 2003, more than a few pastors and influential Christian figures basically said that opposing the Iraq war was opposing God's end-time plan. According to Evangelical end-times enthusiasts, if you opposed the Iraq war, you didn't just hate your country and the troops, now you were opposing God and the Bible as well.

An even bigger obsession for dispensationalists has always been Israel. For the average dispensationalist, modern-day secular Israel is going to be the focal point in the end-times. Therefore, if the Bible really does teach in Daniel 9:27 that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is going to be torn down for a rebuilt Jewish Temple, why should any of us seek to prevent it? Sure, it very well might ignite a regional war and even ignite tensions around the world, but it's all part of God's prophetic plan. Not to worry though, things might not get really ugly until after the "rapture," so the Christians today who are cheering for events that would bring about World War III won't have to worry about it anyway. Unless of course, they are wrong about the whole thing.

Enter the Rev. John Hagee. Hagee is the pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio Texas, where he has 18,000 followers right in his own congregation. He also has a global television ministry and has sold scores of prophecy books over the years. John Hagee is perhaps the most powerful and influential Christian Zionist figure in America. Hagee has a long history making strange predictions about world events that are almost always wrong. His books in the late 90's trumped up Y2K hysteria to ridiculous levels. He inaccurately predicted that the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin was the "Beginning of the End" in the book of the same name. In every book he writes, he is constantly warning of catastrophe in various forms right around the corner. According to one of his fans, he supposedly just preached a sermon predicting that 2007 would be a "significant" year in Bible prophecy and that his prophecy claims can be "mathematically" backed up by the Biblical text.

Given Hagee's prior success rate in making predictions, don't be shocked if 2007 doesn't shape up to be all that "significant" after all. As with all popular prophecy teachers, they are immune from making inaccurate predictions and false prophecies. Their followers simply forget or forgive them. Maybe they'll even claim that God changed His mind. Most don't even pay attention though and don't even realize their superstars are constantly revising their predictions and end-times charts.

However, Hagee is not just another goofy eccentric on TBN. He has political clout and regularly meets with influential national politicians. If you've ever watched him on TV, he clearly basks in this fact and drops little hints about his discussions with people in governmental authority and other positions of power. For years Hagee has hosted "A Night to Honor" Israel and is founder and chairman of Christians United for Israel. Their goals span beyond supporting Israel, but also implementing a one-sided and radical approach to the Arab-Israeli problems in the Middle East. There is no nuance to their policy prescriptions and ironically (or perhaps not so ironically) the agenda of Hagee and his group would actually make matters much worse in the Middle East.

And he has more than a few fans out there. He has not been afraid to remind his church and television audience, repeatedly over the years, that there are "millions in America and around the world watching this program right now." Whatever the number really is, what is clear is that Hagee is reaching many people and has a networking system that spans into the rich and powerful, some of whom are making national foreign policy decisions.

If left up to Hagee, there would be a military strike against Iran today. Since last summer, Hagee has been practically foaming at the mouth for a new war with Iran. Why? Because he thinks it is the rest of the world's job to fight Israel's wars and because he thinks such a showdown is a piece of the puzzle in regards to Bible prophecy. To Hagee, there is no middle ground on this issue. God told Abraham he would "bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you" (Gen. 12:3). That means if YOU aren't on board with wars that might be in Israel's interest, but not in the United States', then YOU will be cursed by God. At least according to Hagee.

To see just how bellicose, belligerent, and militaristic Hagee has come, just watch his speech at the AIPAC Washington conference. Behind his thundering prose and love for the Jewish people is a militaristic and even fanatical mindset that is hoping and praying for the world to fall apart. After all, Jesus can't come back unless it does, but all is well since Christians before the "rapture" will escape the worst of it.

Unfortunately for the Jewish people, they still await another massive holocaust, according to many dispensationalists. Anyone interested in this subject should read our own Gary North's column, The Unannounced Reason Behind American Fundamentalism's Support for the State of Israel. An excerpt:

Quote:

Again, however, one can't make too big a fuss about this, since "Bible prophecy" demands this carnage. It's "God's will" for the world to fall apart, for tensions to further inflame between Jews and Arabs, for the United States to lead the charge in a pre-emptive strike on Iran, to rebuild a third Jewish Temple after tearing down the Islamic mosque, etc. All you have to do to prove this is cut passages like Genesis 12, Matthew 24, 2 Thessalonians 2, Ezekiel 36 and 37, and Daniel 9:24-27 out of context (along with the entire book of Revelation), make up some handy-dandy prophecy charts, and confidently present it to Biblically illiterate Christians who don't know any better.

While there are many doctrinal disputes amongst Christians, there are none that have as much practical significance as this one. I strongly disagree with those who deny the Trinity, but those who deny the deity of Christ are not clamoring for war, bombs, and destruction. Likewise, Christians disagree vehemently over issues like eternal security or the proper mode of baptism, but thankfully we've grown up and stopped killing each other over those issues in the last couple hundred years.

When it comes to questionable or inaccurate beliefs about the end-times, however, they are shaping many people's foreign policy and worldviews for the worse. It is causing many to hold troubling escapist views towards the world. I know this because I am constantly told by other Christians that "we are not in the business of fixing up the world, we are just in the business of saving souls until the rapture!" It is in part because of faulty eschatology that Evangelical Christians, more than any other demographic group in America, supported the ill-advised invasion of Iraq in 2003. And it is faulty eschatology that is causing this same group of people to believe the militaristic agenda behind Rev. Hagee's bombastic oratory. After all, it's all been ordained, so how can we oppose it?

But maybe, just maybe, their preciously held beliefs about future prophecy are way off. Maybe they are dead wrong in their views and maybe all the wars, destruction and carnage they think are inevitable aren't necessarily mandated by God. Maybe the Bible is teaching exactly the opposite regarding these matters than what they teach.

Alas, no matter how many false predictions these guys make, or how many damaging theological and political beliefs they espouse, people continue to follow their dangerous teachings. It's time for both Christian and non-Christian alike to call this crowd out on their bad theology, false prophecies, and deadly worldview.

Hopefully Hagee is right that 2007 is going to be a significant year in Bible prophecy. It would be significant indeed if Biblical scholars, pastors and laymen finally and at long last rescued the doctrine of eschatology from the doom and destruction crowd of militaristic pretribulationists. Here's hoping that with each passing year the theology of Hagee and his ilk is exposed for how Biblically inaccurate and destructive it really is.

March 22, 2007

Bill Barnwell [send him mail] is a pastor and writer from Michigan. He holds both a Master of Ministry degree and a Master of Arts in Theological Studies degree from Bethel College in Mishawaka, Indiana. Visit his blog.

Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

0 Replies

Yes, the extreme right is just as crazy as the extreme left.

0 Replies

Another Civil War in Lebanon?
Will Hezbollah Hand Israel Its 6th Defeat?[/size]
By FRANKLIN LAMB

A recent poll in Lebanon suggests deep pessimism about the chances of avoiding another civil war. Plenty of 'wise owls' here think civil war is just a matter of time.

No less an oracle than Tarek, the doorman at the Alexandria Hotel in Ashhifyeh, where the Israeli Military Command had it's HQ during its 1982 invasion says Civil war is certain. So does the sous-chef at Chez Paul's where Sharon, Bashir Gemayel and Eli Hobeika used to meet and discuss 'business'. And many in Lebanon's Parliament agree.

For months now large wooden crates have been arriving in various locals in East Beirut and the mountains and hurriedly carried into buildings and various party Headquarters, in violation of the 1989 Taif Accords which required local militias to disarm. (Rafik Hariri exempted Hezbollah from Taif arguing that Hezbollah was not a militia but the Lebanese resistance force since it only used its weapons against Israel)

What's in those boxes? Are they weapons? If so, who paid for them? Hard to blame Iran and Syria this time since the recipients are their sworn enemies and are itching to fight them both, or more precisely, have Israel or the US act on their behalf.

What about all that promised Bush administration cash and weaponry to shore up the Siniora regime? More than 200 million worth? It there a glitch with the shipping agent and is some of it is going to local addresses other than the "new robust Lebanese army"?

To know for sure, one would want to walk around the Gemezzeh neighborhood in east Beirut around 2 in the morning near the rebuilt Phalange Party HQ.where Baschir Gemeyal was blown up on September 14, 1982 and nose around a bit..

And what's that frenetic activity behind the Walid Jumblatt's estate at El Moukhtara in the Chouf.? It has increased since his long meeting with GW Bush a couple of weeks ago.

And those fine new military style boots and swagger one sees among some of Saad Hariri's March 14 movement young men. Armani or US Army or Israeli issue?

Civil war may well be coming to Lebanon and there is currently plenty of sectarian tension and hatred in Lebanon . Some surfaced in late January when three Hezbollah supporters were killed. When the beautiful widow and young children of 29 year old Adnan Shamas, who was ambushed as he walked home following a visit to the opposition created 'tent city' in downtown Beirut, appeared at his funeral there were calls of "blood for blood."

Sabra-Shatilla massacre participant Samir Geagea, now the leader of the Lebanese Forces Militia and recently feted in Washington DC, beats his chest and taunts Hezbollah's Secretary-General with threats like "Don't you dare think Hassan Nassrallah that Beirut is Haifa (referring to the July War) or else Lebanon is headed for the worst."

Some in the opposition dismiss the Siniora government as nothing more than 'an organized crime syndicate that wants to turn Lebanon into another Iraq,' as Talal Arslan, an anti-government Druze leader (breaking ranks with Jumblatt) recently roared. Many accuse the government of functioning as agents of Israel and the Bush administration and demand early elections and a greater share of government posts for the growing anti-government coalition.

Other observers are concluding that Israel and the Bush administration must foment a civil war in order not to 'lose' Lebanon and be driven from the region.

Pro-Israel "tink tanks" (Robert Fisk's label) argue that having created a disaster for both the US and Israel in Iraq and Afghanistan, and having failed miserably to destroy, much less seriously damage. Hezbollah during the July War, both Olmert and Bush desperately need a Lebanese civil war

Their reasoning is that if Bush and Olmert can provoke Hezbollah into turning its guns on Lebanese rivals, which it has never done and refuses to do,(Nasrallah recently declaring that "they can kill 1,000 of the opposition and we will still refuse to participate in a civil war") the US and Israel can invade, destroy the Lebanese resistance and set up another 'more sustainable' government, to borrow a pet term from Condoleezza Rice.

Other objectives expected to be achieve by another Lebanese Civil War are to restore Israel's deterrent credibility, intimidate the region and occupied territories, create a opening to attack Syria and conceivably go for a spectacular Trifecta and bomb Iran as well.

The other side of the coin.

Hassan Nassrallah and his allies have vowed to prevent a Civil War. In this goal they have the support of elements (if not a majority) in all the confessions and political parties.

Hezbollah has a habit to defeating Israel on the battle field and increasingly in political circles and they may just prevail in preventing a civil war.

Five brief examples:

1. The April 30, 1985 Israel withdrawal from Sidon, Tyre, Nabatieh, and some Western Bekaa villages were the direct result of military pressure from a new organization which was publicly announced on February 16, 1985 and calling itself Hezbollah. Interestingly the same day Hezbollah went public Israel began its withdrawal and it was Hezbollah's first victory over the Israeli military.

2. July 1993. Israel's "operation accountability". Same Israeli goals. Destroy Hezbollah, break its connection with the populace and pressure the Lebanese government to fight Hezbollah. The UN counted 1,224 air raids and more than 28,000 US shells fired into Lebanon by Israel, killing more than 150 civilians, wounding more than 500 and displacing more than 200,000 from 120 south Lebanon villages. In retaliation Hezbollah fired Katusha rockets for 10 hours into Galilee settlements creating what Agence France Press of July 25, 1993 called a 'hell of shelling" Israel had enough and contacted Washington to arrange a ceasefire.

3. April 11, 1996 Israel's 'Operation Grapes of Wrath'. Same Israeli goals. Israel attacked Tallat al-Kayyal in Baalbek and expanded its attack the next against the Lebanese army base in Tyre and neighborhoods in Beirut. Israel killed more than 250 civilians. Hundreds of thousands were displaced, more than 7,000 homes partially or completely destroyed.

Hezbollah had planned well and Katyusha rockets were fired on Israeli forces and settlements on a daily basis. As in 1993, Israel asked the Clinton administration to have Warren Christopher arrange a ceasefire which began at 6 pm on April 27, 1996. Hezbollah's victory cost Shimon Peres, Clinton's candidate, to lose the May 29, 1996 Israeli election. Interestingly on March 23, 2007 Peres acknowledged before the Winograd Commission looking into Israel's performance in the July War, that he would not have invaded Lebanon and tried to defeat Hezbollah in July of 2006. Peres told the Commission: "We can't defeat Hezbollah unless we burn every inch of Lebanon".

4. May 24, 2000. After 22 years of occupying more than 10% of Lebanon, Hezbollah forced Israel to withdraw from all but the Shebaa farms in one night, abandoning its planned phased withdrawal as well as its agents, the South Lebanon's Army. Contrary to Israeli scare tactics, there was no Hezbollah retaliation against Lebanese collaborators. This fact earned Hezbollah the respect of all Lebanon's confessions, not least, the Christian community.

5. Hezbollah's victory in the 2006 July war is common knowledge and discussed in the new volume: The Price We Pay: A Quarter Century of Israel's use of American Weapons in Lebanon, available at [email protected].

The consequences of these five Israeli defeats have been unacceptable for Israel. Its invincibility myth is now the butt of late night TV jokes. The Hezbollah led Lebanese resistance has caught the imagination of much of the World including the occupied Palestinian territories. Israel and the Bush administration believe the only solution is another Civil War Lebanon so they can destroy Hezbollah. As former US envoy John Bolton made clear to the BBC on March 22, 2007 he also favors 'another round'.

Bolton is aware of the recent reports sent to the US Senate Intelligence Committee in February, 2007 which suggests that the CIA believes Israel may well cease to exist in its current form by the centenary of the 1947-48 Nakba which led to the establishment of the Jewish state. . The Report predicts a significant increase in the current emigration from Israel mainly to the US, Western Europe and Russia and continuing decline in immigration to Israel. Bolton blames Hezbollah. But a Congressional staff member offered the CIA view on March 21, 2007:

"History teaches us that resistance eventually trumps occupation every time and Israel has never seriously considered a just peace with the Palestinians or its Arab neighbors. There is no rational reason to think that they will now. It's the Masada syndrome. Fanatics run Israel and they would rather destroy themselves than give back what they stole from the Palestinians".

"Persia rising, Zionism sinking"! As another Congressional staff member put it.

As Israel continues its nearly daily violations of Lebanese sovereignty, the main concern of the US Intelligence analysts is not a nuclear Iran, but rather how to get Israel's finger off its 350+ nuclear warheads. Some US Defense Intelligence Agency analysts believe that Israel will indeed try to use its arsenal and that a nuclear holocaust is likely.

Rapture seeking Christian fundamentalists told the March 2007 AIPAC conference in Washington DC that when this happens it will be God's will and any surviving Jews will then convert to Jesus or burn in hell. Either way works for them.

Few in the US intelligence community doubt that if Israel fires its nuclear arsenal that their targets will include America. Why would Israel not spare the US after 60 years of support including total aid in excess of one trillion dollars? The reason is because Israel sees the American public as getting " all wobbly" (read: slightly more informed thanks to the diligent efforts of dozens of courageous pro-Palestinian/pro Arab and pro Peace interest groups in the US as well as the Iraq catastrophe) and will sooner rather than later, dump Israel.

Freezing Israel's nuclear trigger is the question of the hour. Meanwhile, Israel and the Bush administration continue trying to ignite an Iraq style Civil War in Lebanon. Hezbollah and their Christian and Muslim allies are trying to prevent one. Which side will prevail?

Ladies and gentlemen, the bell has sounded for Round Six: Israel vs. Hezbollah. The arena is holding its collective breadth. The outcome is uncertain. To date the score is Hezbollah 5, Israel 0. On the issue of a Civil War in Lebanon, place your bets please.

Franklin Lamb has been in Lebanon researching a book for the past nine months. Hezbollah: a brief Guide for Beginners in expected in early summer, 2007. He can be reached at [email protected]

0 Replies

US hawks see strikes on Iran as less likely now
Influential thinkers who backed a US-led invasion of Iraq now say containment, not confrontation, is best for Iran. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0328/p04s01-wome.html

0 Replies

Arab states unanimously approve Saudi peace plan
Saudi king calls for end to international blockade on Palestinians; EU urges Arab states to be flexible on plan.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/843076.html

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

Arab states unanimously approve Saudi peace plan
Saudi king calls for end to international blockade on Palestinians; EU urges Arab states to be flexible on plan.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/843076.html

From your link...

Quote:

Israel and the United States have not rejected the initiative but expressed reservations on such Israeli red line issues as the refugees problem

So,Israel is willing to consider it,but they have some reservations.
Do you conclude that to mean they are rejecting the proposal?

Also,from your link...

Quote:

When asked whether Hamas will accept the initiative, senior officials in the group said they reject some of its principles.

The spokesman for Hamas in the Palestinian parliament, Salah al-Bardawil, told Haaretz, "we will not agree to recognition of Israel or peace with it [as it appears in the initiative]. We have no problem with the part of the initiative that calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders and the right of refugees to return."

So Hamas,the ruling Palestinian party,AND the leading terrorist group that attacks Israel,is rejecting the parts that call for the recognition of Israel.
Tell us,who is it that is blocking the plan?

0 Replies

"A Villa in the Jungle"
An in-depth analysis of the reasons for the Catastrophe at Camp David 2
and the major roll former prime minister Ehud Barak had played
in shattering the peace process. link

0 Replies

Keep in mind that Gush Shalom is a fringe group that I think is very pro-Palestinian. Its plans are basically a joke.

The Camp David offer was very workable and generous. Assuming that it was totally unacceptable as you and others here claim, the Pals would have made counter offers, not effectively declare war as it they did.

0 Replies

Advocate, well that explains that. For you at least. Gush Shalom is a wonderful group of Israeli and Palestinian and International peace seekers. They are even handed as any legit group would have to be. Their peace plan has been around for years. And others since their's closely resemble theirs. In the end if there is a 2 state solution it wont deviate much from the original Gush Shalom idea. The current favorite endorsed by the Arab Summit and EU is the Saudi plan and it mostly follows the Gush Shalom plan. THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN is a joke as was Barak's and Clinton's plan. Compare the maps from various periods and Barak's plan was not for a dignified Palestinian state but a state completely under Israeli control. A maze that no nation would accept as a dignified offer to be taken seriously.

0 Replies

Once the Palestinian Arabs declare unequivocally that Israel has a right to exist in Palestine, rational negotiations can proceed.

But, of course, the Palestinian Arabs will never make such a declaration.

So, the Palestinian Arabs will remain in their current condition until they destroy Israel or Israel destroys them.

0 Replies

Friedman, like most others these days, seems to put the onus on GWB. I think he is rewriting history when he does so. The following is a thumbnail history of American efforts in this problem - emphasis is mine:

MYTHFACT

The European Union, Russia, and the UN all have pursued largely one-sided policies in the Middle East detrimental to Israel, which has disqualified them as honest brokers. The United States is the only country that has the trust of both the Israelis and the Arabs and is therefore the only third party that can play a constructive role in the peace process. This has led many people to call for greater involvement by the Bush Administration in negotiations. While the United States can play a valuable role as a mediator; however, history shows that American peace initiatives have never succeeded, and that it is the parties themselves who must resolve their differences.

The Eisenhower Administration tried to ease tensions by proposing the joint Arab-Israeli use of the Jordan River. The plan would have helped the Arab refugees by producing more irrigated land and would have reduced Israel's need for more water resources. Israel cautiously accepted the plan, the Arab League rejected it.

President Johnson outlined five principles for peace. "The first and greatest principle," Johnson said, "is that every nation in the area has a fundamental right to live and to have this right respected by its neighbors." The Arab response came a few weeks later: "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it...."

President Nixon's Secretary of State, William Rogers, offered a plan that sought to "balance" U.S. policy, but leaned on the Israelis to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, to accept many Palestinian refugees, and to allow Jordan a role in Jerusalem. The plan was totally unacceptable to Israel and, even though it tilted toward the Arab position, was rejected by the Arabs as well.

President Ford's Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, had a little more success in his shuttle diplomacy, arranging the disengagement of forces after the 1973 war, but he never put forward a peace plan, and failed to move the parties beyond the cessation of hostilities to the formalization of peace.

Jimmy Carter was the model for presidential engagement in the conflict. He wanted an international conference at Geneva to produce a comprehensive peace. While Carter spun his wheels trying to organize a conference, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat decided to bypass the Americans and go directly to the Israeli people and address the Knesset.

Despite revisionist history by Carter's former advisers, the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement was negotiated largely despite Carter. Menachem Begin and Sadat had carried on secret contacts long before Camp David and had reached the basis for an agreement before Carter's intervention. Carter's mediation helped seal the treaty, but Sadat's decision to go to Jerusalem was stimulated largely by his conviction that Carter's policies were misguided.

In 1982, President Reagan announced a surprise peace initiative that called for allowing the Palestinians self-rule in the territories in association with Jordan. The plan rejected both Israeli annexation and the creation of a Palestinian state. Israel denounced the plan as endangering Israeli security. The plan had been formulated largely to pacify the Arab states, which had been angered by the expulsion of the PLO from Beirut, but they also rejected the Reagan Plan.

George Bush's Administration succeeded in convening a historic regional conference in Madrid in 1991, but it ended without any agreements and the multilateral tracks that were supposed to resolve some of the more contentious issues rarely met and failed to resolve anything.

President Clinton barely had time to get his vision of peace together when he discovered the Israelis had secretly negotiated an agreement with the Palestinians in Oslo. The United States had nothing to do with the breakthrough at Oslo and very little influence on the immediate aftermath. In fact, the peace process became increasingly muddled as the United States got more involved.

Peace with Jordan also required no real American involvement. The Israelis and Jordanians already were agreed on the main terms of peace, and the main obstacle had been King Hussein's unwillingness to sign a treaty before Israel had reached an agreement with the Palestinians. After Oslo, he felt safe to move forward and no American plan was needed.

In a last ditch effort to save his presidential legacy, Clinton put forward a peace plan to establish a Palestinian state. Again, it was Prime Minister Ehud Barak's willingness to offer dramatic concessions that raised the prospects for an agreement rather than the President's initiative. Even after Clinton was prepared to give the Palestinians a state in virtually all the West Bank and Gaza, and to make east Jerusalem their capital, the Palestinians rejected the deal.

President George W. Bush also offered a plan, but it was undercut by Yasser Arafat, who obstructed the required reforms of the Palestinian Authority, and refused to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and stop the violence. Bush's plan morphed into the road map, which has failed for the same reason.

The peace process only began to move again when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made his disengagement proposal, a unilateral approach the State Department has long opposed.

The death of Arafat and the planned elections in the Palestinian Authority present new opportunities to advance the peace process. Israel is moving toward a possible coalition government that may allow for historic compromises with a visionary Palestinian leader. In addition, Egypt has been suddenly helping to build support in the Arab world for a settlement.

History has shown that Middle East peace is not made in America. Only the parties can decide to end the conflict, and the terms that will be acceptable. No American plan has ever succeeded, and it is unlikely any will ever bring peace. The end to the Arab-Israeli conflict will not be achieved through American initiatives or intense involvement; it will be possible only when Arab leaders have the courage to follow the examples of Sadat and Hussein and resolve to live in peace with Israel.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf21.html

0 Replies

Quote:

The European Union, Russia, and the UN all have pursued largely one-sided policies in the Middle East detrimental to Israel, which has disqualified them as honest brokers. The United States is the only country that has the trust of both the Israelis and the Arabs and is therefore the only third party that can play a constructive role in the peace process.

<snip>

History has shown that Middle East peace is not made in America. Only the parties can decide to end the conflict, and the terms that will be acceptable. No American plan has ever succeeded, and it is unlikely any will ever bring peace. The end to the Arab-Israeli conflict will not be achieved through American initiatives or intense involvement; it will be possible only when Arab leaders have the courage to follow the examples of Sadat and Hussein and resolve to live in peace with Israel.

So, if only the parties can decide to either end the conflict or continue fighting, and if history has indeed shown that even intense foreign involvement doesn't change a thing.... then how were the European Union, Russia, and the UN able to pursue "one-sided policies in the Middle East detrimental to Israel"? Bit of a contradiction there, eh?

0 Replies

Why should the ethnocentrically discriminatory and oppressive Zionist regime whose very existance is necessarily predicated on the discrimination and oppression of the Palestinian people be allowed to exist?

Surely, a more egalitarian and pluralistic regime would benefit all of the peoples in Israel/Palestine than the ethnocentrically motivated Zionist one that is in power right now.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know