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

Advocate, It's not any surprise you fail to understand the real content of that piece.

The idiotic versus the inane.

In the Blue corner is the Israeli Apologist. Anything and everything Israel does is not only rationalized, it is righteous.

In the Red corner is the Palestinian Apologist. Murderous terrorism is acceptable because the poor sods have, through mismanagement and corruption, rendered themselves pathetic and weak. Israel, as a superior force, is, by nature, evil.

Notwithstanding all of the hand-wringing, the world is ruled by the powerful, AND SO IT SHOULD BE!

Israel's great mistake was to whip Arabian butt. When it was the underdog, the Libs loved it. Now that it has"the power" the Libs, perforce, must denigrate it.

How did a political force predicated upon fundamental weakness rise to power?

It makes one long for the natural enemies of Man.

It seems to me that most libs are taking the Palestinian side on almost all issues. Libs have a propensity to put reason aside to favor the underdog.

Advocate, Read and digest your own words. They have a meaning far beyond your own interpretation.

No worry as Iran is doing enrichment under IAEA supervision: ElBaradei

RIYADH (Reuters) -- The head of the UN atomic watchdog said on Thursday that Iran was still at the starting stage of creating a uranium enrichment plant and that concerns stemmed more from its motivations than the scale of production.
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=4/15/2007&Cat=2&Num=016

It looked rather accurate to me. Could you please be more specific in your critique?



You are really stuck on this point aren't you? Unfotunately the facts are not with you. The Six Day War started with suprise simultaneous Israeli Attacks on Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. This is well documented in history, including the personal accounts of several of the Israeli leaders themselves.

Israel has an unusual and peculiar way of seizing provinces as war prizes -- they take the land and drive out the people - or systematically isolate them in ever smaller compounds. In the modern world this is considered to be a crime against humanity.

First, in 1947 the UN resolved that Palestine land be divided into specific Palestinian Arab state land and specific Palestinian Jew state land.

Second, in 1948 Israel declared its independence in the specific Palestinian Jew state land.

Third, in 1948 neighboring countries attacked Israel, were ferociously defeated, and Israel added some conquered Palestinian land to the state of Israel.

Fourth, from 1948 to 1967, Israel was repeatedly attacked and repeatedly conquered more land in Palestine.

Fifth, from 1966 to 1967 troops were increasingly being massed on Israel's Syrian, Jordanian, and Egyptian borders.

Sixth, in 1967 there was a plea by a frightened Israeli government to the Syrian, Jordanian, and Egyptian governments to terminate their massing of troops on Israel's borders, but Israel's plea was ignored.

Seventh, in 1967 there were "suprise simultaneous Israeli Attacks on Syria, Jordan, and Egypt" by an Israeli government desperate to terminate that massing of troops on its borders.

Eighth, in 1967 in a six war those simultaneous surprise attacks by Israel terminated that massing of troops on its borders by rapidly defeating those massed troops.

Ninth, Israel in negotiated, mutual non-aggression peace agreements with the Jordanian and Egyptian governments, returned to Jordan and Egypt their lands that Israel had conquered in its six day war.

Tenth, ever since 1967, Israel has been trying to negotiate mutual non-aggression peace agreements with others in exchange for returning lands it conquered in 1967.

Eleventh, Israel subsequently, voluntarily returned some more of the lands it conquered in 1967 in the hope of eventually convincing the others attacking them to also make non-aggression peace treaties with Israel.

Twelfth, Israel has brutally retaliated against those persons it suspected of making war on Israel, as well as against those persons it suspected of supporting those it suspected of making war on Israel.

Thirteenth, in 2007 Israel stopped its attempts to trade land it conquered in 1967 for non-agression peace treaties.



Some argue that Israel should have been less fearful and more tolerant of those troops massed on its borders back in 1967, and waited until an invasion by those troops had actually occurred, before attacking them.

Others argue that Israel should not have attacked in any case, but should have negotiated before, when, or while, or even after being attacked.

Still others argue, that the governments that massed troops on Israel's borders should have been less fearful and more tolerant of Israel, and should have understood that massing their troops on Israel's borders would be interpreted by Israel as precursors of attacks on Israel.

Still others argue that the Israeli government is intolerant and mean because America protects it.

Still others argue Israel is hysterical.

Still others argue that the enemies of Israel are hysterical.

I argue that Israel's enemies ought to negotiate non-aggression peace treaties with Israel, lest they eventually come to be totally annihilated by a future, completely hysterical Israeli government.

There are a number of errors in your enumerated historical summary. Firstly, Israel has signed only one land for peace agreement, and that with Egypt. It has been a great success so far and the countries maintain normal relationships, despite all the strains placed on it by Palestinian resistance and Israeli repression This agreement came only after Anwer Satat's breakthrough gestures and intense pressure by the U.S. Government, then under president Carter. I'm sure both Sadat and Carter hoped that Israel would take the next step in some breakthrough moves in the occupied territories. Unfortunately none ever came -- indeed the pace of construction of Israeli settlements on the West Bank increased markedly.

I think your rambling summary at the end ignores the precariousness of Israel's present position. It is surrounded by hostile nations, each with higher birth rates than Israel, and there seem to be no more sources of large scale external Jewish immigration. In the occupied territories Israel has created the conditions for a conflict that could last for centuries --- it truly has a tiger by the tail and I can see no way for it to escape the contradictions of a continuous need for military intervention, retaliation, and all the bad side effects they bring, including the renewed hostility of other Arab countries, and the contempt of much of the world. The Palestinian resistance shows no signs of exhaustion - on the contrary, it has proven able to survive whatever Israel dishes out and emerge stronger for it.

Israel has very few friends in the world, apart from the United States, and I believe public attitudes here are changing very fast with respect to our relationship. Its last other major ally, South Africa, departed the scene after the fall of the Apartheidt government there. In many way Israel is a friendless, almost pariah state.

And the only reason Israel continues to flex its muscle is their puppets in Washington allows them to.

Since many of you seem to think Israel is the cause of all the problems in the middle east,would you advocate the total destruction of Israel?
Wouldnt that be the best way to solve the problem?

I have not observed anyone here expressing anything like the analysis you offered. Perhaps you should read the posts more carefully.

It appears to me that, lacking any sound counter argument, you are merely hiding behind an extreme position that no one here took.

I didnt say that anyone took that position.
I am asking if that would be a viable way to solve the problems that Israel is supposedly causing in the ME.

mm doesn't understand the concept of "inference."

"...best way to solve the problem?" This guys a total joke.

And you apparently dont understand the concept of a question.

I didnt infer or suggest or state that anyone took that position.
If I thought someone had,I would have said so.

I am simply asking if eliminating Israel would solve the problems in the ME.
After all,many of you seem to think that they are the cause of most if not all of the problems in the ME.

If you dont think so,then you should be able to say so.
If you do think so,you shouldnt be afraid to say so.

Where does the Conservative tendency to suggest that the solution to the problem is in fact to do the exact opposite of whatever is causing a problem, come from, exactly?

Cycloptichorn

The Jordan/Israel peace treaty wasn't exactly a 'land for peace' deal, but it was bought and paid for by the USA as was the Egypt/Israel peace treaty according to some historical versions, but I'm not sure that is verifiable.

The Rabin/Arafat agreement later on is also worth looking at.

As for Egypt and Israel relationships, ME expert, Daniel Pipes, is not as impressed as some:

Rethinking the Egypt-Israel "Peace" Treaty
By Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 22, 2006

Ninety-two percent of respondents in a recent poll of one thousand Egyptians over 18 years of age called Israel an enemy state. In contrast, a meager 2% saw Israel as "a friend to Egypt."

These hostile sentiments express themselves in many ways, including a popular song titled "I Hate Israel," venomously antisemitic political cartoons, bizarre conspiracy theories, and terrorist attacks against visiting Israelis. Egypt's leading democracy movement, Kifaya, recently launched an initiative to collect a million signatures on a petition demanding the annulment of the March 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty.

Also, the Egyptian government has permitted large quantities of weapons to be smuggled into Gaza to use against Israeli border towns. Yuval Steinitz, an Israeli legislator specializing in Egypt-Israel relations, estimates that fully 90% of PLO and Hamas explosives come from Egypt.

Cairo may have no apparent enemies, but the impoverished Egyptian state sinks massive resources into a military buildup. According to the Congressional Research Service, it purchased $6.5 billion worth of foreign weapons in the years 2001-04, more than any other state in the Middle East. In contrast, the Israel government bought only $4.4 billion worth during that period and the Saudi one $3.8 billion.

Egypt ranked as the third largest purchaser of arms in the entire developing world, following only population giants China and India. It has the tenth largest standing army in the world, well over twice the size of Israel's.

This long, ugly record of hostility exists despite a peace treaty with Israel, hailed at the time by both Egypt's president Anwar El-Sadat and Israel's prime minister Menachem Begin as a "historic turning point." U.S. president Jimmy Carter hoped it would begin a new era when "violence no longer dominates the Middle East." I too shared in this enthusiasm.

With the benefit of retrospect, however, we see that the treaty did palpable harm in at least two ways. First, it opened the American arsenal and provided American funding to purchase the latest in weaponry. As a result, for the first time in the Arab-Israeli conflict, an Arab armed force may have reached parity with its Israeli counterpart.

Second, it spurred anti-Zionism. I lived for nearly three years in Egypt in the 1970s, before Sadat's dramatic trip to Jerusalem in late 1977, and I recall the relatively low interest in Israel at that time. Israel was plastered all over the news but it hardly figured in conversations. Egyptians seemed happy to delegate this issue to their government. Only after the treaty, which many Egyptians saw as a betrayal, did they themselves take direct interest. The result was the emergence of a more personal, intense, and bitter form of anti-Zionism.

The same pattern was replicated in Jordan, where the 1994 treaty with Israel soured popular attitudes. To a lesser extent, the 1993 Palestinian accords and even the aborted 1983 Lebanon treaty prompted similar responses. In all four of these cases, diplomatic agreements prompted a surge in hostility toward Israel.

Defenders of the "peace process" answer that, however hostile Egyptians' attitudes and however large their arsenal, the treaty has held; Cairo has in fact not made war on Israel since 1979. However frigid the peace, peace it has been.

To which I reply: if the mere absence of active warfare counts as peace, then peace has also prevailed between Syria and Israel for decades, despite their formal state of war. Damascus lacks a treaty with Jerusalem, but it also lacks modern American weaponry. Does an antique signature on a piece of paper offset Egypt's Abrams tanks, F-16 fighter jets, and Apache attack helicopters?

I think not. In retrospect, it becomes apparent that multiple fallacies and wishful predictions fueled Arab-Israeli diplomacy:

· Once signed, agreements signed by unelected Arab leaders would convince the masses to give up their ambitions to eliminate Israel.

· These agreements would be permanent, with no backsliding, much less duplicity.

· Other Arab states would inevitably follow suit.

· War can be concluded through negotiations rather than by one side giving up.

The time has come to recognize the Egypt-Israel treaty - usually portrayed as the glory and ornament of Arab-Israel diplomacy - as the failure it has been, and to draw the appropriate lessons in order not to repeat its mistakes.

SOURCE

Pipes, like his father, is an historian by trade, though he has become a rather anti Arab & pro Zionist protagonist over the past decade.

His analysis and conclusions here, however, are not those of an historian, but rather of a rather ordinary Israeli apologist. He stops far short of any meaningful analysis of the situation. For example. despite the Egyptian government's rather scrupulous observance of the treaty with Israel, why has no true spirit of friendship arisen between the two peoples? Pipes notes this question, but inexplocably fails to address it in any way. First it should be noted that the failure is reciprocal -- there is no more love lost among Israelis for Egyptians, than among Egyptians for Israelis. In effect Pipes asserts that because Egyptians appear not to like Israelis or their country, the Peace with Egypt is a failure. (Gosh, could there be any other possibilities?)

The unstated central thesis here is obvious. The Moslem peoples of the Middle East are so filled with hate for Israel that no attempt to establish normal living arrangements with them will ever find success. The inevitable next application of this idea is that no attempt to seek an accomodation with the Palestinian people of the occupied West Bank can ever succeed. Therefore Israel might just as well continue building settlements in the West Bank; continue the process of squeezing the non Jewish population into ever smaller and more isolated and economically ineffective cantonments -- and all with no political voice in the governance of their lives whatever.

It is all a very tidy and compact argument for absolving Israel for any responsibility for the disastrous plundering, oppression, and misrule the Israelis have inflicted on the people of the West Bank for the last forty years. Indeed it is a key component to the Zionist illusion we have so readily embraced. In essence that illusion supposes in various forms that (1) there were no previous inhabitants of the land now called Israel; (2) even if one if forced to conceded this is a lie, then they had no real historical rights to the land; (3) even if one is forced to concede that this too is a lie, then they are such fanatic disagreeable people that the norms of modern law and national behavior do not apply to them.

In one form or another the American people have been fed a rather steady diet of this stuff by Israeli apologists in the Media and various political fora for many years. Pipes has provided us yet another dose.

I can think of several reasons to explain Israel's lack of friends - in the Mideast, in Europe, indeed throughout the world. However. the futility of peace treaties with her is not among those that come quickly to mind.

Ican, Fox, thanks for he great posts. They back up what I have been saying. George is having a tough time with the truth, and with retracting his false statements.