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

georgeob1 wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

You're right. Actually it's stupid malarkey.

If that is an indicator of your desire for, and willingness to tolerate, rational discourse, then why should I respond at all?

That is not an indicator of my desire for, and willingness to tolerate, rational discourse. Rather it is an indicator of my opposition to, and unwillingness to tolerate, irrational discourse.

So if you desire , and are willing to tolerate, rational discourse, please proceed to answer my question about Lebanon.

I don't think you should bother, O'George. Ican't is either unwilling, or, more likely, unable to make subtle distinctions with regard to the players in the middle east.

The current example is a wonderful case in point. The Lebanese army has been shelling refugee camps to get at Fatah-al-islam. Fatah-al-islam, is a Sunni Muslim group, and could not possibly survive without outside support. I don't know that Ican't has made this claim, but they have no relationship with the Fatah party among the Palestinians, which avows itself to be secular. The Sunnis represent about a quarter of the population--they are outnumbered by the Shi'ites. Hezbollah claims to represent the Shi'ites of the Lebanon. Fatah-al-islam claims to represent the Sunnis of the Lebanon, but it was only formed late last year, and is widely considered to be funded by Saudi extremists. It is doubtful that they represent even a fringe element among Lebanese Sunnis.

But to Ican't, they are all Muslim murderers, terrorists. How could you possibly expect to have a rational discussion with someone who cannot even distinguish the players in the ugly game being played out in the Lebanon?

The current example is a wonderful case in point. The Lebanese army has been shelling refugee camps to get at Fatah-al-islam. Fatah-al-islam, is a Sunni Muslim group, and could not possibly survive without outside support. I don't know that Ican't has made this claim, but they have no relationship with the Fatah party among the Palestinians, which avows itself to be secular. The Sunnis represent about a quarter of the population--they are outnumbered by the Shi'ites. Hezbollah claims to represent the Shi'ites of the Lebanon. Fatah-al-islam claims to represent the Sunnis of the Lebanon, but it was only formed late last year, and is widely considered to be funded by Saudi extremists. It is doubtful that they represent even a fringe element among Lebanese Sunnis.

But to Ican't, they are all Muslim murderers, terrorists. How could you possibly expect to have a rational discussion with someone who cannot even distinguish the players in the ugly game being played out in the Lebanon?

I note your useage of "The Lebanon". I have, of course encountered it many times, mostly in historical commentary and that mostly by Europeans (along with phrases like 'the Levant'). Where does it come from? What is its origin?

You reminded me that we all sometimes thoughtlessly expect a Moslem world, that stretches from North and West Africa, through the Middle East and on to Central and South Asia, to somehow be monolithic and uniform.

OE wonders why the Arabs on the WB tolerate the Jews there. They do not tolerate the Jews, but shoot and stone them whenever possible. The Jewish settlements must be closely guarded, and the Jews have to sometimes retaliate against the Pals or their property.

Israel expands West Bank settlements

Aerial photos reveal extent of land grab, say peace groups

Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Tuesday July 27, 2004
The Guardian

Months after Ariel Sharon announced his dramatic plan to pull Jewish settlers out of Gaza, portraying it as a sacrifice for peace, the government is grabbing more land for West Bank settlements.
Israeli peace groups and Palestinian officials say thousands of homes are under construction in the main settlements, in addition to an expansion of Jewish outposts that are illegal under Israeli law. Mr Sharon has promised the US he will dismantle the outposts, which are usually clusters of containers or trailer homes serviced by government-built roads, but has failed to do so.

One Israeli group, Settlement Watch, says in the three months to May, West Bank settlements expanded by 26 hectares (65 acres).The government has approved construction of thousands more homes in the three main settlement blocs on the West Bank, encouraged by an apparent endorsement by George Bush for their eventual annexation.

In a letter to Mr Sharon, Mr Bush praised the Gaza pullout and agreed that "in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centres", it was unrealistic to expect a full return to the 1967 borders.

Dror Etkes, head of Settlement Watch, said that the expansion of Jewish outposts and continuing house building since Mr Sharon announced his plan in December was evidence that the government was seeking more territory.

"The government is trying to push the boundaries of the settlements as much as possible before they are frozen," he said. "The new rule of the game we have seen in past weeks is the diameter of permitted construction area in the West Bank has grown. The purpose is to expand as fast as possible because of negotiations with the US to limit future construction to areas already under construction."

American officials have been appointed to agree limits to settlement expansion in order, Washington says, to preserve land for a future Palestinian state. Mr Sharon is pressing the US to allow building to continue in areas already under construction, to cater for the "natural growth" in families.

But Settlement Watch says aerial photographs reveal that in some settlements, construction has begun on the outer limits of the municipal boundaries, often some distance from the settlement. It believes the government will claim the right to build on the intervening territory or use the outposts to link settlements.

The pictures show new houses, roads and other infrastructure around about 12 of the 90 or more outposts, sometimes linking them to established colonies.

Last week Ephraim Sneh, an opposition Labour party MP, presented photographs of the outposts and infrastructure expansion to his party's caucus in parliament.

"In blunt violation of the promise to the US president, the government doesn't dismantle the illegal outposts. With government money they are expanded, asphalt roads are paved - all the necessary preparations to turn them into permanent settlements," he told the Guardian.

"It casts a shadow on the real intent of Sharon's disengagement plan. The disengagement may be just a cover for the real intention of the prime minister to deepen and solidify the Israeli hold in the West Bank." He added that the expansion was possible only with official cooperation. "It can't be done without government encouragement and financing," he said. In May, the state comptroller said Israel's housing ministry had illegally funnelled about £3.8m to fund unauthorised settlement expansion, half of it to the illegal outposts.

Incentives
Last month, the defence and finance ministries authorised a £37m budget to fortify settlements outside the steel and concrete barrier Israel is building through the West Bank. Last week, it was revealed that dozens of prefabricated homes which the government had authorised for established settlements were sent to the outposts.

"This is a well-placed deal cut between the settlers in the area and the ministry of defence," said Mr Etkes. "If they're dismantling at times there is the immediate intensification of construction of another outpost in the area."

The government is offering additional incentives to persuade Israelis to move to empty housing on the settlements and newly arrived Jews frequently find themselves placed there. But concrete and asphalt are more important than people in staking Israel's claim to the West Bank.

Last month, Shaul Mofaz, the defence minister, told the civil administration in the West Bank - which is under military control - to draw up plans for rapid expansion of the Etzion settlement bloc near Bethlehem. In recent weeks, the government has approved expansion of Efrat, part of Etzion bloc, which is also expanding into what was the Palestinian village of Walaja.

"The land was taken by the Jewish National Fund," said Jeff Halper, a veteran Israeli campaigner against settlement expansion. "Almost every house has a demolition order."

Mr Mofaz also reassured settlers' leaders of continued expansion of the other two main blocs in the West Bank, Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim, which already eat into Palestinian territory.

Mr Halper said that the government planned to more than double the size of Ma'ale Adumim, east of Jerusalem, to provide homes for about 70,000 people.

Ehud Olmert, Israel's deputy prime minister, who rarely makes policy statements without Mr Sharon's approval, recently said that Jewish West Jerusalem must grow to Ma'ale Adumim.

The Israelis are also looking further east to Mitzpe Jericho, which is home to about 1,500 people. Giant billboards picturing clusters of blocks of flats mark the limits of the municipality several miles from the existing housing.

"The government plans to link Jerusalem to Ma'ale Adumim and Ma'ale Adumim to Mitzpe Jericho. Eventually it will all fall under the Jerusalem municipality. Jerusalem is being transformed from a city into a region," said Mr Halper.

Mr Sharon's spokesman, Raanan Gissin, denied West Bank settlements were being expanded, saying that construction remains within the existing boundaries.

"Anything that is illegal will be removed as the prime minister has promised the Americans," he said of the outposts.

Critics say the argument about boundaries is part of the deception because the government has drawn them beyond the settlements in order to allow for considerable expansion. Settlement Watch says the government's lack of sincerity can be seen in its failure to provide a full list of illegal outposts to the US. The government admits to only 28 outposts. Settlement Watch says there are 91, of which 51 were established after Mr Sharon came to power and therefore should have been removed under an agreement with the US.

"We haven't seen our land since January last year," says Abdul Ra'uf Khalid, sitting in his home in the Palestinian village of Jayyus. The Khalid family's 5.5 acres lie on the Israeli side of the separation barrier, which in Jayyus consists of a tall electric fence winding its way across the hilly, rural terrain. The Khalids have greenhouses, and olive, citrus and fruit trees, on the land but aren't allowed to cross the divide to tend them. "The apricots and peaches are falling from the trees and rotting," says Abdul's wife, Itaf. Stuck here, restless and unable to work, the Khalids appear to be deteriorating in similar fashion.

Along much of the West Bank's border with Israel a similar story is unfolding. It is a story of land, livelihood and a way of life lost to Israel's rising barrier, known as the "security" or "separation fence" by its supporters and the "apartheid wall" by its opponents. In June 2002, the Israeli government approved the building of the first stage of a physical barrier separating the Jewish state from the West Bank. In July 2004, the International Courts of Justice deemed the wall illegal and called for its removal. Now, the wall -- built from various combinations of concrete, razor wire and electric fencing -- is 51 percent complete, and construction of the rest continues apace.

Israel says the barrier has succeeded in preventing terror attacks, the stated aim for its construction. But opponents charge that Israel is using it to steal land and develop desirable real estate for its own citizens. They also charge that the barrier is depriving whole groups of Palestinians of their human rights -- including the freedom of movement and goods, access to work, educational and social opportunities, and other basics of daily life stopped cold by the concrete and wire and heavily fortified checkpoints. Yet, despite international censure and defiant protests on the ground, analysts agree that the barrier will almost certainly be built to completion.

It's a similar story in Jayyus, where 72 percent of the village's land currently lies on the wrong side of the barrier. A village of about 3,500, Jayyus is dependent on agriculture. Here, as in other rural areas, there are access gates along the barrier to allow Palestinian farmers through to their land on the other side. Unlike most other areas, the farmers gate at Jayyus is, according to observers, open all day. One of the soldiers guarding it when I visited described it as a "humanitarian gate." He added: "It's our job to help the civilians here."

But to pass through the gate, farmers need a permit, and they face daunting regulations. Each farmer has to prove the land belongs to him personally, and not his father or grandfather -- and with Israeli-approved documentation. More often than not, it is an impossible task. And where permits are allocated, it is usually on the basis of one per household, for land that requires several hands to work it. In many cases, the permit allocation process comes across as bizarre or just plain bungled. "At first, they gave 3-month-old babies, old grandmothers and dead people permits," said Showqat Samha, the mayor of Jayyus. And there's a legal factor that adds another dimension: If not cultivated for three years, land that is not registered as privately owned -- as is the case in much of the West Bank -- can be declared property of the Israeli state.

As we arrived in the village of Al Funduq, central West bank, the aftermath of the first house demolition was evident. A family stood on a pile of rubble silenced and shocked. The second house demolition was just beginning, with the Caterpillar and Volvo bulldozers ripping into the top floor of the nearly completed house. As we approached four Palestinian men ran forward from behind the line of soldiers and entered their house. I was deeply moved by their courage. The soldiers grabbed the men out of the house, holding one in a tight neck lock, and handcuffed two of them throughout the demolition. Within an hour the future home was nothing but a pile of rubble. The family was powerless in this situation, and could only watch as years of labour and money was obliterated by the Israeli army. Caterpillar and Volvo are profiting from this family's grief.

The bulldozers turned around and headed off in the direction of the village. By this time we were joined by five more internationals. We walked ahead so as to be able to get to the site of the third demolition before the bulldozers arrived. Not surprisingly the Israeli army was already surrounding the building. It was a big agricultural structure, where livestock lived. Money had clearly been invested and no doubt many mouths were dependent on the income. One end of the building was already under demolition as I helped the family salvage a few things.

The reason for any of this? A brutal, racist illegal Occupation.

If you want the reason according to the Israeli army, Palestinians dared to build on their own land, in their own village without the permission of Israel.

The virtual impossibility of getting building permits is another story all together.

I note your useage of "The Lebanon". I have, of course encountered it many times, mostly in historical commentary and that mostly by Europeans (along with phrases like 'the Levant'). Where does it come from? What is its origin?

In the late 12th century, there was a modest man born in Andalusia named Ibn Kaldun. (He is not to be confused with the much more well-known Tunisian Muslim, Ibn Khaldun.) Very early in the 13th century, his last living relative died in Cairo, and as he had nothing to hold him in Andalusia (modern Spain), .....

x, the Pals attacked Israel and Jews long before Israel so much as set foot in the WB and Gaza, and they have been unremitting ever since. Again, Israel will retaliate and make defensive moves, which is its right.

Nothing obliges me to answer such an idiotic question. To answer it would be to acquiesce in your definitions, and i consider them dull-witted and unwarranted.

x gives us a lot of one-sided blog posts, which probably come from the Pals.

Israelis have every right to set up settlements, which did not displace Arabs. The settlements were established on untitled land. Palestine is not a legal entity, and Israelis may settle there. Moreover, the area constituted a prize of war, forfeited by the Pals when they attacked Israel (something still going on). As for seizing land for security purposes, this had to be done because of the unremitting attacks by the Pals.

Saying this, it does not mean that the actions by the Israelis will prove to be practical.