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

What is at the heart of the Palestine-Israel conflict which continues to be unaddressed as it is pussy-footed around and plainly ignored by the powers that be is Israel's discrimination against, and oppression of the Palestinian people. All the other issues of "islamism" "totalitarianism" and what not are merely red herrings dragged across this central issue to obfuscate it and conceal its central importance.

It is a disingenuous joke that the Zionists expect further "compromises" from the Palestinian people after already having split Palestine in two for their own ethnocentrically motivated purposes with the abetment of Great Britain and the United Nations, and then having ethnically cleansed the Zionist side of most of its Arab Palestinian population, and still further continuing to systematically arrogate much of the Palestinian side to the point where the Zionists have created in effect two mega-concentration camps--the Gaza Strip and the increasingly circumscribed West Bank--within which the Zionists have contained the Palestinian people over whom they exercise complete and utter dominion.

InfraBlue, That's the nuts and bolts of the issues that continue to axacerbate the problems in Israel. Some people just refuse to see the truth about how the Palestinians are treated with no legal rights, jobs, education, water, and all the necessary human rights we would not tolerate in the US. Israel continues to steal Palestinian land, and create more settlemens for Jews. That the US (at least our government) continues to support Israel, there will never be peace in the Middle East.

Of course all that is pure garbage.

The UN created Israel, which was attacked by the Arab world from the first minute. Before Israel even set foot in the WB and Gaza, there were hundreds of attacks on Israel. In the '67 war, Israel properly took the WB and Gaza, as would any other self-respecting country constantly under attack.

It looks now that the Pals are going to wipe each other out, and, hopefully, the sewer that is the WB and Gaza will disappear.

Past actions on the part of some do not justify anarchy and loss of human and legal rights forever.

It is interesting that Fatah's extreme corruption brought Hamas into being. Unfortunately, Hamas is extremist and has all the worst aspects of fundamentalist Islam, including the persecution of women and those not conforming with their brand of Islam. The result is civil war, in which Hamas is tossing its captured enemies from roofs, ripping off everything they can, etc.

Hamas played a video of the captured Israeli soldier (a violation of the Geneva Accords), and says they will trade him for 1,000 prisoners of Israel. Quite a deal!

Fatah didn't "bring Hamas into being". True, Palestinians were disenchanted by Fatah because its leading figures seemed to be/were corrupt. They had their own interest in mind rather than the interest of the Palestinian people.

But Palestinians also were disenchanted by Fatah because it couldn't deliver on its promises. Fatah failed to establish a powerful Palestinian Authority. Fatah failed to negotiate a Right to Return. Fatah seemed to be to westernized and weak to represent Palestinian interests.

And we (the European Union, the United States and Israel) really liked that about Fatah.

So here's the question: did we really have the welfare of the Palestinian people in mind? Or did we prefer Fatah to inefficient, because it suited Western interests?

Protesters on rampage after Iran rations fuel
Protesters on rampage after Iran rations fuel
By David Blair, Diplomatic Correspondent
28/06/2007
Telegraph UK

Riots broke out in Teheran yesterday when Iran's regime stirred public anger and showed the depth of the country's economic crisis by imposing petrol rationing.

A petrol station burns during riots in Teheran after the government announced it was introducing petrol rationing to curb demand

The disturbances, which affected nine areas of the capital and saw youths set at least 12 petrol stations ablaze, disclosed the mounting unpopularity of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime.

"Ahmadinejad should be killed," chanted some of the protesters, who were denounced as "vandals" by state radio. Iran possesses the second-largest oil reserves in the world and produces 4.3 million barrels a day.

But its dilapidated refineries are incapable of producing enough petrol for domestic consumption.

At present, Iran must import at least 40 per cent of its petrol, which is sold at the heavily subsidised price of six pence per litre, a fraction of the true price of production.

advertisementThis costs the government at least £1 billion a year and leaves the economy dependent on imports at a time when Western countries are escalating the pressure over the country's nuclear programme. It is also possible that the regime might be stockpiling oil ahead of possible UN sanctions.

Rising demand could leave Iran dependent on imports for more than 50 per cent of domestic petrol consumption within a few years.

Hence Mr Ahmadinejad decided that rationing and price rises were the only ways to curb demand and help Iran to achieve self-sufficiency. Last month, the authorities increased pump prices by 25 per cent. Yesterday, they restricted motorists to buying 100 litres of petrol a month.

But the rationing system, devised by the oil minister, Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh, was imposed with only a few hours' notice.

This led to panic buying and long queues formed at petrol stations across Teheran. The heated atmosphere in these queues seems to have provided the spark for the rioting.

Gangs of youths singled out petrol stations for attack, setting at least a dozen alight.

The authorities said those responsible for "vandalism" had been arrested.


An Iranian man shows plastic bottles that are filled with petrol


There were no reports of any deaths or injuries. Gen Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam, the police chief, said that some banks had also been damaged. "The police have called out their forces to control any disorder after the implementation of rationing," he said.

Mr Ahmadinejad became president in 2005 on a pledge to help the poor and revive the economy. But since his election, inflation has risen to about 30 per cent and living standards have fallen.

The president has become increasingly unpopular, with his allies losing heavily in recent local elections.

Parliamentary polls are due next year and Mr Ahmadinejad's opponents, led by the former president, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, are discussing a new electoral alliance. If they can unite, the president's allies in parliament could face defeat.

Iran's population already exceeds 70 million and its economy has been stagnant for decades.

Every year, millions leave full-time education with little chance of finding jobs.

Mr Ahmadinejad blames Iran's poverty on a plot by Western powers.

He says the only answer is to confront America and Britain, her chief ally. But domestic critics say that economic recovery is only possible if Iran opens up to Western trade and investment.

The oil ministry says that Iran needs £6 billion of foreign investment to achieve self-sufficiency in petrol by upgrading refineries.

Reviving the entire oil and gas sector - allowing Iran to produce its full potential of 5.3 million barrels per day - would need another £46 billion. If Iran's international isolation over its nuclear programme persists, this scale of foreign investment is almost inconceivable.

Iran is in the throes of an implosion, and we should just remain onlookers while the people of Iran corrects their internal problems.

Israel model for Iraq, says Bush
US President George W Bush has appealed for people to give his strategy in Iraq a chance - holding up Israel as a model for defining success there.
He said America would like to see Iraq function as a democracy while dealing with violence - just as Israel does.

Speaking at the US Naval War College, Mr Bush said success in Iraq would not be defined by an end to attacks.

His remarks come as members of his Republican party are increasingly turning against the war in Iraq.

The US president characterised the war in Iraq as primarily against al-Qaeda forces and their use of "headline-grabbing" suicide attacks and car bombings.


The difference is that Israel is a functioning democracy and it's not prevented from carrying out its responsibilities
President Bush

He said: "Our success in Iraq must not be measured by the enemy's ability to get a car bombing in the evening news."

The terms of success set out by Mr Bush included "the rise of a government that can protect its people, deliver basic services for all its citizens and function as a democracy even amid violence".

Mr Bush suggested Israel as a standard to work towards.

Israel is an apartheid state, and Bush wants Iraq to become one too.

I have always said that Bush is the greatest friend the terrorist have.

From Juan Cole;

It seems that everything that Bush screws up everything he touches. Most of the recent past presidents worked hard to bring peace to that part of the ME. Bush seems to prefer added conflict.

It's ideology. The ideology says our military must be used to implement foreign policy.

You know what I mean; bomb Iran.

And yet,there has been no peace.

Maybe Bush has the right idea,let then fight it out among themselves,with winner take all.

Iran curses Ahmadinejad over petrol rationing
Iran curses Ahmadinejad over petrol rationing
By Colin Freeman in Teheran, Sunday Telegraph UK
01/07/2007

The petitions kiosk outside President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's home in Teheran, set up as a hotline to Iran's self-described "humblest servant", receives all kinds of requests.

Yet amid the pleas for help with debts and joblessness, and tussles with Iran's byzantine bureaucracy, there is one letter that the men at the counter particularly remember.

"A woman asked if Mr Ahmadinejad could find her a good husband," said one proudly. "It shows how popular he is - you would only request something like that if you really felt he'd become part of your family."

In this particular case, the president's office replied that it was beyond his powers - a rare admission of defeat from a leader whose personality cult rivals that of Iran's "supreme leader", Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Yet last week, two years after his election to power on a promise to help Iran's downtrodden masses, Mr Ahmadinejad, 49, finally learnt the downside of the demagogic approach - namely, that running a country of 69 million inhabitants as a one-man band involves taking blame as well as credit.

The issue was not over his notorious threats to "wipe Israel off the map", his defiance on Iran's nuclear programme, nor his puritanical desire to return to the early days of the Islamic revolution. Instead, the man who considers himself on a divine mission was floundering because of his inability to minister to one of his flock's most basic needs: petrol.

On Tuesday, a proclamation from his palace suddenly imposed a fuel ration of three litres (0.6 gallons) a day, a move designed to stockpile supplies because of fears of United Nations sanctions.

Within hours his name was being cursed, as motorists clashed with riot police at fuel stations and set garage forecourts ablaze.

"Without fuel I cannot earn," said the driver of a battered saloon car who had finally reached the head of a long queue for petrol. He was a shopkeeper who, like many residents of Teheran, supplements a meagre income by moonlighting as a cabbie. "Ahmadinejad is an ass. This is not what he promised the ordinary man."

The protests, the most open sign of discontent with Mr Ahmadinejad's rule since he took office in 2005, were accompanied by a stream of text-messaged jokes, which often serve as a vent for Iranians' suppressed frustrations. "On the orders of President Ahmadinejad," read one, "those who are short of petrol can have a ride on the 17 million donkeys who voted for him."

For a man whose key election promise was to "put the oil income on people's tables", there could scarcely be a more symbolic failure than the imposition of fuel rationing. Heavily state-subsidised, petrol normally costs less than bottled drinking water at about 1,000 rials (5p) a litre, and most Iranians regard it with a sense of entitlement.

The government, admittedly, has long threatened to introduce such measures, pointing out that such generous subsidies encourage wasteful usage and exacerbate the choking fumes on Teheran's streets. Now, however, the fuel restrictions are seen as the latest example of how hardship has grown under Mr Ahmadinejad.

The fear of UN sanctions following Iran's refusal to stop uranium enrichment means that foreign investment in the country has waned, hampering the president's ability to deliver on his pledge to slash unemployment. His response, a big, state-directed jobs and welfare programme using earnings from record oil revenues, has led to inflation soaring to 40 per cent.

Only weeks ago, 50 senior Iranian economists wrote an open letter warning that the president's policies were hurting the people he had vowed to help - the poor. It was the second such missive in a year, yet it is no surprise that it seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

Mr Ahmadinejad recently removed one of the government's main economic planning units, replacing qualified technocrats with his own acolytes. And in any case, he prefers to rely on the economic wisdom of "common men" like himself.

"We have hard-working shopkeepers in our neighbourhood from whom I get important economic information," he told Iranian newspapers recently. "For example, there is an honourable butcher in our neighbourhood who is aware of all the problems."

The Sunday Telegraph attempted to track down the traders with the presidential ear, but those near Mr Ahmadinejad's home denied that he had ever sought their counsel. Even if he had done, it is unlikely he would have liked what he heard.

"I voted for Ahmadinejad because I thought he represented a new way of doing things," said Samid Jalali, a grocer, whose cramped shop is a minute's stroll from Mr Ahmadinejad's house.

"But I am not satisfied with the way things are going. Inflation is much worse now: a tin of cooking oil has gone from $6 to $9 in just three months, for example. We have arguments every day with customers now, because they think we are just increasing the prices for ourselves."

Small wonder, then, that Mr Ahmadinejad's critics predict that his downfall may lie in the discontent of his ordinary working-class constituents, rather than the reformist efforts of Teheran's educated, pro-Western middle class. The reformists remain as fractured as they were during the last elections, and an increasing clampdown on the press, academia and student organisations seems to have further weakened them, rather than galvanised them.

Instead it is the economy that is Mr Ahmadinejad's Achilles' heel, said one Western official, not least because his highly personalised style of government means there is nobody else to take the blame.

Even his harshest critics, though, concede that Mr Ahmadinejad has tried to connect with the Iranian people in a way that few of his predecessors, reformist or hardline, have ever done. Since he came to power he has made a point of touring the country's provinces and visiting remote villages that have suffered decades of neglect.

Of more concern, critics say, is the "narcissistic" way such visits are carried out. They usually start with a speech about the Mehdi, the Shia messiah whom Mr Ahmadinejad believes will soon arrive to deliver universal justice. Yet listening to the grandiose promises that inevitably follow, some might wonder what would be left for the Mehdi to do.

"He loves to show off by asking the ordinary people what they want, and telling them he will build roads and houses," said one senior reformist.

"But it's all about him, and it often involves humiliating the provincial governors. On some occasions he has told a crowd of people, 'I will twist this governor's ear for you,' while the governor is sitting there. How is the governor supposed to maintain his authority after that?"

Opponents are pinning their hopes on Mr Ahmadinejad being unable to satisfy his growing legion of supplicants, most of whom, they claim, get nothing more than one of five standard response letters when they send in a petition. "Soon there will be disappointment, because little of what people ask of him will materialise," predicted Abdullah Momeni, another leading reformist.

That, however, may not stop Mr Ahmadinejad spending billions of pounds in the attempt. He now has an extremely ambitious plan to create up to a million jobs in Iran's under-developed rural east, by building a vast network of steel, cement, and petrochemicals factories - despite the fact that some of the planned steelworks will be more than 200 miles from the nearest iron mines.

The scheme has been condemned as "Stalinist" by Mr Ahmadinejad's critics, who say it will squander state oil riches on plants that will eventually be left to rust away.

Yet for the president's diehard faithful, only when Islamo-communism's first five-year plan is complete will his own judgment day truly come. Even then, in keeping with all hardline ideologues, they are likely to insist that failure is not the fault of the revolution itself, but of its enemies.

"Ahmadinejad is number one," said Mohammed Reza, a member of the Basiji religious militia, which provides the bedrock of his support. "But we can only evaluate him once his work is done - and right now there are many people standing in his way."

The solution is obvious.

The Israelis should daily kill a suitable number of Israelis selected at random until all the Israelis have either fled Palestine or are killed.

Or, the non-Israeli palestinian arabs should daily kill a suitable number of non-Israeli palestinian arabs selected at random until all the non-Israeli palestinian arabs have either fled Palestine or are killed.

Or, both.

Who said ican is a *nut?


*=off his rocker.

No nuttier than the malarkey you post.

ican: The Israelis should daily kill a suitable number of Israelis selected at random until all the Israelis have either fled Palestine or are killed.

Or, the non-Israeli palestinian arabs should daily kill a suitable number of non-Israeli palestinian arabs selected at random until all the non-Israeli palestinian arabs have either fled Palestine or are killed.

Or, both.


I rest my case.

On what?

I "double" rest my case.