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

Walter Hinteler wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
You think Jimmy Carter's judgment credible?

Why do you guess such? That are his quotes - and not only reported by the BBC, if you think they're biased.

ican711nm wrote:
I sure don't. I think he was the worst president America ever had.

That wasn't the topic at the annual literary Hay Festival in Wales as far as I know. Nor did the report discuss such.

After Olmert included Israel among a list of nuclear states in comments in December 2006 we now got the confirmation of such by a former US president.

ican is one of the kings of strawman statements on a2k. What one says has nothing to do with the person's past position; rather, truth or falsity of the statement made must be backed up by evidence and "other" reliable sources. Something ican will never learn to do.

0 Replies

It is a fact that the religion of a group of Palestinian Arab gangsters has led them to be dedicated to both the extermination of the state of Israel in Palestine and the establishment of their own Arab state in all of Palestinian.

It is also a fact that the governors of Israel are dedicated to the survival of the state of Israel in Palestine, and are not opposed to the survival of an Arab state in part of Palestine that chooses to peacefully coexist with Israel.

Further, it is also a fact that neither the Arabs in Palestine nor the Jews in Palestine prior to the 1947 UN two state resolution for Palestine, possessed a legitimate claim to rule all of Palestine.

0 Replies

Quote:

It is also a fact that the governors of Israel are dedicated to the survival of the state of Israel in Palestine, and are not opposed to the survival of an Arab state in part of Palestine that chooses to peacefully coexist with Israel.

Sure, they support Palestine being a sovereign state, as long as they have no contiguous borders, no military, no access to shipping rights, no access to fresh water, limited access to their holy sites, and precious few material resources.

Which is to say, they don't really support the Arab state of Palestine at all.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

oh good. Cyc has not lost his ability to hyperbolize, criticize and dramatize.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

oh good. Cyc has not lost his ability to hyperbolize, criticize and dramatize.

It should be a trivial matter for you to point out which of the things I listed aren't, in fact, true.

For to the best of my knowledge, Israel prevents Palestine from having all of those things; things which every other country in the world enjoys to one degree or another, and things which are necessary for a country to remain stable and peaceful.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

It should be equally trivial to show how the things you have pointed out are, in fact, true.

Palestinians prevent Palestine from having all those things. Things which they would enjoy to one degree or another if they had a stable and peaceful country.

Instead, they take their orders from terrorists and refuse to accept the fact that Israel is not going anywhere. As long as terrorism from the Palestinian side of the border continues, Israel is under no obligation to provide the things you have listed. So, it is not Israel preventing Palestine from becoming a sovereign nation, but the Palestinian people who provide for and perpetuate the terrorism in the region.

But, I am sure you sympathize with the innocent Palestinians and their cause against the evil jews.

0 Replies

McG just doesn't understand the meaning of "democracy" or "freedom" just as long as it doesn't apply to the Jews.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

It should be equally trivial to show how the things you have pointed out are, in fact, true.

Palestinians prevent Palestine from having all those things. Things which they would enjoy to one degree or another if they had a stable and peaceful country.

Instead, they take their orders from terrorists and refuse to accept the fact that Israel is not going anywhere. As long as terrorism from the Palestinian side of the border continues, Israel is under no obligation to provide the things you have listed. So, it is not Israel preventing Palestine from becoming a sovereign nation, but the Palestinian people who provide for and perpetuate the terrorism in the region.

But, I am sure you sympathize with the innocent Palestinians and their cause against the evil jews.

Bull. It's ridiculous to blame Palestine - a comparatively broke and unarmed country - for the oppression shown to them by the Israelis. It's a two-way street; both countries are responsible.

The Palestinians, however, have zero power to make any of those things I mentioned happen. Israel could make them happen any time they choose, but they do not, for there are elements of their society who wish to purge the Palestinians from the land completely.

No access to water - http://www.fmep.org/analysis/articles/water_policy_maher.html

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2002/02/26/blood/

No contiguous borders - http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sais_review/v026/26.1raviv.html

No military -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/06/israel

That was pretty easy, actually

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Palestinians, however, have zero power to make any of those things I mentioned happen. Israel could make them happen any time they choose, but they do not, for there are elements of their society who wish to purge the Palestinians from the land completely.

Equally, there are elements in Palestinian society who wish to purge the Israeli's from the land completely. Until one side or the other wins, or they both give, there will not be peace and the Palestinians will continue to suffer. As you said, they have no power to make the changes themselves so they should pursue peace instead of war.

Imagine the world pressure Israel would have to endure if the Palestinians stopped waging a terror campaign against Israel. Though I doubt it happens as it is, in reality, a proxy campaign from Iran and other Arab nations opposed to the very existance of Israel.

0 Replies

It is a fact that the religion of a group of Palestinian Arab gangsters has led them to be dedicated to both the extermination of the state of Israel in Palestine and the establishment of their own Arab state in all of Palestinian.

It is also a fact that the governors of Israel are dedicated to the survival of the state of Israel in Palestine, and are not opposed to the survival of an Arab state in part of Palestine that chooses to peacefully coexist with Israel.

Further, it is also a fact that neither the Arabs in Palestine nor the Jews in Palestine prior to the 1947 UN two-state resolution for Palestine, possessed a legitimate claim to rule all of Palestine.

0 Replies

A solution to part of the Israeli/ Palestine problem has been suggested here:

Only one side gets to decide where the security barrier will be erected, then the other gets to decide which side it wants to live on.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

A solution to part of the Israeli/ Palestine problem has been suggested here:

Only one side gets to decide where the security barrier will be erected, then the other gets to decide which side it wants to live on.

Neither the Israelis or Palestinian Arabs would agree to that. The Palestinian Arabs already demand that the security barrier to be erected off shore in the Mediterranean Sea AND demand to live on the east side all the way to the Jordan River. Whereas, the Israelis want no less than what the UN recommended they have. Hell, they wouldn't even agree which one of the two choices either gets to pick first.

0 Replies

Quote:

The Mideast Won't Change from Within
By MOHAMMED FADHIL
May 31, 2008; Page A9 Wall Street Journal

The Middle East has witnessed dramatic changes over the past few years, including the adoption in some countries - Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories - of the democratic system as the means for the transfer of political power. Though all of these countries are still troubled, the huge turnouts in all three electoral processes were clear evidence of the willingness of their peoples to switch to ballots over bullets.

Unfortunately, some Arab intellectuals seem bent on rejecting democracy as a foreign - in particular, Western - concept. I recall before Saddam's fall that many were repeating a slogan that says "No America and No Saddam," which ostensibly aimed at touting a nationalistic project for change. Today the same slogans are reiterated; sometimes out of good will and naïveté, other times to support the totalitarians and the extremists. People keep saying that if both Iran and the U.S. had stayed out of our business we would have been able to solve our problems on our own.

In my opinion this fantasy about change in isolation from foreign influence is ridiculous. The Middle East is not like Eastern Europe - where the countries that underwent a change were surrounded by old and well-established democracies and the Soviet Union was falling apart. Had the latter factor not been the case, democracies in Eastern Europe would've been silenced for God knows how many more decades.

Similarly, it's naïve to expect democracies that emerge from isolated nationalistic initiatives, without backing from outside powers, would ever be welcomed by the neighbors in Saudi Arabia, Iran or Syria. The idea that these states wouldn't interfere if America and the West did not is laughable.

Just look at Syrian and Iranian interference in Lebanon, even though America did not lead the change the way it did in Iraq. And while Gaza and Beirut have fallen to the extremists, Baghdad has not. The reason is the American presence that continues to protect the democratic process.

Change with support from the outside, especially the West, is a necessity. First of all, the neighbors would not let these democracies take a breath and second, democracy is a concept that emerged and evolved in the West. For the Middle East it's like importing a medicine that we didn't manufacture. The usage and dosage instructions are necessary.

Toppling Saddam's regime was half the way to democracy, and now it's become clear that protecting the newborn democracy is just as crucial a job as overthrowing the dictator. There's absolutely no doubt that the American presence in Iraq has been the biggest factor in protecting Iraq from coup attempts by extremists - be it al Qaeda to declare an Islamic state, or the hard-line Shiite movements.

It is obvious that in the Middle East there's a real war raging between the supporters of extremism and totalitarianism and those of democracy and tolerance. The choice before the world is whether it will support one side by doing something, or the other by doing nothing.
Mr. Fadhil co-writes a blog, IraqtheModel.com.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

McTag wrote:
A solution to part of the Israeli/ Palestine problem has been suggested here:

Only one side gets to decide where the security barrier will be erected, then the other gets to decide which side it wants to live on.

Neither the Israelis or Palestinian Arabs would agree to that. The Palestinian Arabs already demand that the security barrier to be erected off shore in the Mediterranean Sea AND demand to live on the east side all the way to the Jordan River. Whereas, the Israelis want no less than what the UN recommended they have. Hell, they wouldn't even agree which one of the two choices either gets to pick first.

You've probably seen that e-mail circulating around where the young woman was incensed that some have so much while others have so little. Knowing that she was proud of her 4.0 grade point average, her father asked how her friend was doing. "Terrible" said the daughter--she parties all night and goofs off, never studies, and is barely holding on to a 2.0 grade point. Why don't you give her one of yours, says the father. Then you'll each have a 3.0 and will be equal. Well, that wouldn't be fair at all said the daughter. I worked hard for my grades and earned every one. . . .

Or another example is to look at Citizen A who stayed in school, stayed away from booze and drugs and other illegal activities, studied and educated himself, worked at Mcjobs to develop a work ethic and build references, and now prospers with a thriving business, nice home, and can afford a few luxuries. Citizen B didn't do any of those things and has nothing, but some think Citizen A should give Citizen B half so they both will be equal. I'm sure Citizen B would be happy for Citizen A to divvy up his material wealth into two portions and give Citizen B an opportunity to choose one of them.

The Arab leadership has chosen to devote their energies and hatred to the elimination of Israel and have deliberately kept their people in poverty and peril so that they could accuse Israel instead of building up their own resources and helping their own people to prosper.

I think they would be happy to receive half of what Israel has no matter who did the dividing. Once they had it though, their pattern has typically been to demand more toward the goal of having it all.

0 Replies

Excellent, Foxfyre.

The principle that those who have more should give part of the difference to those who have less, has infected too much of the US as well as too much of Arab Palestine.

Who would choose to pursue excellence knowing the benefits derived from that pursuit would be divided with those who choose not to pursue excellence?

0 Replies

That would all be well and good had the Palestinian Arabs had a level playing field from the very beginning. They never really had a chance to "pursue excellence," though.

From the time after the first world war that the British began to implement its promise to the Zionists to establish a national homeland for Jews in Palestine through their mandate, Palestinian endeavors to build national democratic institutions as the preliminary steps to statehood were systematically thwarted by the British as the latter gave precedence to the Zionists' nationalist endeavors in Palestine. The British had hardly considered Palestinian nationalist aspirations at all, merely referring to them in its Balfour Declaration as "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine," and in its Palestine Mandate simply as "other sections of the population." The thrust of Britain's involvement in Palestine was from the start detrimentally prejudiced against the very peoples indigenous to Palestine in favor of a people from Central and Eastern Europe.

Palestinian efforts to establish a parliament along democratic electorial lines were rebuffed by the British colonial secretary Lord Passfield who in a May 1930 meeting with Palestinian delegates responded thusly:

Of course, this Parliament as you call it that you ask for, would have to have as its duty the carrying out of the Mandate . . . the Mandatory power, that is the British government, could not create any council except within which the terms of the Mandate and for the purpose of carrying out the Mandate. This is the limit of our power . . . Would you mind considering our difficulty that we cannot create a Parliament which would not be responsible and feel itself responsible for carrying out the Mandate?

In effect Passfield was asking the Palestinian majority to put aside its own nationalist aspirations for the nationalist aspirations of the tiny minority of Zionist immigrants in Palestine.

In terms of external support for Palestinian efforts to build pre-state institutions, the colonialist powers in the area largely thwarted the efforts of the Arab populations under their control from supporting and contributing to the Palestinians. Rashid Khalidi in his book, "The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood," describes how France through its Foreign Ministry in Paris and its colonial officials in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia prevented the sending of funds from these countries' peoples to the people of Palestine. France also prevented the travel of emissaries from the Maghribi community in Palestine to North Africa to request aid for the Palestinians such as after the 1929 Wailing Wall disturbances. In contrast, France enabled the flow of large sums of capital to the yishuv from the Jewish communities of those selfsame North African countries whose non-Jewish populations it had blocked from sending aid to the Palestinians, and it facilitated the traveling of Palestinian Zionists to these North African countries under its control.

Another aspect of colonialist repression of the Palestinian's quest for self-determination was Britain's time worn policy of divide and conquer that it would implement against the peoples in the lands it would subjugate. Britain created al -Majlis al-Islami al-A'la or the Supreme Muslim Council to which was given unprecedented authority over the traditional religio-political offices in Palestine such as the qadis--the judges in the sharia court of appeal; the local muftis--Islamic scholars who are interpreters or expounders of Islamic law; and the employees of various other institutions such as schools, orphanages and religious centers. Britain also created the title of mufti filastin al-akbar or Grand Mufti out of the traditional office of mufti for Jerusalem of the Hanafi rite which, as Khalidi explains, "of the four Sunni legal and religious rites had the largest following in Palestine, and had been the official rite of the Ottoman state). The new position of 'Grand Mufti' was given authority over other religio-political offices which had until then been either of equal standing such as the na'ib or the chief secretary of the shaira court of appeal, or superior to the position of mufti such as the qadis. As a requisite of these various positions, all of the appointees were obligated to refrain from opposing Britain's Mandate in Palestine and it's goal of creating a Zionist homeland at the expense of Palestinian self-determination. Britain played these institutions newly created by itself against organizations formed by other Palestinians of their own volition such as the Palestine Arab Congress which was a countrywide movement organized to oppose Britain's occupation of Palestine, and it's plan to impose a Zionist state therein. Needless to say, Britain refused to recognize the legitimacy and representative nature of that congress. This playing of Palestinians against each other was a major factor in the infighting that plagued the early Palestinian leadership and kept it weak and ultimately ineffective and ineffectual.

By the time the British dropped the problem it had created in Palestine onto the lap of the UN, and the latter's infamous recommendation to partition the country along ethnic lines, the Palestinians had no real or firm state structures through which to operate as a polity. After the 1948 war the territory that the UN recommended for allotment to the Palestinians was divided between Israel, Jordan and Egypt. After the 1967 war Israel arrogated and occupied the territories that Jordan and Egypt had previously controlled (the West Bank and Gaza Strip respectively). Today the Palestinians have a weak, quasi-national jurisdiction, the Palestinian National Authority, which operates under the utter stricture of the state of Israel.

0 Replies

Hizbollah hands over Israeli troop remains as Lebanese spy is freed
By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem
Monday, 2 June 2008

A prisoner convicted of spying for Hizbollah was released to Lebanon by Israel yesterday as the guerrilla group handed over what it said were the remains of dead Israeli soldiers.

The cross-border moves raised speculation that Israel could be preparing to trade other prisoners for the two soldiers - whether dead or alive - whose abduction triggered the 2006 Lebanon war.

The Hizbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, predicted last week that Israel would soon free Lebanese prisoners including Samir Kuntar, who is serving multiple life sentences for murdering four Israelis - including a 28-year-old civilian and his four-year-old daughter - in 1979.

In Beirut, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German Foreign Minister, who has been mediating between the two enemies, said he was happy with yesterday's developments and that he hoped "these preliminary steps have created a positive dynamism in these secret talks".

The man released yesterday and driven from a jail in central Israel to the border town of Rosh Hanikra was Nasim Nisr, an Israeli of Lebanese descent who had already served a six-year sentence for espionage and was being held in administrative detention, possibly as a bargaining chip.

The 39-year-old prisoner was shown live on Lebanese TV arriving at the southern village of Naqoura and hugging weeping relatives, including his mother, a Lebanese Jew who converted to Islam. He briefly praised Mr Nasrallah and said he hoped other Lebanese prisoners would be released. Because of his Jewish descent, Mr Nisr, whose father was a Shia Muslim, qualified for Israeli citizenship, and had moved to Israel in 1991.

The box of remains released by Hizbollah was checked by the Israeli military for booby traps before being transported to the Abu Kabir forensic laboratory in Tel Aviv for evaluation. The Israeli authorities insisted that the release of the remains was unexpected and had not been co-ordinated by them with Hizbollah.

Israel has not confirmed plans for a swap of other Lebanese prisoners for Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, the two soldiers abducted and, it later turned out, seriously injured in Hizbollah's cross-border raid in July 2006. Hizbollah has not provided any proof that the two soldiers are still alive.

A swap involving Kuntar would be politically sensitive in Israel because of the notoriety of the 1979 killings in Nahariya. He was convicted of killing the child by smashing her head against rocks and then hitting it with a rifle butt. The girl's mother accidentally smothered her other daughter, aged two, to death while trying to keep her silent as they hid during the attack.

An editorial in Haaretz before yesterday's events warned that an exchange of prisoners including Kuntar for the two Israeli soldiers would mark a "complete victory for Nasrallah" over Ehud Olmert's government.

The newspaper said that this "bitter pill" could be swallowed if the two soldiers were alive but that the "price" must be lower if the two men were dead. "Israel must not release prisoners for bodies, thus encouraging more abductions," it said.

Meanwhile, the Israeli Housing Minister, Zeev Boim, announced fresh plans to build nearly 900 new homes in Pisgat Zeev and Har Homa, Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem, despite the urgings of the US against such expansion on the Palestinian side of the 1967 border.

Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said: "Israel talks about peace while at the same time works on undermining peace by increasing settlement activity in Jerusalem and around it."

0 Replies

Israel continues to take over more land as they speak with forked tongue.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
McTag wrote:
A solution to part of the Israeli/ Palestine problem has been suggested here:

Only one side gets to decide where the security barrier will be erected, then the other gets to decide which side it wants to live on.

Neither the Israelis or Palestinian Arabs would agree to that. The Palestinian Arabs already demand that the security barrier to be erected off shore in the Mediterranean Sea AND demand to live on the east side all the way to the Jordan River. Whereas, the Israelis want no less than what the UN recommended they have. Hell, they wouldn't even agree which one of the two choices either gets to pick first.

You've probably seen that e-mail circulating around where the young woman was incensed that some have so much while others have so little. Knowing that she was proud of her 4.0 grade point average, her father asked how her friend was doing. "Terrible" said the daughter--she parties all night and goofs off, never studies, and is barely holding on to a 2.0 grade point. Why don't you give her one of yours, says the father. Then you'll each have a 3.0 and will be equal. Well, that wouldn't be fair at all said the daughter. I worked hard for my grades and earned every one. . . .

Or another example is to look at Citizen A who stayed in school, stayed away from booze and drugs and other illegal activities, studied and educated himself, worked at Mcjobs to develop a work ethic and build references, and now prospers with a thriving business, nice home, and can afford a few luxuries. Citizen B didn't do any of those things and has nothing, but some think Citizen A should give Citizen B half so they both will be equal. I'm sure Citizen B would be happy for Citizen A to divvy up his material wealth into two portions and give Citizen B an opportunity to choose one of them.

The Arab leadership has chosen to devote their energies and hatred to the elimination of Israel and have deliberately kept their people in poverty and peril so that they could accuse Israel instead of building up their own resources and helping their own people to prosper.

I think they would be happy to receive half of what Israel has no matter who did the dividing. Once they had it though, their pattern has typically been to demand more toward the goal of having it all.

I forgot, many Americans have an irony bypass.

But I must add, that although Israelis are indeed focussed, intelligent, industrious, educated, organised, and determined, the state is guilty of great crimes against the arabs.

0 Replies

McT wrote:

I forgot, many Americans have an irony bypass.

But I must add, that although Israelis are indeed focussed, intelligent, industrious, educated, organised, and determined, the state is guilty of great crimes against the arabs.

I wonder how many supporting Israel's apartheid would tolerate the same in the US?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know