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

I know that and you know that, but you're wasting your typing muscles Ican. As CI himself said, he is only likely to make grammatical mistakes (cough). However, maybe it is good that you have the patience to keep refuting the lies that the anti-Semites, pro-Palestianian terrorist sympathizers keep posting, lest somebody who doesn't know how to look up this stuff for themselves believe them.

"Breach of the peace and or act of aggression" has been practiced by Israel since the Zionists started their war in Palestine. Now that it's called "Israel," they have continued their apartheid practices of land seizures, control towers to limit the free movement of Palestinians, and fences around Palestinian villages controlling their access to water, food, and health care.

Who's the aggressor here?

Those Palestinians provoked the Israelis into stealing their property and their land, their history, and their future.

Sheer provocation.

Isn't that right, Foxy?

Cice and McTag, what you wrote is malarkey! After the British mandate in 1918, the Palestinian Arabs started mass murdering Jews in Palestine. They started that way back in 1920 and 1921. The Jews in Palestine didn't start to defend themselves until 1929. Thereafter, the Jews in Palestine defended themselves each time the Palestinian Arabs waged war on them.

The UN Palestinian Resolution 181 established in 1947 the two state apartheid between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews. However, the Palestinian Jews live peacefully in Israel with Arabs in Israel who do not attempt to murder Jews in Israel.

AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN

When the allies of the Palestinian Arabs invaded Israel in 1948, the Palestinian Arabs--not the Israeli Arabs--forfeited their rights granted by UN resolution 181.

The Palestinian Arabs for 61 years have been paying the price for their first forfeiture, and their many repetitions of that forfeiture. To end their forfeiture, the Palestinian Arabs must cease and desist "threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression," and stop "any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by" UN Resolution 81.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm
UN 1947 PALESTINIAN RESOLUTION 181

The Palestinians Arabs are accomplices of the Palestinian gangsters among them mass murdering Israeli non-murderers. This is true because they do not even attempt or even ask for help to remove the Palestinian gangsters among them, much less actually remove them?

Exactly!

Is that the best you can do? Malarkey!

Don't you just love it when all they can do is call you "anti-Semites!"

AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN

When the allies of the Palestinian Arabs invaded Israel in 1948, the Palestinian Arabs--not the Israeli Arabs--forfeited their rights granted by UN resolution 181.

The Palestinian Arabs for 61 years have been paying the price for their first forfeiture, and their many repetitions of that forfeiture. To end their forfeiture, the Palestinian Arabs must cease and desist "threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression," and stop "any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by" UN Resolution 81.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm
UN 1947 PALESTINIAN RESOLUTION 181

The Palestinians Arabs are accomplices of the Palestinian gangsters among them mass murdering Israeli non-murderers. This is true because they do not even attempt or even ask for help to remove the Palestinian gangsters among them, much less actually remove them?

AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN

When the allies of the Palestinian Arabs invaded Israel in 1948, the Palestinian Arabs--not the Israeli Arabs--forfeited their rights granted by UN resolution 181.

The Palestinian Arabs for 61 years have been paying the price for their first forfeiture, and their many repetitions of that forfeiture. To end their forfeiture, the Palestinian Arabs must cease and desist "threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression," and stop "any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by" UN Resolution 81.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm
UN 1947 PALESTINIAN RESOLUTION 181

The Palestinians Arabs are accomplices of the Palestinian gangsters among them mass murdering Israeli non-murderers. This is true because they do not even attempt or even ask for help to remove the Palestinian gangsters among them, much less actually remove them?

I see you're still trotting out this garbage, and not content with doing it once, you do it several times. It's still not convincing anyone, because it's still garbage.

How could Palestinian villagers be "accomplices" of Syrian generals?

Interesting question! I don't know the answer. How do you think Palestinian villagers could be "accomplices" of Syrian generals?

I think that in 1948 Palestinian Arab villagers were allies and not accomplices of Syrian generals.

The Palestinians Arabs are accomplices of the Palestinian gangsters among them mass murdering Israeli non-murderers. This is true because they do not even attempt or even ask for help to remove the Palestinian gangsters among them, much less actually remove them?

The Israelis shoot them if Hezbollah/ Hamas are there.
However H/H shoot them if they help the Israelis.
What an awkward situation for them, you may say.

The however the insurgency is because of Israeli expansion, and can only be understood and brought to an end in that context.

Ican, your consistency is matched only by your verbosity.

Shame you're consistently barking up the wrong tree.

He's peed on it for so long, nobody knows what kind of tree it is.

AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN

When the allies of the Palestinian Arabs invaded Israel in 1948, the Palestinian Arabs--not the Israeli Arabs--forfeited their rights granted by UN resolution 181.

The Palestinian Arabs for 61 years have been paying the price for their first forfeiture, and their many repetitions of that forfeiture. To end their forfeiture, the Palestinian Arabs must cease and desist "threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression," and stop "any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by" UN Resolution 81.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm
UN 1947 PALESTINIAN RESOLUTION 181

The Palestinians Arabs are accomplices of the Palestinian gangsters among them mass murdering Israeli non-murderers. This is true because they do not even attempt or even ask for help to remove the Palestinian gangsters among them, much less actually remove them?

It would be prudent for any nation, whose people were attacked by a gang of mass murderers of non-murderers that have declared and/or waged war against it, to attack those nations in which such a gang has found sanctuary, in order to exterminate such a gang.

As a substitute for thought and intelligent comment, that's really pretty poor.

The Myth of Moderate Islam
By Steven A. Cook
Foreign Policy

Posted June 2008

Supporting moderation in all things Islamic may seem like a no-brainer, but woe betide the policymaker who tries to turn a plausible idea into a workable strategy.

Categorize this: Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi wants Egyptians to pray less, but he also supports suicide bombings against Israelis.
Of all the cures commonly proposed for the many ailments afflicting the Middle East, there is one tonic nearly everyone seems to agree on: boosting moderate Islam.

It sounds eminently reasonable. If Islamic extremism is the problem, moderate Islam must be the solution. It follows that Western governments should therefore find ways to make the moderates more powerful and encourage the extremists to become more moderate. Allow Islamists to compete and accumulate power, the argument goes, and they will have little incentive to radicalize. Furthermore, assuming the mundane tasks of day-to-day governance will compel even the most extreme groups to focus more on filling potholes than on destroying the Great Satan.

But this belief is dead wrong. Not only is it impossible to agree on a working definition of the word "moderate," but there is scant evidence that extremists really do moderate once they assume power.

Consider, for example, Hezbollah. The Shiite organization provides state-like services such as education and healthcare for the people of south Beirut and southern Lebanon. The organization, which has had representatives in the Lebanese Parliament since 1992, has often demonstrated a surprising degree of pragmatism. It took part in a May 2005 electoral alliance with several of its adversaries in order to maximize electoral returns in crucial districts. Just a few months earlier, during Lebanon's "independence uprising," which pushed Hezbollah's ally, Syria, out of Lebanon, the organization struck a tone of national unity.

But this spring, Hezbollah revealed the extent to which it remains a militant group. Its cadres took over west Beirut in a powerful display of force intended to show that it has no intention of giving up its guns. Much of Hezbollah's political power is based on the potent idea of "national resistance" to Israeli aggression. If Hezbollah disarmed, it would be no different from Lebanon's myriad political factions jockeying for advantage. It is precisely the organization's militancy that provides Hezbollah with a significant political advantage over its rivals. Why give that up?

The same can be said of Hamas. Two years after its electoral victory, a year after its forcible takeover of Gaza, and despite reported strains and splits within the organization, there are few signs that the Palestinian Islamist group has moderated. The clearest sign that Hamas had altered its worldview would be to accept the international community's conditions. But why would it? If Hamas were to accept Israel's right to exist, renounce armed struggle, and honor previously signed agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, it would cease being Hamas and effectively become a shadow of its rival, Fatah. The Islamists have not only beaten Fatah on the battlefield, but have also, and more importantly, sold a winning narrative about the ineffectiveness of dialogue with Israel. In Palestinian politics, bowing to international demands is hardly rational.


The other common, but misleading argument about moderate Islam asserts that if only the voices of moderation were given broader exposure, the extremist ideologies of al Qaeda and other groups would find fewer adherents. Although this seems sensible, good luck trying to define "moderate Islam."

Take Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an influential TV star in the Arab world. His weekly Al Jazeera show, Sharia and Life, attracts millions of viewers. Qaradawi holds progressive positions on family law, the status of women, and political reform. He recently told Egyptian government employees to "pray less" to improve their productivity. Many Arabs regard him as staunchly moderate. Yet the sheikh has also placed his theological imprimatur on suicide bombings against Israelis, arguing that since all Israelis serve in the military at one time or another, they are all legitimate targets. For those analysts who call for support of moderate Islam, it is hard to believe Qaradawi is whom they have in mind.

Or take Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Inside the Beltway, many Middle East hands are quietly rooting for the ayatollah and former president to win the next Iranian presidential election. Sure, he seems like a moderate in comparison to the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but Rafsanjani is the guy who once implored Iranians to kill Westerners wherever they could find them, declaring, "It is not difficult to kill Americans or Frenchmen. It is a bit difficult to kill [Israelis]. But there are so many [Americans and Frenchmen] everywhere in the world."

If there was ever a problem in defining moderate Islam, however, Turkey's Justice and Development Party (AKP) epitomizes it. The party seems to be the paragon of moderate Islamism, undertaking a wide range of reforms and staking its political legacy on Ankara's entry into the European Union. Yet, Turkey's archsecularists and a fair number of analysts in the West regard the party with deep suspicion. Citing the AKP's recent effort to lift the ban on women wearing head scarves at publicly funded universities as only the most egregious example, they argue that the party's real agenda is to Islamize Turkish society. Whose side should the United States take here?

Given the wildly different criteria for what constitutes "a moderate," policymakers will run in circles trying to determine who is a moderate and worthy of support, and who is not. One person's moderate is another person's radical, and another person's moderate is little more than a patsy of the West. A policy built on support for moderate Islam is only asking for trouble.

A smarter position is to avoid theological discussions altogether. As with all faiths, there will be heated debates between competing groups within Islam over the proper interpretation of sacred texts and the relationship between religion and politics. Yet because these arguments are so opaque to outsiders, policymakers should resist the urge to jump in. Given that moderation is in the eye of the beholder, Washington should not have an ideological litmus test for whom it wishes to engage. Rather, policymakers should focus on identifying those who can contribute pragmatic solutions to the many problems we confront in the region, "moderate" or not.

Steven A. Cook is the Douglas Dillon fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of Ruling But Not Governing: The Military and Political Development in Egypt, Algeria, and Turkey (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007).

link

The AKP are extremists because they want to lift the ban on head scarves in public buildings? The banning of religious dress is itself extremist, and Cook is an Islamophobe.