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

cicerone imposter wrote:
In what way am I a bigot?

ican responded:

Study your dictionary, and look up two words, "bigot" and "slander."

"Bigot" seems to be CI's preferred hateful adjective of the month as he has assigned it to a lot of us recently. By January he'll probably be back to using 'liar' or 'ignorant' or 'stupid'. I always figure those who have no argument they can defend resort to that sort of ad hominem. At any rate, as soon as the slurs come out, I know I've most likely adequately defended my point of view.

Dictionary definition of "bigot - n. zealot, fanatic, racist, sexist..."

If I called anyone a "bigot" it's because they/you fit the description.

It is correct to call a faucet a "spigot."

Whatever pleases your childish mind.

You seem to need to define me, rather than comment on the post?

That was my response to your "post." Your so-called post provided no information of any value.

Do you think of yourself as a very serious fellow? Perhaps, you can take my post as a moment of light-heartedness?

Foofie wrote:

I really don't see any "light heartedness" in your post. /Sorry, but I missed your "joke."

Cicerone, this is you

Cicerone, this describes many of your posts.

Preparing for the U.S.-Israel collision
By Dick Morris, TheHill.com, December 16, 2008

With the election of Barack Obama, the United States has moved dramatically to the left in its foreign policy at just the time that Israel, which seems likely to return Bibi Netanyahu to office in early February, is moving to the right. A collision is almost inevitable.

Caroline Glick, the highly astute conservative columnist for the Jerusalem Post, writes that the "international community" believes that Obama "will move quickly to place massive pressure on the next Israeli government to withdraw from Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in the interests of advancing a 'peace process' with the Palestinians and the Syrians." She notes that "people who have been in close contact with Obama's foreign policy transition team have privately acknowledged that the widespread belief that Obama will move swiftly to put the screws on Israel is fully justified. According to one source who has spent a great deal of time with the transition team since last month's U.S. elections, Obama's people are 'scope-locked' on Israel."

Meanwhile, in Israel, there is a growing consensus, reflected in public opinion surveys, that trading land for peace is a chimera. Netanyahu points out that "we do not have a viable partner with whom to negotiate peace." The Palestinian Authority does not speak for the people of either Gaza or the West Bank, and Hamas, which probably does (it won the election), does not want to be a party to any peace agreement. Recent experience suggests that Hamas will quickly install rocket launchers on any territory Israel concedes, using it not as a basis for peace, but as a platform from which to kill more Jews.

Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the candidates of the left, Labor's Ehud Barak and Kadima's Tzipi Livni, are deeply committed to land for peace. Their rejection by the Israeli electorate -- the anticipated outcome of the Feb. 10 election -- will signal a bold departure in the political consensus of the Jewish state, a consensus that flies directly in the face of Obama's likely policy.

The difference between the U.S. and Israel also extends to the realm of how strongly they oppose Iranian development of nuclear weapons. While Iran moves closer and closer to a bomb that could and will be used against Israel, Obama speaks of extending the American "nuclear umbrella" to cover Israel.

Reading between the lines, this means that he doesn't think he can stop Iranian nuclear ambitions and will retreat to a policy of deterrence, accepting a nuclear Iran in the bargain.

If Netanyahu wins the election, he will bring with him a determination to stop Iranian nuclear weapons, no matter what, and a refusal to concede more territory in the name of the peace process. But Obama's foreign policy team will be focusing on pushing Israel in just the opposite direction.

The result is likely to be the most significant divergence between Israeli and American policies since 1956, when President Eisenhower sided with the Arabs to halt the British-French-Israeli invasion of Suez.

The United States has tremendous leverage over Israel"military, financial and political. And Obama's ability to carry the Jewish vote by a wide margin despite his likely Middle East policy makes him largely immune to the kind of political pressure that has disciplined American presidents in the past and forced them to incline toward accommodating Israeli views on the Middle East.

But Israel probably has the military capacity to bomb Iran and to win the Middle East war against Syria, Hamas, Iran and Hezbollah that is likely to result. Unlike Olmert, Netanyahu will use ground troops right off the bat and will fight such a war to win and to win big. But they may have to do it without their strongest ally: the United States.

Sounds like an accurate analysis.

Additionally, if the Obama administration shows overtly its moving away from Israel, leaving her to defend herself, then our other spheres of influence in Asia may wonder when they might get "tossed"?

I wonder if Hillary will manage to get autonomy in her responsibilities?

This opinion piece certainly provides a different, much more hawkish perspective from the ones I posted earlier in this thread (Post: #3,506,125 and Post: #3,506,126) of Zionist opinion in regard to the Israel/Palestine conflict. On the one hand Morris boasts of Israel's ability to bomb Iran and win wars against Syria, Hamas, Iran and Hezbollah; while Katz states that Israel would be reluctant to wage a war against Hamas, at least, in part because of the lack of an exit strategy in the face of a re-occupation of the Gaza Strip, and the toll in Israeli soldiers. It isn't a surprise, however, that the Zionist hawks would prefer an all out war between Israel and some of its neighbors over land concessions that would be required to pursue a two-state solution to its conflict with the Palestinians. It's good that the next US administration doesn't seem likely to carry forward the previous administration's veritable carte blanche it granted to Israel.

Hamas Pushes for Sharia Law

The Hamas parliament in the Gaza Strip voted in favor of a law allowing courts to mete out sentences in the spirit of Islam, the London-based Arab daily Al Hayat reported Wednesday.

According to the bill, approved in its second reading and awaiting a third reading before the approval of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, as the Palestinian constitution demands, courts will be able to condemn offenders to a plethora of violent punitive measures in line with Sharia Law.

Such punishments include whipping, severing hands, crucifixion and hanging. The bill reserves death sentences to people who negotiate with a foreign government "against Palestinian interests" and engage in any activity that can "hurt Palestinian morale."

According to the report, any Palestinian caught drinking or selling wine would suffer 40 lashes at the whipping post if the bill passes. Thieves caught red-handed would lose their right hand.

--jpost.com

Only for the USA is are film reports from Palestine/ Gaza censored and not available for public view. Everyone else can see them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/31/israelandthepalestinians-middleeast1

Blame al-Jazeera for that. This source is so biased against Israel that it is a joke. It never covered to any extent damage by Hamas in Israel, including that caused by suicide bombers.

From McTag's article:

Al-Jazeera, sensitive to charges of partisanship, has interviewed Israeli ministers and officials as well as the exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshal in Damascus. But it has been unable to interview Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas prime minister, who is presumably in hiding in Gaza. It has reported from Sderot and other Israeli towns hit by Palestinian rocket and mortar fire.

On Monday it interviewed Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign minister and prime ministerial hopeful, who criticised the channel. But its coverage is controversial in the Arab world too. The western-backed Palestinian Authority has accused it of being biased in favour of Hamas

So you are happy, then, that the USA is the only country where this censorchip operates?
Photographs and newsreel clips taken in Palestine can be seen elsewhere, but not in the "land of the free"?

Assuming arguendo what you said is correct, who said I was happy. You certainly have been wrong in most things in the past.

Deflect and ignore the question if you wish, that action says enough.

Daniel Barenboim writes tellingly today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/01/israel-gaza-bombings-hamas