Examining Irans ties to Hezbollah

I cannot see how the author’s idea that Hizbollah’s money comes from one specific source (say, zakat) and not the other (say, Iran) might be verified. I would think that the true money sources are very well concealed/disguised. Consider the multitude of financing schemes described on www.fatf-gafi.org. Apart from citing a certain Prof. Simpson on this subject, no arguments are provided. Author’s boast of knowing the exact method only shows his incompetence.
  But let’s assume that money has legal, non-Iran sources. The problem of purchasing the weapons remains. Who exactly sells the weapons to Hizbollah for their “clean” money? Author tells us that we cannot be absolutely sure that Iran does. Well, who does, then? Certainly there is a source. So here’s no argument either.
  It follows from the above that the idea “Even if all Iranian financial and logistic support were cut off, Hezbollah would not only continue, it would thrive” looks rather as a desired motto, not a supported conclusion.
  And there’s more mottos to come. For example, “Given the loose and ambiguous nature of the Iranian government’s control over support for Hezbollah” - why exactly we treat this assertion as a given?
  To round it up, I’d like to remind the author that in the middle of the current conflict Nasralla went abroad. Check http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2242709 If Iran’s influence over Hizballa is as described by the author, why exactly did Nasralla chose to meet its envoys in the middle of a war?

Posted by dizz on Aug 15, 2006 at 6:12 AM

This administration built up to a preemptive strike on Iraq and coupled that with rhetoric that is duplicated with Iran.  The bomb test “Divine Strake” was designed to test penetration of Iranian nuclear worksites.

We no longer have the force structure to send troops into Iran, but all signs point to painting Iran as a notch on the Axis of Evil that must be destroyed regardless of factual support for their complicity.

The administration no longer has Colin Powell to proceed to the UN, but the groundwork has been laid and Iran will be in some technical violation and GW will keep repeating that “no option is off the table.”  Somebody will carry his water to the UN and we will repeat history.

Kristol was one of the original signatores of the letter by neocons in 1996 to then President Clinton demanding an invasion of Iraq.  The current VP and Feith and others may actually believe that this approach still has merit, even after the fiasco in Iraq and the failure in Afghanistan.

Posted by geocopy on Aug 15, 2006 at 2:17 PM

The media is replete with reports about Iran financing Hezbolla, providing high tech weapons and tactical support to the tune of some $5-6 billion.  Hezbolla’s fighters have been decimated and large portions of its weapons stores have been expended, rendering it pretty much unfit to press any fight until and unless Iran rearms it. Something Iran is furious about. Professor Beeman’s thrust at neocons (I am NOT a necon, as a long time active liberal I’m the farthest thing from it), begs the question. Iran’s finger prints are all over this nasty war. Saying otherwise is like fatuously claiming that I.G. Farben just manufactured children’s toys.

Read an excerpt of the Debkafile article: (or use the link here for the whole piece) http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1201

Tehran Takes Gloomy View of the Lebanon War and Truce

August 14, 2006, 3:35 PM (GMT+02:00) 

While the damage caused Israel

Posted by decampe on Aug 15, 2006 at 2:45 PM

Hezbollah is a powerful player in Lebanese politics.  It’s actions are in furtherance of Lebanese interests, such as the liberation of occupied Lebanese land (Sheba Farms) and the release Lebanese prisoners.

So, suppose I have a land conflict with you.  You buy your gun at Kmart, and I buy mine at Walmart.  Am I now just a proxy for Walmart when I fight you for my land?  (And you KNOW how evil Walmart is). 

Just goes to show how far this administration will go to ignore and obscure legitimate local grievances.  The sad part is how many people actually buy into their crap.

Posted by Imran on Aug 15, 2006 at 3:08 PM

When Hezbollah decided to participate in Lebanese politics in 1992, their leadership wrote up a report and sent it to Iran.  Khamenei said, “Sure, participate in your region’s secular government” because as their theocratic supreme leader, Khamenei has the final say in what Hezbollah does.

But the point the author makes about “terrorism” being “community-based” is important and cannot be stressed enough.  Ahmadinejad, Khamenei, and other Iranian powerholders support Hezbollah in the sense that they don’t like Isreal’s intentions, but the US is not justified in saying that therefore taking out Iran is the next step of a “new Mid-East process”.  In some ways China, Russia, Venusuala, South Africa, Brazil, Cuba, parts of France (every place that is vehemently not in favor of continued US world dominance) supports Iranian intentions and ambitions.  Money and arms move between hundreds of different parties.  People need to step back and think unless they’re willing to enter another World War, because that’s exactly where this insanity is headed.

Posted by ninelegyak on Aug 15, 2006 at 3:54 PM

Imran’s argument might fly if Hezbollah was a sovereign nation that was purchasing its arms from Iran.

It is not.

Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and effectively a wholly-owned subsidiary of Iran. Its weapons came from Iran and Syria; its funding largely comes from Iran (except for the money it makes by drug factories in the Bekaa Valley). Its command and control comes from Iran. This is not prattle from our brain-dead Bush Administration. Iran’s support of Hezbollah has been widely reported.

Posted by decampe on Aug 15, 2006 at 4:44 PM

The author states that it is a “far-fetcheddraw scenario” that Iran instigated these troubles in Lebanon to draw attention away from criticism of its nuclear development program.  Spoken like a true intellectual, who can’t recognize what is entirely obvious.  Everything preceeding Lebanon was about Iran’s nuclear program, Iran needed a diversion and found one.  This is exactly in Iran’s interest.  The suggestion that this couldn’t be the reason because it isolated Iran from other Arab countries is foolish logic.  Nothing comes without cost, even the simple minded leader of Iran knows that and was willing to take the chance to buy time go nuclear.  Dear Author, what will it take for you to see the truth through your muddled thoughts?  Ka-BOOM?  I hope not.

Posted by traveler on Aug 15, 2006 at 5:33 PM

Talk about Hizballah being “controlled” by Iran is premature at best.  The organization is well supported by Lebanese (40% are Shiite) and used by other factions in Lebanon as a political tool for coalitions.  Hizballah is used by Syria next door and by anybody interested in a major internal power.

After being weakened by Israel’s bombing and US bombs, they may seek resupply and support from anybody in the region, but their power to do so was only helped by the images coming from the news.  They caused mostly military while Israel caused mostly civilian deaths.  My guess is that if they drank and walked into a bar right now, that they could not buy a drink, because Lebanese were grateful for the defense of their homeland and support in terms of food, shelter and medical care.  Iran played a smaller role than Israel in winning their reputation as a defender for all Lebanon. Israel’s air attack and invasion was successful in bringing Lebanese together in a way that no internal force could.  I expect Hizballah to garner a greater political force than ever before.

Posted by geocopy on Aug 15, 2006 at 7:43 PM

We know the total and the disribution of deaths in Israel because the Israelis reported them. In Lebanon we know only about civilian deaths (and not even the true facts about those).

We have no idea of the numbers of Hezbollah operatives who were killed, because Hezbollah is not part of a national government but rather a secretive terrorist organization that has hidden all the facts about itself, how many deaths, how many wounded,  how many Lebanese civilians wounded because Hezbollah purposely used Lebanese civilians as shields, giving not a damn for how many civilian deaths, women and children, they caused. That’s cold, but then Nasrallah has declared (it has been well reported) that Hezbollah will win because “Jews love life while we (Nasrallah’s followers) love death.” You will note that not a single one of the nearly 4,000 rockets Hezbollah fired at Israel was aimed at a military target. They fired missiles constructed will ball bearings to produce maximum death, and aimed them solely at Israel’s civilian population. So much for the beloved, saintly Hezbollah freedom fighters.

Sure, I bet that Hezbollah operatives would not have to pay for their drinks in bars (what would supposedly devout Muslims be doing in a bar anyway?). But the IDF soldiers are equally beloved by Israelis.  The dead and maimed soldiers are the flower of Israeli youth, Israel’s future. Their loss is a heavy burden for that small nation and Hezbollah’s vicious terrorists are responsible for every death.

Posted by decampe on Aug 15, 2006 at 8:38 PM

Decampe quotes Debkafile as an authoritative source, but after reading Debkafile for a couple of weeks it seems more like a combination of propaganda and wishful thinking, spiced up with enough on the ground facts to keep the reader returning. The article quoted seems more like juicy gossip than Iranian policy. I prefer Beeman’s analysis.

Posted by accesslaw on Aug 15, 2006 at 11:44 PM

Re Accesslaw’s comments: To me it is fantasy to think that Hezbollah is a stand alone organization. Whether you call it terrorist or freedom fighter, Hezbollah is armed with the best weapons, war-technology and defensive systems money can buy. This is an army any high-tech state would be proud of and it is not funded by guys with tin cups begging on street corners. If, as Beeman says, Hezbollah is a charitable institution, it is one that hands out butter while using the people it supposedly helps as human shields. At best, Hezbollah gives not a damn for Lebanese citizens except for the propaganda value of their deaths. At worst, Hezbollah actively sought the death and destruction in Lebanon in order to obtain gruesome images to broadcast on Al Manar and Al Jazeera.

I am appalled at the anti-Israeli (ant-Semitic) attitude of my fellow members of the Left. I have spent decades working for, writing about and marching for peace and the rights of people for decent lives. To see a band of vicious killers (remember Nasrallah’s declaration that “We will win because Jews live life while we love death.”) like Hezbollah hailed as freedom fighters and saviors of the Arab world turns my stomach.

Posted by decampe on Aug 16, 2006 at 9:51 AM

Decampe: “To see a band of vicious killers (remember Nasrallah

Posted by Azathoth on Aug 16, 2006 at 8:09 PM

While the immoral and evil GWB would use war as a way to gain political favor, surely the devout and faithful who run Hezbollah are above such methodologies that cause the death of innocents for their own selfish gains. . .

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
Ho ho ho ha heeee hee ha ho!!!!
Guffaw!!! ha ha ho hee he ho haaaa!

PS - I would not shoot at planes with guns. I also would not shoot or kill innocent civialians. Both are stupid and the latter is immoral. I guess i am just funny that way. Buck buck!

Posted by wolf on Aug 17, 2006 at 11:41 AM

Wolf: “While the immoral and evil GWB would use war as a way to gain political favor, surely the devout and faithful who run Hezbollah are above such methodologies that cause the death of innocents for their own selfish gains. . .”

You know Wolf, I wonder if you…armed with only an AK 47….would stand out in the open with your other chickenhawk mates in formation when confronted by F16’s and Apache helicopters despite your home and family being bombed…I kinda doubt even you’d be that stupid.

I especially liked your girly, ticklish laugh by the way.

Posted by Azathoth on Aug 17, 2006 at 4:14 PM

Things can get confusing if the word terrorism continues to be used with no real analysis of what that actually means. As the late Eqbal Ahmad explained, terrorism is mostly used to arouse emotions:

“Terrorism is a threat to Western civilization.”

Terrorism is always applied to someone else but is never applied self critically. Despite the barbarous crimes committed in our name - the United States - we never commit terrorism. “We spread democracy.”

Ahmad identifies five forms of terrorism: State Terrorism, Religious Terrorism, Criminal Terrorism, Pathological Terrorism, and Political Terrorism.

As the author of this article indicates, political terrorism evolves into state terrorism when the U.S. seeks to justify an attack. We never know why other than we are “combating evil.”

The U.S. and Israel engage in state terrorism - the most dangerous form of terrorism - but obscures this reality by maintaining an authoritarian position that literally controlls public discourse about the use of violence.

How is it possible to have a counter terrorism department when state terrorism, sanctioned by powerful military forces that bomb and kill innocent people, cause the most devasting forms of terror and loss of life?

Clearly, the Lebanese have suffered a disportionate level of violence, particularly to the infrastructure, which blatantly reveals Israel’s total disregard for human life. If we call Hezbollah terrorists, what name do we give to Israel’s military? Systematic Terrorism.

Posted by Epistrophy on Aug 17, 2006 at 6:57 PM

Frankly, for all I care, you can put laurel wreaths on the heads of everyone in Hezbollah and anoint them with patchouli oil. They would still be murdering scum who target women and children and other innocent civilians with vicious anti-personnel weapons intended to maim and kill as many as possible. As I said above, they fired 4,000 anti-personnel misslies at Israel and did not aim a single one at a military target. By their own words, they give not a damn for human life. There’s not an ounce of difference between Nasrallah and bin Laden. The historical monster who most comes to my mind when I reach for a comparison is Pol Pot, murderer of millions. Not terrorism? Give me a break.

Posted by decampe on Aug 17, 2006 at 9:47 PM

Decampe:

Your post is the typical emotional retreat to well-rehearsed cliches when confronted with the facts.  But even here, you’ve got it wrong.  The missiles were launched at Israel AFTER the Israeli systemic bombing of Lebanon’s population and infrastructure, a bombing that Israeli officials themselves admitted amounted to collective punishment of all of Lebanon, guilty or innocent, to get them to split with Hezbollah. 

So explain again how Israel has not behaved like a terrorist and how 1000 civilian deaths compare with less than 50 caused by Hezbollah.  It should be noted that the overwhelming majority of Israeli casualties were heavily armed SOLDIERS rather than civilians.

As a side note, since Israel was chased out of Lebanon by Hezbollah in 2000, Hizbullah has not fired a single rocket at Israel (Hamas, on the other hand, has fired such rockets).  Hezbollah’s battle is with Israeli soldiers occupying Lebanese territory (the Sheba Farms) not Israeli civilians.  In addition to the facts, you’ve got your Arabs confused.  Not surprising since even Bush cannot tell Osama and Saddam apart.

Posted by Imran on Aug 18, 2006 at 10:02 AM

Imran: Hezbollah attacked Israel not the other way around, or have you forgotten? In the process Hezbollah murdered eight Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two. Hezbollah was then shocked, shocked that Israel responded with heavy artillery and bombs and did not just bend over and meekly negotiate a prisoner swap.

Regarding what Hezbollah wants. Top of their list is the return of the “heroic” terrorist Samir Kuntar,  the only Lebanese prisoner that Israel held prior to this war. Kuntar, together with four other Lebanese nationals, back in 1979, came by boat into the northern Israeli city of Nahariya and first killed two policeman. They then invaded the home of an Israeli family and killed the father. Then Samir Kuntar himself smashed in the head of the family’s 4-year- old daughter with the butt of his rifle. He is a ruthless and cold- blooded murderer. He’s been sentenced to four life terms in Israel.

Some hero he is.

Your Shaba farms claim is pure horse manure. Israel could give up Shaba, the Golan Heights, and every square inch down to the Negev and Hezbolah still would not be appeased. Hezbollah wants one thing, the total destruction of Israel and the death of all who live there (aparently including Israeli Arabs by the way they indiscriminately rocketed Nazareth and other Israeli Arab settlements). That’s been clearly articluated by Nasrallah.

Civilians died in lebanon because that’s what Hezbollah wanted, hiding like cowards among innocent Lebanese and then acting horrified when those civilians died in Israeli counter-attacks.

Regarding the civilian deaths in Israel, it wasn’t for a lack of trying on Hezbollah’s part. They fired 4,000 anti-personnel missiles at Israel’s civilian population, not giving a good god damn where they came down. Had Israeli aircraft not knocked out Hezbollah’s long range Iranian-supplied rockets (also hidden in Lebanese civilian areas), those murderous things would have rained down on Tel Aviv and other major Israeli population centers.

And if I’ve got my Arabs confused, explain to me the difference in murderous intent between Nasrallah and Osama bin Laden?

Posted by decampe on Aug 18, 2006 at 11:30 AM

The Iranians tried to send a cargo plane full of more C802 radar-guided missiles to Syria for Hezbollah via Iraqi and Turkish airspace shortly after hostilities commenced in July.  US intelligence found out 3 days prior, and asked Iraqi and Turkish controllers to deny the cargo plane fly-over rights.  This was successful.  There is indisputable satellite imagery of the boxes containing the missiles as well as the unpacked launchers.  So, who here can explain this in terms of “limited to moral support?”  Is this author a complete crackpot, or just a propagandist shill?

Posted by Hyjinx22 on Aug 18, 2006 at 12:00 PM

I’m not too concerned about any of this though.  The cease-fire is a joke, France has already surrendered as has the feckless UN force.  The IDF will be finishing off these jokers shortly and hopefully coming down hard on their Syrian supply lines.  Of course, this would only be treating the symptom of the larger disease and might buy remission for a few years.  Until the Arab world has its Council of Trent and decides that certain aspects of the Koran are a little more than incompatible with peaceful co-existance with the rest of the world this war will rage on.  I prefer that they solve their own pride/shame problems without involving us.  But, if they choose to remain biblical (or koranical, as it were) and exporting violent jihad, well then the West might just have to get “Old Testament.”

Posted by Hyjinx22 on Aug 18, 2006 at 12:07 PM

Decampe:

Like the media, you imply that this conflict is only 5 weeks old, when Hezbollah captured the Israeli soldiers, the implication being that there could be no reason for Hezbollah’s unprovoked “attack.”  However, the conflict is older than this, and your mention of Samir Kuntar and four others implies that you know this (left out of your discussion is that Israel agreed to their release as part of an exchange, and then reneged on it after getting their own people back.  But more importantly, left out your discussion are the thousands of others kidnapped by Israel, held without charge for years, languishing in Israeli dungeons).

Regarding “heroes,” Prime Ministers Shamir, Menachem Begin, and Ariel Sharon, were all documented mass-murderers of civilians.  Yet, they are heroes of the Israeli people.  So spare me the holier than thou speech on “heroes.”

And blaming the victims for their deaths is not worth responding to.  Suffice it to say, Israel either had no idea where Hezbollah was, or did but did not want to engage them in their fortified positions in southern Lebanon, and decided instead to attack the entire infrastructure and civilian population of all of Lebanon, knowing full-well that such bombing would kill the innocent, as a means to get them to do what they couldn’t.  That’s why the vast majority of casualties were civilian.  It was collective punishment in the form of mass-murder, pure and simple.  That is “murderous intent.”  Daily lamentations of civilian casualties were pure sop, as the Israeli bombing continued day and night.

Hezbollah responded.  Give them F-16’s and they won’t fire unguided Katyushas (not giving a “god damn” where they come down).  Leave occupied territories that don’t belong to you, and you won’t see innocent Lebanese of all stripes unite behind Hezbollah.  Propoganda serves a useful purpose in confusing the enemy and sating a gullible electorate, but its down right dangerous/negligent to actually base policy on.

Posted by Imran on Aug 18, 2006 at 3:49 PM

So, let me get this straight, after 27 years the Lebanese, represented by Hezbollah, out of the blue decided to kidnap two Israeli soldiers to get the murderer Samir Kuntar back? What a crock.

Regarding Israel knowing where Hezbollah was, I have no idea, not being in on their intelligence briefings. We do know this, the moment Hezbollah started firing its rockets it was clear that the firing locations were in the middle of civilian areas. So what would you have Israel do, stand there while Hezbollah dropped rockets indiscriminately into its cities?

Regarding Israel giving back “occupied territories” what is enough for you? What are we arguing about here?

The 1948 boundaries? The Arabs could have had those from the beginning of the Partition of Palestine but chose to attack Israel instead. It clearly isn’t Gaza or the West Bank. Israel vacated Gaza and was in the preparation stage for vacating the West Bank when Hamas and Hezbollah decided they couldn’t stand the idea of peace and decided to kidnap Israeli soldiers to stir up trouble and kill the deal.

A Palestinian State? The Palestinians could have had one as offered by the Camp David accords and later by the US Roadmap to Peace, but chose instead to rise in an intifada that killed 1,000 Israelis over three years.

Would you be satisfied if Israel vacated everything except a single square inch in the Negev? I doubt it. So what will satisfy you—other than the complete destruction of Israel and the death of every Jew there (which is what Nasrallahi has called for) ? Don’t tell me that all this death and destruction was just about that little piece of land, the Shaba Farms? That’s another crock.

Regarding Hezbollah getting F-16s, why stop there? I suppose the problem is that it is hard for Hezbollah to hide F-16 behind the skirts of their women.

Actually, why not have Iran give Hezbollah the bomb—I mean the hydrogen bomb? Dropping an H-Bomb on Israel would REALLY make a statement.

Posted by decampe on Aug 18, 2006 at 9:37 PM

Imran:

From what I understand (Zawahiri) Spain is “occupied territory” too.  What are the Muslim plans for that?  You really think this is all about the Shabaa Farms?!  That is just an excuse for the genocide they desire to commit.  I agree that the airpower only war was a big mistake on the part of Israel, they needed to go in hard.  I’m sure the next round they will be international peace forces will be completely discredited.  Go IDF!~

Posted by Hyjinx22 on Aug 19, 2006 at 7:39 AM

My energetic and peace loving friends, please read the latest Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker re Lebanon. 

According to Mr. Hersch, the unusuallly high damage rate of Israeli boming was due to the (depleted uranium GBU 28) Bunker Busters that we provided.  It seems that GW wanted to test these weapons before using them on Iran and we had heard that Hizballah had tunnels that would provide a good comparison.

Don’t let all this talk of human lives get in the way of a good test. 

Unfortunately, not all is as it seems.  Even the issue as to who the aggressor is is an artifact of a point in time.  In late January of this year, Israeli military deliberately shot and killed a lone shepherd on the Lebanese side of the border with the excuse that he had probably been on the Israeli side at some time.  Read the UNIFIL reports.  Hizballah retalliated and the see-saw continued and worsened until July.  Go before or after late January and we can find the opposite aggressor.

The point is that by not stopping the violence, we are ensuring that yet another generation that has lost family and has a perfect reason for revenge will not only seek it but find it. 

We can stop the nonsense in Iran before it starts simply by NOT bombing the crap out of them and expecting them to respect us for doing it.  What a concept.  Preventive maintenance instead of preemptive war.
geocopy

Posted by geocopy on Aug 19, 2006 at 10:09 AM

Geocopy:

Ummm….I have a feeling that the Iranians (regime) declared war on us a long time ago (1979) and that every act of magnamity on our part only makes us seem weaker.  Khomeni himself recently told us our “razor is dull” and that we are a “weak horse.”  Oh ya, geocopy - to your “violence doesn’t solve anything” mentality I could cite most of human history to prove you are wrong.  Unfortunately, the fact is we are dealing with a regime in Iran that literally believes in a 12th Imam in a well who will emerge at the dawning of the apocalypse to lead the Shia to final victory.  Furthmore, they believe it is their religious duty to create these conditions.  I think this is obviously a very dangerous force, even a lib like you might understand that.  So, the Chamberlins will continue caterwalling about how UNSC 1701 is “peace in our time” and history will undoubtedly repeat itself.  You see, by applying limited violence now in support of an Iranian popular revolution, we can save the world guarenteed destruction in the future.  It is as simple as that.  I don’t expect you to understand that though, you are clearly too short-sighted.  What if someone had the balls to take out Hitler in 1938?  They have declared their intentions time and time again, it would be damn negligent not to act.

Posted by Hyjinx22 on Aug 19, 2006 at 12:59 PM

Hyjinx:
I can understand using violence to respond.  Unfortunately, it does not work very well.  We hijacked the Iranian government by installing a Shah and they finally got wise and retalliated.  They used violence to capture people in our embassy.  Again, it is a matter of perspective.  Exactly when in history are you calling something an aggression?  If you don’t count all the crap we laid on Iran, then you are absolutely correct, they had no business taking hostages.  Unfortunately, human memory is such that folks hold grudges and they are carried from generation to generation.

If you think that we are safer here because we are fighting them there, then you will never figure out that we are generating enemies faster than we can defeat them.  What we have done in Iraq is to set out flypaper to attract all the malcontents in the world into a place where they can bleed us dry.

To put this in the same breath as defeating Nazi Germany is pathetic and laughable, except that some poor sucker might believe it.  We did not generate enemies during WW II.  They were already there.  What we needed to do was to defeat that enemy and jail the people like Prescott Bush (GW’s grandad) who provided coal, steel and banking for the Nazis.

Posted by geocopy on Aug 19, 2006 at 1:44 PM

Geocopy: Where exactly in the Hersh article in the New Yorker is there a mention of Israel testing GBU-28 depleted uranium bunker busters on behalf of the U.S. military? I must have missed it.

Posted by decampe on Aug 19, 2006 at 3:39 PM

to decampe:
Seymour mentions the bunker busters in the 21 August issue of the “New Yorker.”  I put in the parenthetical addition of just what those bunker busters were.  That I gleaned from the net as you are free to verify.  Simply enter Google and use “bunker busters lebanon” and you will get several hits.  That is why I use the parenthesis.  It is not from Seymour, although if you were to ask him, he might agree.  You can also find some related stuff under “Divine Strake” which is a test that we planned for June that never got by the people of Nevada.

You need a super-dense material to go through all the concrete that the Israelis did otherwise the bomb shelters work pretty well unless you have a firestorm to suck out the oxygen in the shelters.  Fires were minimal except for brush fires.  Divine Strake was designed to use explosive material without a DU core but with a several kiloton effect (although I think that it was actually a fuel bomb mix in the style of Timothy Mc Veigh.)

All this is a rehearsal for Iran.  Even after increasing the enlistment age to 42, we are running out of volunteers and we simply do not have the forces to invade Iran that has 3x the population of Iraq and almost 25 times the population of Lebanon.  Massive bombing, possibly nukes, is our only alternative for the Iranian subterranean.  We have no allies dumb enough to do it and we don’t have the troops or national will to open another war to have GW gamble on the trifecta.

Posted by geocopy on Aug 19, 2006 at 9:29 PM

Geocopy:

I take the very long view on these things.  I think by sponsoring revolution in Iran we can’t lose because there is simply nothing worse than what is there.  It is the same as defeating a Hitler because in both cases a deep-seated fascist ideology is at work and once you shatter the illusion (of the “ummah” in this case) you will discredit the ideology.  The Japanese were as suicidal as they come during WWII, we literally beat that out of them.  We are now very friendly.  I prefer that the West not have to go that route.  I think the Iranian people themselves our our best hope, I’ll bet they’re so very happy they “got wise to us” and replaced the Shah with a hell-on-earth totalitarianism.  Almost all polls of Iranians show a very strong desire to be free, I think they do not carry much of the baggage as the rest of the Arabs b/c they are Persian and have their own tradition.  I feel the country could be a major force for good, but the West is going to have to do what is necessary, whether that looks like WWII or the Cedar Revolution is up to them.

Posted by Hyjinx22 on Aug 19, 2006 at 9:35 PM

Also, do you know why we didn’t “generate enemies” during WWII?  It wasn’t because people around the world loved us so and wouldn’t side with the Nazis, it’s because they FEARED us.  It is a Machiavellian world, and only when it is clear that resistance is completely useless and will only end in your destruction, humans who are sane will choose not to resist.  The West is simply unwilling to instill that kind of fear, which would fill the void of respect.  So we suffer perpetual war.  I do not believe the people we fight are hydra like and sprout 6 for every 1.  I think we haven’t made it clear what it really means to lose to the populations that support and harbor.  Make it clear that after we demolish the terrorist organization in their midst that there will be no aid money or international gravy train with violins.  That will discourage future terroristic behavior and save everyone the pain.  WE CAN WIN IF WE REALLY WANTED TO.

Posted by Hyjinx22 on Aug 19, 2006 at 9:42 PM

Geocopy,

I find your parenthetical additions to the Hersh story to be as disengenuous as the doctored and faked Reuters and AP photos of bomb deaths and damage. Let me give you a hint: when you ascribe statements to a well known journalist like Seymour Hersh, you probably ought to check first to see whether or not he actually made them. If English is not your native tongue, maybe you ought to get someone who speaks it fluently to translate the article for you. Because you’ve added a whole bunch of stuff that Hersh never said.

He didn’t use the words “bunker buster"anywhere in the piece; he didn’t use the words “depleted uranium”; he didn’t discuss “collateral damage” in relation to these bombs. In fact he mentions bunkers only once, and that in a general statement about hunting down missiles, bombs and tunnels from the air.

This is not just interpolation on your part, this is the worst sort of fabrication. You found some nonsense on the web by some other blowhards and decided top spice up Hersh’s report, because it wasn’t nasty enough for you.

Your speculation about depleted uranium in these things is just that, speculation. The UN spokesperson gave a similar warning about speculation during a press briefing in which the depleted uranium bunker buster charge was made. You say that the bunker busters produced several kilotons of effect; well you’d need an actual nuke explosion not a fuel-air bomb to produce that size of a burst Your claim is the same sort of crap that was thrown around about the Israelis using phosphorus warheads and about poison gas. Propaganda nonsense.

Try sticking to facts and not putting words into the mouths of respected journalists. Maybe some of us would listen more if you did that.

Posted by decampe on Aug 19, 2006 at 10:56 PM

> I am NOT a necon, as a long time active liberal I

Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 20, 2006 at 1:40 AM

> Hezbollah attacked Israel not the other way around, or have you forgotten?

No it didn’t, where did you get that silly idea?  There was an on going conflict for years and most of the attacking was by Israel. Look it up!

You would only believe that if you were an apologist for Israel.

(Hell, Chomsky was visiting Southern Lebanon as a guest of Hezbollah about 3 months ago and they were buzzed by an Israeli drone over Lebanese territory).  According to the Lebanese Israel overflew Lebanon on an almost daily basis).

Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 20, 2006 at 1:56 AM

Spinoza750:

And the difference between you and bin Laden is?

Posted by decampe on Aug 20, 2006 at 9:09 AM

> And the difference between you and bin Laden is?

Well thank you Mr. deChump for putting me in the category with a world class leader. I never thought I was so important as to rank with evil incarnate.

But it is a shame that you are so ignorant that you don’t know that there is great enmity between Hezbollah, Iran and Syria and the bin Ladenites.  If you knew anything about the Middle East you would know that those entities hate bin Laden and think he is crazy.  I bet you don’t know that many in the Middle East consider bin Laden a CIA stooge and in cahoots with a faction in the CIA—- at least till relatively recently.

Then again most of your posts are ignorant right wing rants so what is to be expected?

Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 20, 2006 at 10:22 AM

Spinoza750:

Whether those sects of Islamofascists hate each other or not is a moot point.  They all work towards the same end: the destruction of Western civilizations beginning with the Jews.  That makes them all equally culpable, and don’t be so naive to believe they don’t cooperate operationally.  Wasn’t it recently that non-other than UBL’s son was “released” from Iran to lead the war for Hizbollah in Lebanon?  Wouldn’t that be direct Sunni/Shite cooperation?  The enemy of my enemy is my friend is always true.  Shatter the illusion of the “Ummah” and bury the Nasser ideology of panarabism, that will put a stop to these fanatics because they will no longer have an ideological pot to piss in?  So, please, enlighten me about the ME….

Posted by Hyjinx22 on Aug 20, 2006 at 11:56 AM

Hyjinx since you are a rabid Zionist I doubt I or anyone can enlighten you about the Middle East.

Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 20, 2006 at 1:01 PM

> Suddenly, and following Saudi-Israeli-Bin Ladenite cooperation in Lebanon, Zionist organizations in the US changed their minds. They now declare that Saudi text books are filled with messages of love, tolerance, and cooperation.

posted by As’ad @ 5:10 PM link

I took this from the Angry Arab Web Site which is one of the best sites on the web to give insight especially on Lebanon.  As’ad is very good at indicating hypocrisy of all types.

He loves to go after idiots.

Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 20, 2006 at 1:07 PM

> Whether those sects of Islamofascists hate each other or not is a moot point.

Of course it isn’t.  You don’t know what you are talking about.

Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 20, 2006 at 1:15 PM

Thanks Hyjinx22, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

What amazes me is after I have spent nearly 40 years toiling in liberal causes from the anti-war movement of the ‘60s and the Free Speech Movement in Berkeley to decades as a labor journalist working for organized labor, as a political activest in the middle of the struggle for fair play for the aged, blind and disabled, for the working poor, for the candidates who spoke against Nixon and Reagan and the Bushies, I get called a Right Winger by this moron because I don’t subscribe to his view that Israel is a nazi state and Hezbollah’s terrorists are fighters for freedom (wow, and all that in one runon sentence, too!)

You can’t get through to them. To them Israel is not a real nation but only a “usurping entity.” They’ve shat in their own beds and blamed it on Israelis and Zionists. They’ve, failed a to lift a finger to help the Palestinians over whose plight they cry crocodile tears. They hold grudges against Israel that seem to go all the way back to the 10 Plagues god visited upon the Egyptians, grudges that are part of the fabric of a terrifying revival of anti-Semitism.

Regarding bin Laden, you are correct according to the NY Post, which reported on August 3 in a story headlined “Iran Unleashes Qaeda Heir to Aid Hezbollahah” that “The son of Osama bin Laden has gone from Iran to Lebanon with the mission to organize terror attacks against Israel, it was reported yesterday. Saad bin Laden, 27, one of the terror mastermind’s eldest sons, was released by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard last Friday, according to the German daily Die Welt.  “From the Lebanese border, he has the task of building Islamist terror cells and preparing them to fight with Hezbollah,” the paper said, quoting intelligence sources.”

I stand by my comparison of Spinoza750 to Osama bin Laden.

Posted by decampe on Aug 20, 2006 at 1:17 PM

decampe: I find it difficult to believe that someone with your claimed credentials is not able to express regarding Israel is if it is some sort of sacred cow.  And what would be the NYP source for this fairy tale about son of Bin Laden? Should we give the NYP the same sort of benefit of the doubt as we giver those who claim that Abjabad said “wipe Israel off the map” when a correct translation shows he said no such thing? Most of what you say, to me, who was persuaded only over a period of years to become critical of Israel, sounds like Goebbels. That the Israeli regime is a land thief and completely thuggish, racist and genocidal towards its’ neighbours is undeniable.

Posted by accesslaw on Aug 20, 2006 at 6:49 PM

accesslaw:
You ask who says Saad bin Laden was released by the Iranians to work with Hezbollah in recruiting terrorists? Well, to those I cited above (the NY Post and the German Die Welt) add ABC TV Network news, the Sunday Express of India and the London Daily Mail, CNN and the Calgary Sun. (I’d add Israel Fax to that list but you’d probably shriek “bias.”)

I believe the name of the President of Iran is “Ahmadinejad” not “Abjabad”  as you said above (unless that Farsi translation is bad as well). And if Ahmadinejad was mistranslated when he was reported to say “[we must] wipe Israel off the map” what was it you claim he really said, “Let’s invite the Israelis over for tea”?

Was this the same Ahmadinejad who was quoted by the Times of London and about a billion other members of the media as saying the Holocaust was a “myth” or was that another Farsi mistranslation?

Posted by decampe on Aug 20, 2006 at 9:53 PM

decampe: Just because a rumour is repeated does not make it true. Did you notice that Olmert’s claim that NATO killed 10,000 civilians in Yugslavia was unquestioned? NATO historically claimed 500, Yugoslavia claimed 1,000 to 1,200, so 10,000 was just another taste of chutzpah and hasbarah . I no longer believe any Israeli source without verification.

I asked for the SOURCE of this rumour about Bin Laden’s son, it sounds to me like the usual Debkafile type of fanciful “intelligence”.

Yes both quotes attributed to Ahmadinejad are mistranslations and repeated for the purpose of demonization and propaganda of a popular, democratically elected leader. For one source examining the translation issue, see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

Posted by accesslaw on Aug 20, 2006 at 10:57 PM

One of the reasons the Bush Administration initially missed the terrorism story was that their obsessive “state worship” blinded them to the simple fact that states are not needed to support and sustain “terrorist” movements. In fact, Hezbollah is a vital and legitimate part of the Lebanese State doing quite well what the PLO attempted but failed to do over 20 years ago when they were expelled from Lebanon by Israel.  Hezbollah commands a great deal of respect and legitimacy both running Lebanon and militarily defending it.  Its social organizations are needed and its military is formidable in defending Lebanon against foreign aggression.

Iran’s role is weak. Iran doesn’t share interests or agenda with Hezbollah.  Open support would bring condemnation and reprisals.  US claims that Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy is propaganda in the war on terror designed to justify an attack on Iran for ulterior motives like weakening America’s most formidable enemy in the region.

The current conflagration between Israel and Hezbollah was not provoked by Iran. It was planned by joint US/Israeli contacts for three month leading up to the Hezbollah kidnappings of the IDF soldiers.  As Sy Hersh pointed out in his New Yorker article, there was repeated and unprecedented contacts between high ranking US and Israeli officials contemplating the political and military advantages of a full scale conflict between Hezbollah and Israel. 

It was known that Hezbollah was unhappy about its fighters held captive by Israel and the most recent (and quite understandable)  refusal of Israel to include the notorious Samir Kuntar in a prisoner exchange.  The Hezbollah wanted to force a prisoner exchange with Israel to enhance its prestige in Lebanon at a time when continued Iranian support is risked by the US military presence in the region.  Israel escalated a brutal war with the Palestinians which included destruction of infrastructure, targeting of civilians, and collective punishments drawing Hezbollah into the conflict.  The Israeli response was out of all proportion and threatened the existance of Lebanon more than Hezbollah. More than 800 Lebanese civilians were killed with thousands more wounded and over one million people, or 25% of the Lebanese population, became refugees.  The obvious objective was to destroy Lebanon in order to remake it physically and politically and to reduce the danger of Hezbollah rocket attacks pursuant to a US assault on Tehran.  There was also an attempt to delegitimate Hezbollah on the Arab Street.  The exact opposite occured!

It is clear that non-state actors such as Hezbollah and al-Qaeda are forces to be reckoned with as they can act quite well and independantly of formal state sponsership. The time has also come for a comprehesive peace settlement in the region.  Israel didn’t learn from its last major “War of Attrition” in the late 1960s and early 70s when it employed massive strategic bombing inside Egypt’s Suez Canal Zone in order to alienate President Nasser from his people and bring about his overthrow. The exact opposite occured. The region filled up with Soviet weapons that the Russians were previously reluctant to send and the entire Middle East lined up behind Nasser. It also created future military difficulties for Israel in the Yom Kipper War in 1973 which resulted in high Israeli casualties!

By the same token, Israeli brutality in Lebanon has made a hero of Nasrallah and further entrenched Hezbollah’s role in Lebanon.  The Neoconservative dream of a restructured Middle East in line with US preferences is a dangerous pipedream.  The vain attempt has only created the perception of a weakened US/Israel Axis. It will also lead to a new round of negotiations pressuring Israel into serious concessions to the Palestinians that, ironically, the war was designed to avoid in the first place.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Aug 21, 2006 at 12:54 AM

OK, we’ve argued this to death: who’s right, who’s wrong, who started it, is Hezbollah or Israel right or wrong. It leads only to more “I’M right,” “No I’M right.” arguments without end.

What now?

Can we move past this argument to the nub of the issue, which is what do we do now? What will ensure long-term peace in the region? What will ensure safety and prosperity for all the parties, Israel, Lebanon, the Palestinians?

I believe that secure borders, self determination for all parties, and economic security are the fundamental needs.  That’s a very general statement though. As always, the devil is in the details.

So what is the path to real,long-term Middle East peace?

Posted by decampe on Aug 21, 2006 at 8:16 AM

Geez, I check out for just a couple of days, and the postings have gravitated to civilizational confrontation!  I thought this post was about how 3000 Shiite guerrillas held off the “mighty” Israeli Army, Navy and Air Force (Thermopylae-style).  Normally, I would point out that this “civilizational” divide is a further diversion from the actual facts on the ground (Bush uses it to justify just about everything he does), but here goes.

How come every time Israel (or Bush for that matter) kills someone, she is defending “the West” against Islam? 

What “West?”  The Christian West?  There are more Christian Arabs than Israelis (ironically, many of them in Lebanon).  The Vatican (some would say the very definition of “the West” as the instigator of the Crusades) still lacks full diplomatic relations with Israel because of its treatment of Catholics, who in their bad fortune, happen to Arab.

Geographic West?  How can Christian Russia be part of “the West” when she is east of Islamic Algeria?  How can Israel be part of “the West” when she is east of Islamic Egypt?

“Judeo-Christian” civilization?  Until the last half of the century, “the West” was systematically exterminating Jews.  The most telling of which side of the “civilizational divide” most Jews were on was in Islamic Spain.  When “liberated” by “the west,” Spanish Jews ran from the Christian inquisition, and other “western” horrors, to the Islamic Ottoman Empire.  In fact, noble crusaders usually embarked upon crusades against Muslims with “warm-up” pogroms against local Jews.  Although there certainly were instances of Muslim-Jewish antagonism, they were minor compared to the doctorinal hatred of Jews bred into Christian Europe’s conscienceness.  “The west” really just atoned for its sins against the Jews after the Holocaust.  Doesn’t a “civilization,” Judeo-Christian or otherwise, have to be more than 50 years old?

See how effective and useful it is to talk about East vs. West when you’re trying to distract a gullible electorate from what appears to be a modern-day Thermopylae.

Posted by Imran on Aug 21, 2006 at 8:46 AM

Accesslaw: I read the discussion in informationclearinghouse of Ahmadinejad’s speech and how it was purportedly misunderstood by those translating it. Unfortunately the informationclearinghouse website is a jumble of really bad English, so that the translation they offer and their own explanation reads like ancient Etruscan translated into English by someone whose native language is Klingon. In other words it’s a mess.

But the best I can get out of that jumble it is that informationclearing house claims Ahmadinejad was really only saying “whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.”

Now as a native speaker of English I may be having trouble with the labyrinthine nature of the translation, but the distinction escapes me between Ahmadinejad’s saying “wipe Israel off the map,” and his saying “eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.”

Maybe you guys in the heart of the “hate Israel” movement see a distinction, I sure as hell don’t.

Posted by decampe on Aug 21, 2006 at 2:02 PM

Excellent interview with British MP George Galloway about media bias against Hezbollah.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=730041565017127482&q=british+mp&hl=en

Posted by Imran on Aug 21, 2006 at 4:02 PM

Big surprise, Galloway despises Israel, how about telling us something new.

Posted by decampe on Aug 21, 2006 at 4:43 PM

Typical AIPAC response: rather than address the issues actually raised by the speaker, attack the speaker personally as an “anti-semite” or one who “despises Israel.” 

Notice that there was NO discussion of what he actually said. 

Silencing or marginalizing critics of Israeli actions in this fashion will not help Israel find the right answers (much like Bush attacking his Iraq war opponents as traitors rather than listening to their criticism and formulating better policy).  It will guarantee them an Israeli version of “stay the course.”

Posted by Imran on Aug 22, 2006 at 10:28 AM

I don’t know why Israel has the right to rip up Lebanon and engage in massive eco-terrorism by bombing the fuel tanks attached to power generating facilities south of Beirut because of foolish, irresponsible statements made by the Iranian leader. This is the main excuse being used: Ahmedinijad’s inflammatory statements about Jews and Israel.  Now what is widely considered a genocide against innocent people has been commited in Lebanon pursuant to the goals of neo-conservative conquest of the region.  In addition, the Eastern Mediteranian has been toxified at the expense of the US and other taxpayers.  Israel is way out of hand.  It is worse than it’s ever been!  Some one in the US has to put them on a shorter leash.  This will be for the good of the world and even the US Jewish community itself.  The March elections in Israel turned out the most right wing electorate and Parlaiment in Israel’s history-worse even than the 2001 and 2003 elections of Sharon. The Laborites, who have been under the rightist influence of those like Haim Ramon, as well as peripheral left parties like Meeritz, are horribly marginalized. Now Israel is dominated by Likud (far right), Kadima (Likud lite), Yisrael beitanu (racist Russian reactionaries), and numerous religious parties all of the right. There is about 5% Israeli Arab representation (Israeli Arabs are over 20% of resident Israeli citizens). The new government is out to prove its resolve with regard to national security. This is highly dangerous.  The separation wall and the IDF atrocities bode ill for the region in general.  Israel’s current role is highly negative.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Aug 22, 2006 at 1:01 PM

cabdriverinchicago: “Israel is way out of hand.”? Israel got out of Gaza, was in the process of getting out of the West Bank, and negotiated plans for a Palestinian state. The response from the Palestinians was 1,000 Isralis killed by terrorists in three years, kidnappings of their soldiers by hezbollah and Hamas, new murders of Israeli settlers and 4,000 rockets launched by Hezbollah indiscriminately into Israel at civilian targets. Yeah, that sure looks like it’s Israel that’s out of hand.

Imran: Silencing what critics? I mearly said that in his incredibly angry rant, Galloway said nothing new, nothing to move the debate along. I don’t recall censoring him in any fashion.

Meanwhile, do you have an answer to my question above: “What will ensure long-term peace in the region? What will ensure safety and prosperity for all the parties, Israel, Lebanon, the Palestinians?”

Posted by decampe on Aug 22, 2006 at 1:21 PM

The Palestinian reality is that Israel was created by Europeans, guilty over the holocaust, on their land; that despite the “people without a land, a land without a people” slogan, hundreds of thousand real people, who had lived there for generations, were expelled, to create this “Jewish utopia” in 1948.  The Palestinians suffered further losses by trusting neighboring Arab regimes to regain their land by force.  The tactical and military errors notwithstanding, the land remains stolen against the wishes of the indigenous population.

It amazes me when people talk about how “grateful” the Palestinians should have been to get what was offered in 1948.  It’s the equivalent of me taking half your land by force, and then when you fight me to get it back, I defeat you and take the rest, mocking that you should have been happy with the half I left you.  What hogwash!

Today, if there is to be a solution, the question is not who gets what as a matter of right, but how much taken/occupied land should Israel get to keep, or be rewarded with,  by virtue of its monopoly on overwhelming force.  I won’t kid myself about the reality of a nuclear armed Israel, even on stolen land, if you won’t delude yourself about the “righteousness” of Israeli imperialism.

The solution lies in the hands of those who have stolen the land.  They want “security” after having stolen land, but don’t want to have to return any of it.  Some “liberal” Israelis might part with a portion of it, but only if they get to keep the best parts, including Jerusalem.  In return, the Palestinians get ghettos in the West Bank and Gaza, and have to kill fellow Palestinian discontents who won’t accept such a “grand bargain.”

Rather than asking the Palestinians why they obstruct such “peace,” honestly ask yourself what you would do.

Posted by Imran on Aug 22, 2006 at 2:30 PM

Can I read that as saying you would not accept any solution that includes the continued existance of Israel, regardless of where the borders are placed?

Posted by decampe on Aug 22, 2006 at 2:57 PM

Decampe,

How long are we going to continue to hear the same nonsense blaming the Palestinians and their leadership for the collapse of the Oslo Accords?  The Israelis never simply quit Gaza but merely redeployed troops outside the area while continuing to maintain logistical, military, sovereign control from outside. Israel can determine whether or not aircraft can land at the Gaza Airport and in fact completely controls the airspace around Gaza. True, the 8,000 settlers were removed with compensation and resettled in the West Bank where Israel plans to strengthen the occupation.  It must be remembered that Dov Weissglass, Sharon’s chief aide, described the Gaza Disengagement as ” a unilateral suspension of the peace process in phemaldehyde” by Israel that would “ensure that there would be no peace process with the Palestinians.”  Israel continues its military control of the area.

In the West Bank, what peace activist Jeff Halper calls “the matrix of control” has been in place throughout the Oslo negotiations and after.  What the Palestinians were offered was three major cantons separated physically by Israeli salients containing Jewish settlements which protrude deep into Palestinian territory utterly destroying the continuity of the West Bank and thereby its viability as a state. The IDF check point system creates delays, and is impossibly obstructive of normal life. What we have is a Bantustan system which in South Africa became the cause of a three decade long struggle against Apartheid but in Israel is supposed to pass for a just and lasting final status agreement between two sovereign states. The building of the separation wall has made matters even worse and has destroyed the viability of the Palestinian economy creating total dependency of Israel and outside donors. Poverty and unemployment is rampant in the occupied territories.  This is the context in which the extremist Hamas won the PLC elections.

The collapse of the Oslo accords with the Al Aksa Intifada following in its wake has taken the lives of over 6,000 Jews and Arabs since September 2000. That is 1000 lives annually.  Over 80% of the casualities are Palestinian Arabs.  It is now well known that it was Sharon who sunk any hopes of the Agreement’s success. By appearing on top of the Haram al Sheriff overlooking the Western Wall of the Temple Mount with a crowd of militant Jewish Settlers waving Israeli flags and making bellicose pronouncements, Sharon must have known he would provoke a violent conflagration.  Arafat and others tried to stop the incident and save the talks but to no avail.  The Israelis refused to give up on their expansionist colonization drive and the US refused to intervene so long as the whole thing could be credibly blamed on Arafat and the Palestinians.

The tiny Israeli left has been discussing dezionization. What this means is twofold.  On the one hand it means acknowledging Zionism’s inherently expansionist colonial drive and reversing it. On the other it means adopting a modern, liberal notion of citizenship and extending it to the Arabs of Israel. This means taking in some of the Palestinian refugees from 1948 and ceasing to obsess about the demographic problem. It also means a viable Palestinian state along side Israel. Only then can there be peace.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Aug 22, 2006 at 9:53 PM

OK, so cabdriverinchicago believes that the road to peace means adopting a modern, liberal notion of Israeli citizenship and extending it to the Arabs of Israel, taking in some of the Palestinian refugees from 1948 and ceasing to obsess about the demographic problem. He/she also says it means a viable Palestinian state along side Israel.

A question for cabdriverinchicago : Can you clarify what changes this would mean for Israeli Arabs, who are already represented in the Knesset? Do you mean granting citizinship to Arabs on the West Bank and in Gaza? What do you mean by taking in some Palestinian refugees? Which ones and how many? Can you explain what you mean by the “demographic problem”?

Do others have ideas? (Would a move by Israel in the direction proposed by cabdriverinchicago be acceptable to Israel’s Arab neighbors? Would this be acceptable to Hezbollah? to Syria? to Iran? who have called for Israel’s complete destruction and generally refuse even to recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel?)

Posted by decampe on Aug 23, 2006 at 9:27 AM

Cabdriver wrote

>>
What the Palestinians were offered was three major cantons separated physically by Israeli salients containing Jewish settlements which protrude deep into Palestinian territory utterly destroying the continuity of the West Bank and thereby its viability as a state.
>>

Utter bullshit. For starters, check Wikipedia, “Camp David 2000 Summit” entry. Don’t start to wail about its credibility - if you have anything better, just post a link.

>>
The building of the separation wall has made matters even worse and has destroyed the viability of the Palestinian economy creating total dependency of Israel and outside donors.
>>

Now, that’s something. Creating a wall that separates palestinians from Israel created dependency of Israel?? By the same token, the Berlin wall created the dependancy of East Germany on West Germany?

>>
Poverty and unemployment is rampant in the occupied territories.
>>

No wonder. Check the amount of money palestinians receive from their various donors and it’s uses, and Arafat’s personal fortune as well. Check the amount of weaponry purchased.

>>
It is now well known that it was Sharon who sunk any hopes of the Agreement

Posted by dizz on Aug 23, 2006 at 9:41 AM

Well said, dizz

Posted by decampe on Aug 23, 2006 at 11:27 AM

Decampe:

I did not deny the existence of Israel.  In order to find a solution, one must correctly analyze the problem.  The purpose of my previous post was to place the Middle East paradigm in its correct context.  I get tired of hearing how poor Israel is just defending herself, as if hordes were attacking for no reason whatsoever, without any discussion of the land grab which is the basis of the conflict.

There are those in Israel who do not want to give up any land for any reason, and envision a God-given mandate for a Greater Israel, of biblical proportions (no pun intended).  There are those Palestinians who will not want to reward Israeli agression with any of their stolen land.  And only one of them has a monopoly of overwhelming force, including nuclear weapons.  So now, tell me, which side should, or is in a position to, begin the compromise?

Posted by Imran on Aug 23, 2006 at 12:28 PM

Again, what do you propose, Imran?

Posted by decampe on Aug 23, 2006 at 1:31 PM

My best guess:

Israeli withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, including East Jerusalem.

Dismantling of ALL Israeli settlements in these areas.

Release of ALL Palestinian prisoners.

Reparations for:

(1) the land Israel gets to keep, and
(2) harm done to Palestinian civilians, both in Palestine and those driven out, and
(3) destroyed homes, fields, crops and infrastructure.

Palestinian state (with all sovereign powers) on West Bank and Gaza, a viable land corridor linking the two, with its capital East Jerusalem.

Right of return for all Palestinians expelled since 1948.

However, as mentioned earlier, there are imperialists in Israel that do not wish to part with any land, and even the so-called “liberals” there want a facade of a Palestinian state, at the mercy of Israel, with no meaningful sovereign powers. 

The self-righteous Israeli dismissal of any compromise because some Palestinians might reject any deal is putting the cart before the horse.  Also implied in these dismissals is the Israeli recognition that any deal legalizes its theft of Palestinian land and isn’t morally acceptable.  Finally, such self-righteousness is simply unbecoming for the thief who started this whole mess in the first place.

Posted by Imran on Aug 23, 2006 at 3:07 PM

This is good! How about this, decampe!

1. Equality before the law and in every public service in Israel, i.e., housing. property ownership, building permits, marriage, health, per capita electoral representation, immigration—for all Israeli citizens regardless of religion, ethnicity or jewishness.

2. Tax incentives for every Israeli family to adopt a Palestinina family, using the money saved from cutting off all tax incentives and costs presently allocated to settlement/colonization of Golan, West Bank, and Gaza.

3. Demilitarization of Israeli relations with neighbours, activation of expansive programs of collaboration and diplomacy to address all grievances and to restore full peaceful relations, trauma counselling for the two generations of Israelis who have been contaminated by military service at checkpoints and other instruments of Palestinian population imprisonment and control.

4. Legislative definitions of Israeli hate crimes to include all chauvinistic speech derogatory to goys, arabs, muslims, etc., pro-active enforcement, and active re-eduation programs for offenders, together with an thorough examination of all Israeli education curricula in partnership with non-jews to identify hate ful ideas and prevent their inculcation into the next generation.

How’s that for a start? I’m sure I missed a couple of hundred of other potentially positive initiatives towards a justice and equality. Jewish Israelis could then rightfully claim to be a “light unto the earth” and a good example for their neighbours to follow.

Posted by accesslaw on Aug 23, 2006 at 3:43 PM

Interesting. Probably some negotiable items among those proposals.

And in return:

Secure borders for Israel. Enforced by international peacekeepers.

An end to all terrorist attacks upon and within Israel, including an end to firing of katusha and other rockets from Gaza and Lebanon..

Soverign Lebanese state control over all civil and military functions of Lebanon, including full enforcement of UN Resolution 1701 calling for disarming of Hezbollah.

Return of all Israelis held captive by Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.

An end to all acts and expression of anti-Semitism and hate speech against Israel and Jews.

Posted by decampe on Aug 23, 2006 at 4:44 PM

*Borders . . . 1947, Israeli compliance with UN resolutions and international conventions, including return of refugees. Peacekeepers absolutely, place Israeli nuclear weapons/facilities under UN guardianship.
*No occupation = no terrorism. Full sovereignty, including border control, absolute freedom of person, commerce, financial transactions, no Israeli trespass/harrassment of airspace.
*Incorporation of Hezbollah (who are Lebanese residents after all) into national military command structure, may require up-to-date census and per capita representation in national legislative assembly (presently apportionment is based on 1930’s figures I believe). Simple disarmament is unrealistic as H were responsible for ending Israel’s occupation and for repelling Israel’s new invasion . . . unless Israel also disarms.
*Full reciprocal prisoner exchange/release. An end to Israeli abductions and extrajudicial executions, and other covert/black flag actions.
*An end to the prohibition against fair criticism of Israel and Jews, ordinary critical thinking rules apply.

Posted by accesslaw on Aug 23, 2006 at 5:05 PM

>>>grudges that are part of the fabric of a terrifying revival of anti-Semitism. <<<

Yes and it is people like you (ex liberals) who are responsible for the rise of this anti-Semitism.

Your responsibility is because you don’t honor fair play. You refuse to give any credence to the feelings of Muslim people.  George Galloway has expressed the issue perfectly; NO JUSTICE,  NO PEACE. You have to treat people fairly and as human beings instead of looking at the world in a Machiavellian way.

I was in Israel during the Yom Kipper War and Israel at the time was still civilized. On Israeli Army Radio they were playing Pete Seeger and Joan Baez and there was expressions of respect for Arabs as people.  There was hope for an accommodation.  Since Reagan and Thatcher and the rise of Fascism only one world view has dominated. Might Makes Right.  Israel has joined the fascist camp of the USA and until fascism is defeated there will be no peace in the world.

And what is Fascism?

It is Nationalism and the belief that your tribe is better than any other tribe, it is militarism and the belief that war is the only way to achieve glory and honor and land and it is capitalism, the belief in doing in your neighbor before he does you in.

I have said many times before : you negotiate with your enemies, not with your friends. Hamas offered a Hudna.  Israel rejected it.  It should accept it.  And then negotiate, not from strength but from fairness.

Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 23, 2006 at 5:44 PM

>>>> Secure borders for Israel. Enforced by international peacekeepers.

That means Israel will have to give up all ideas of a greater Israel.  Not likely to happen.

>>>An end to all terrorist attacks upon and within Israel, including an end to firing of katusha and other rockets from Gaza and Lebanon..

That means that Israel will have to agree to give up state terrorism and that is not likely to happen

>>>Soverign Lebanese state control over all civil and military functions of Lebanon, including full enforcement of UN Resolution 1701 calling for disarming of Hezbollah.

Who is going to disarm Hezbollah?  Actually Jumblatt (sp) has called for them being integrated into the Lebanese Army but that is not likely at this stage.

>>>Return of all Israelis held captive by Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.

Not likely a problem.

>>>An end to all acts and expression of anti-Semitism and hate speech against Israel and Jews.

Not likely to happen in anything like the near future but it should be a goal.

Hatred levels are intense in that area of the world.

Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 23, 2006 at 6:02 PM

Well, I had a whole response here and it vanished during editing. Trust me, I was eloquent.

I guess the nub of what I was saying is that the only way to attain long-term peace is to get past the anger and hate on both sides. Accept the fact of Israel’s existance. Accept that the Palestinians want out from under what they perceive as Israeli domination. Accept that peace requires negotiation (with enemies AND friends) and successful negotiation requires compromise. The US has been ham fisted. The UN has been impotent. Radicals among the Arabs and Iranians have seized the opportunity to press their agenda. Israel (fearing for its existance) has been fractuous and aggressive.

Get past it, Do we want to fight for another 60 years while the weapons get more deadly and the sides more bitter and entrenched? Or do we want to negotiate the best deal we can get?

Posted by decampe on Aug 23, 2006 at 7:51 PM

Decampe:

My mother told me I’m jewish myself, I don’t care, it doesn’t matter one way or another, if I’m jewish, polish, german, welsh, english all in one, personally. Personally, the only racism I’ve experienced in my lifetime has been from jews who perceive me as goy or christian therefore automatically antisemitic. LIttle of it, from a very few, to be sure, and overwhelming outnumbered by roomates, girlfriends, a wife, etc., who happened to be jewish. It doesn’t matter to me and I wonder why it matters to others and why it is brought up all the time as I think it is an insignificant issue in our societies of today. In other words, shut up already, because I experience it as a weapon of intimidation against rational discussion even in my own community with my neighbours.

Well, Jabotinxky is the symbol of the zionist ideal of eretz israel, his photo hung over Sharon’s desk as premier, and the settelments in Golan, West Bank, Gaza and Sinai didn’t just happen they were state sponsored and heavily subsidized. Sure there is tension, but I perceive the rabid liberators of the Land of Israel “metre by metre” (Sharon) to be the strongest force in Israei society most of the time, after all, the eviction of up to 1 million arabs in 1947, the erasing of their villages, and the refusal to allow the refugees to return, is the foundation of the “demographic” problem. Ethnic cleansing. Apartheid. Abominable.

What are you smoking? Hamas and Hezbollah “kidnappings” caused Israeli warfare? Very recently, Israel abducted Palestinians and Lebanese . . . but it’s ok if they do it? It adds up to how many, 10,000 arabs imprisoned without charge or trial? Do you also ignore the constant overflights breaking the sound barrier and terrorizing civilian populations day and night? The escalating Israeli shelling and bombing of Gaza after the socalled “withdrawal”? Checkpoints? Bulldozing houses and orchards? Judaizing east Jerusalem? Abducting elected representatives? Books are and will be written about judeonazism in Palestine.

I respect the Israelis who individually befriend Palestinians, who protest the wall with Palestinians, who are beaten and shot by Israelis together with Palestinians, who monitor the checkpoints to document Israeli brutality against Palestinians, these are the true leaders and heroes of Israeli society.

Posted by accesslaw on Aug 23, 2006 at 10:54 PM

that’s odd, i got your comment by email and i responded but your’s is not posted here, so here it is

decampe just responded to the entry you subscribed to at In These Times.

The title of the entry is:
Examining Iran’s ties to Hezbollah

You can see the comment at the following URL:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/discuss/2790/

1. I thought we had a hunda right now (or at least an uneasy truce).
2. Anti-Semitism is hate directed against Jews for the simple fact of their
being Jews. You may have grievances against Israel, you may have grievances
against Jews you identify as zionists. But hate directed against Jews who
around the world who are uninvolved in these events is pure anti-Semitism.
If you see the issue at that level then you and I have no common ground to
negotiate anything and should just end this discussion.
3.I despise the Bush regime as much as you do. Do NOT tar me with that
brush. America can be better than that; most Americans ARE better than that.
4.The ugliness of feeling in the Middle East is pervasive; I don’t hear any
Arabs singing Dylan or his Arabic equivalent today either. There is plenty
of blame to go around. As I said, for all the tears that the Arab world has
shed over the Palestinians, they have lifted no a finger to help them
(except to 72 virgins in heaven).
5. Of course the issue is Nationalism. You have Israeli nationalism and Arab
nationalism. If you want to gain peace now (and not ascend into nuclear war,
which is where I terribly fear this could all end) then you have to get past
nationalism on all sides.
6.Negotiaiton is the forging of a contract, and is as necessary with your
friends as with your enemies, perhaps moreso.
7.I am flbberghasted at the claim that Israel as a nation seeks the status
of “Greater Israel.” Perhaps factions within Israel want the West Bank.
But naitonal policy over the decades has had Israel repeated win and then
cede back territories including the Sinai, Gaza, south Lebanon and parts of
the Golan. As national policy, Israel has moved to exit Gaza and the West
Bank, moderate Palestinians have welcomed such a move. Radicals like Hamas
have initiated terrorist acts (such as the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier
near Gaza that started the most recent battles.)
9.I don’t know who is going to disarm Hezbollah; Israel could have finished
the job—albeit at some cost— if not for the ceasefire. But UN
Resolutions 1559, 1680 and 1701 have all called for disarming them and any
other non-governmental militias. If Hezbollah’s army became part of the
Lebanese army, subject to their command and control and responsive to the
Lebanese Parliament, then a case could be made that the UN requirement has
been met. But as long as Hezbollah is an entity unto itself, subject to no
one’s command except that of their own leaders, then they are in violation
and must disarm. I do not understand how one can call Lebanon a sovereign
nation as long as a big chunk of its territory and populace is under the
control of an organization with a powerful military force.

Posted by accesslaw on Aug 23, 2006 at 11:18 PM

Thanks, I wondered what in the world had happened to that post. It was there, I hit a key to edit it and then it was gone. I appereciate your reposting it. I can’t imagine how it got emailed to you. I hadn’t finished editing it but the remaining things are mostly typos so I’ll leave it as is.

Regarding your comments about Jews seeing you as a goy or Christian and therefor ipso facto anti-Semitic. I would never make such an assumption and the vast majority of Jews I know would not. I know there are those with strong antipathy toward Israel for reasons that they believe are very valid. I don’t always agree with them (with you) but I understand that their animosity is rooted in a view of actual events. Anti-Semitism is different, it is hate directed at Jews for the simple fact of their being Jews.

It is a hate that brought on mass murder of Jews by burning in the Middle Ages when Jews were accused of purposely spreading the Black Death. It is hate that forced untold numbers of Jews during the Inquisition to abandon their religion at the threat of immolation. It is hate that forced Jews into the Pale of Settlement in Eastern Europe to “cleanse” them from the rest of Europe. And it is hate that culimnated in the horrid auto-da-fe of the holocaust where half the world’s Jews died horribly at the hands of the Nazis.

This happened not because of what Jews had done but simply because they were Jews. That is anti-Semitism.

As I said above, you and I can debate our differing views of Middle East history until kingdom come. It would make an informed argument. You argue your position very well. I try to state the case as I see it. But it will not change “the facts on the ground” (as the current term of art is used): the existance of Israel, the needs and desires of the Palestinians, the position of the other Arab states and of Iran.

So, what do we do? Do we continue fighting with more and more powerful weapons until there is nothing but empty radioactive sand from Tel Aviv to Tehran? Or, do we accept that peace requires real negotiation and negotiation requires compromise on both sides?  I have repeatedly asked for people to discuss the possibilities for peace, and repeatedly received more one-sided history lessons in reply.

OK I submit, we are not going to agree on history. So how do we solve this without blowing up a chunk of the world?

Posted by decampe on Aug 24, 2006 at 9:32 AM

Decampe:

I accept that negotiation is the most beneficial way to resolve this.  The problem is that both parties should want to negotiate.  Therein lies the rub, so to speak.

Both parties must perceive some gain from negotiation versus war: the party that can get everything it wants by force does not want, or need, negotiation.  Israel has a monopoly on overwhelming force.  It takes what it wants, and even when it “negotiates,” it dictates rather than negotiates in good faith, using the rejection of such dictation as further excuse for more war.

The Palestinians (or Hezbollah for that matter) do not have nuclear weapons, tanks, aircraft, submarines and $4 Billion+ in military aid from the US.  Israeli aggression and barbarism has forced the militarily weak to engage in assymetrical warfare (guerrilla and terror tactics), with the goal being to deprive the overwhelmingly powerful of both security and peace of mind, in an effort to level the playing field, so that BOTH parties, not just the weak, will want and benefit from negotiation rather than force.  Based on prior Israeli behavior, the current state of affairs will likely continue.

Posted by Imran on Aug 24, 2006 at 9:37 AM

Decampe:

I also share your analysis of the horrible consequences of anti-semitism.  How many question, with the same vigor, the anti-muslim hatred currently in vogue? 

Many of the posts here are nothing but anti-muslim tirades rather than a discussion of issues (much like Bush analyses of the issues, with the proviso that I am not painting anyone here with the horrid/putrid Bush brush).

Posted by Imran on Aug 24, 2006 at 9:56 AM

I do not engage in such tirades. I respect Islam and Muslims who practice it. But I am intensely wary of those who use their religion (some fundamentalist Christians,some radical Islamists, and even some Jews) as a cudgel against others.

In the US for a whole variety of reasons (anger at Al Qaeda among the ones most prominent), Muslims are facing hate and persecution that they have not experienced before., at least not at such an intensity. For a country that pretends to be the moral conscience of the world, that’s despicable.  As I said, I have been active on the front line of liberal causes for decades, putting not just my words, but my body as well in the line of fire to protect worker’s rights, and the rights of the downtrodden and dispossesed. I do not tolerate such bigotry, not here in the US, not in the Middle East.

I know it seems we are poles apart on the Middle East. But ultimately this will be settled not by war but by compromise and acceptable accommodation.

That means we have to honestly lay our positions out and honestly agree to listen to each other, really listen and not just argue over who is right.

I think we’ve made a little bit of a start on the forum and the effect of failure is so awful that I think we have to keep going.

Posted by decampe on Aug 24, 2006 at 2:37 PM

Decampe and Dizz,

Why don’t you wake up. Both the ICJ and an Israeli High Court have declared the Wall a violation of international law as is the occupation itself. Even the US Juror on the ICJ, himself a Jew, concurred with the other jurors’ opinions but dissented on technical grounds.  The wall has rendered the economy of the West Bank unviable by all accounts. It has usurped over one sixth of the land much of it arable land just for security purposes itself. The discontuguities created has made doing business and travel impossible on any reasonable basis. This has been shown over and again. This has stranded thousands of Palestinians between the Green Line and the Wall itself effectively confiscating their land. The Israeli land grab has resulted in immeasurable suffering as have the countless checkpoints which have resulted in a number of deaths due to delays for those seeking emergency medical treatment.  The occupation of 3million people is an abomination and the world knows it! Just stop defending thus shit.

In 2002, 22 members of the Arab League offered Israel an unprecedented offer of total normalization of relations with an acceptible Israeli offer on 1948 refugees in return for withdrawl to the pre-1967 armistice lines . Israel refused to even consider it.  Israel refuses to make any meaningful concessions due to unconditional US support for Israeli colonialism.  The wall has created an external dependency by making the Palestinian economy unviable.  Palestinian laborers continue to rely on the Israeli job market,  mostly for construction jobs, even as Israel is trying to replace them with European and other foreign immigrants.  The control of the West Bank by Israel is an endeavor to unilaterlaly determine the final status of the conflict. Palestinian violence is legitimate resistance to this oppression.  The Israelis need to leave the West Bank unconditionally taking the settlements with them.  Only then will there be justice and hence peace. Israeli colonial rule in the occupied territories is the only obstical.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Aug 24, 2006 at 3:23 PM

OK, so now cabdriverinchicago’s cards are on the table: he says Israel must unconditionally depart from the West Bank.

(I’m not going to argue the issue of the wall either way. Israel saw it as a ugly but necessary solution to constant inflitration, clearly the Palestinians revile it. But the issue may be moot anyway as the thrust of attack seems to have shifted to indirect fire from rockets etc.)

The settlements in the West Bank have been a central point of debate for a long time. If Israel did unconditionally leave what reciprical guarantees would they get that peace (meaning no suicide bombers and no katushas) would come?

Does anybody else think this is the solution?

Posted by decampe on Aug 24, 2006 at 8:27 PM

decampe:

Thanks for the props.  Hang in there man, don’t give up the good fight.  Someday most of these people will be mugged by reality and hopefully they’ll notice!

Posted by Hyjinx22 on Aug 25, 2006 at 6:21 AM

Imran:

Oh sure…Hezbollah the big, bad organization to which all powers are impotent.  Let me clue you in jackass, if Israel REALLY wanted to get down with them, they would have.  Olmert is weak and ineffectual, Bibi would have really “tuned them up.”  The airpower only approach was a loser from the start against the dug in.  What they needed were 30,000 troops, flamethrowers to clear out those little rat holes and many checkpoints south of the Litani.  I have absolutely no doubt that it is very doable, especially after cutting off their Syrian supply line.  Alas, there will be another round and I think it will be quite different from what we just witnessed.  GO IDF!~

Posted by Hyjinx22 on Aug 25, 2006 at 6:38 AM

Spinoza750:

You are very naive.  A Hudna is just a period of false peace for the Arabs to re-arm and regroup after getting smacked around for being reckless.  That is completely worthless.  Hamas needs to go, there is no room for that organization in any serious Palestinian state.  How the hell can you have peace with a group who has it in there charter to EXTERMINATE you?!  That is definitely a “tough” negotiating point, wouldn’t you say?  You can solve the problems of the Palestinians by cutting off all international aide, that way they either have to play ball and build a peaceful state, or get used to having nothing.  One doesn’t have time for terrorism and hate speech when one is trying to survive.  That is the luxury Western aid buys.  Cheap rhetoric, false bravado.  Fuck them.  Let them reap what they sow, no more gravy train.

Posted by Hyjinx22 on Aug 25, 2006 at 6:47 AM

cabdriver,

let’s stick to the facts.

>>
Both the ICJ and an Israeli High Court have declared the Wall a violation of international law as is the occupation itself.
>>

The Israel High Court (there’s only one) never deemed the Wall illegal. Only certain parts of it were subsequently rebuild in accordance to its rulings. Which was done, sit tight, after palestinians had filed appropriate complaints. I’d like to see an Israeli filing a case and winning it in their court.

However we went astray from your original idea that the Wall ruins PNA’s economy.

>>
It has usurped over one sixth of the land
>>

Excuse me? One sixth of what, exactly? I mean have you ever seen it, say, on TV? It might be long all right, but is it that wide?

>>
The Israeli land grab has resulted in immeasurable suffering as have the countless checkpoints which have resulted in a number of deaths due to delays for those seeking emergency medical treatment. 
>>

You forgot to mention that
1. The urgent medical help was sought in Israel’s hospitals. Do you know how many treatments were given and how many palestinian lives were saved? If Israel occasionally didn’t act quick enough, well, go blame it.

2. It also resulted in a number of deaths on the israeli side due to blowings on the very checkpoints themselves.

The basic idea re PNA’s economy is simple - the vast part of their GNP comes from what they earn in Israel. Check the number of people employed there and inside PNA, and compare the wages as well.

>>
The occupation of 3million people is an abomination and the world knows it! Just stop defending thus shit.
>>

I’m not defending “occupation”. I think Israel made a basic mistake when the territories were conquered (after a war that Arabs caused, don’t you ever forget). They should have either removed all local population by forceand put their own sitizens on all of it, just like any other country did after conquering land. See Russia in Kenigsberg now Kaliningrad, Germany in Elsace - Lorraine before WW1 etc. Or it should have left it altogether, like, say, Russia left Austria after WW2. We don’t discuss the colonization option for now, I think you’d be against it anyway. First option was not executed, so it’s hardly relevant either. Now personally I’m not against leaving all of these lands, but we have to be sure first that palestinians will not constitue a future treat.

And Israel tried “stop the occupation” scenario already. In Lebanon. And you know the outcome.

Now the second part of your post is simply slogans.  It seems that you hardly comprehend their meaning yourself. For an instance, you blame Israel for replacing palestinian workers with european ones. However, palestinians were working in Israel for years, and only lately, after Oslo accords (hardly a coincidence), the very slow process of denying jobs to palestinians began. Not to mention that no palestinian was ever killed or injured while in Israel, while scores of Israelis were killed when going to PNA’s controlled lands.

You only say that Israel will never be good enough. Indeed, according to you, it has to withdraw from all the lands, let millions of refugees back (was it ever done elsewhere on Earth ever?) and give them all a place to work! In return we will receive “normalisation”. No wonder Israel refused to ever consider it. (another hint - our border with Syria is much quieter then the border with Egypt. Guess why).

The basic idea is as follows - Israel does not want, never did, never called for, never acted in order to bring a destruction of any Arab state. All Israel’s neighbors preach for Israel’s destruction incessantly and act accordingly. Stop the violence first, then we will talk.

Posted by dizz on Aug 25, 2006 at 9:01 AM

Hijynx22:

I don’t recall saying that Hezbollah was “the big bad organization to which all powers are impotent.”  I believe that I very clearly pointed out the overwhelming military superiority Israel possessed over the 3000 militiamen of Hezbollah.  In fact, it was this very mismatch that made for my Thermopylae analogy.

Oh, and btw, what’s with the “Jackass” and “Go IDF” thing?  How old are you?

Posted by Imran on Aug 25, 2006 at 10:25 AM

Hyjinx22: “Oh sure…Hezbollah the big, bad organization to which all powers are impotent.  Let me clue you in jackass, if Israel REALLY wanted to get down with them, they would have.  Olmert is weak and ineffectual, Bibi would have really

Posted by Azathoth on Aug 25, 2006 at 11:44 AM

YOU ARE ALL IRAN’S WITLESS AGENTS.  WASTING YOUR WORDS.  ALL THIS MUDDLED DEBATE IS WHAT IRAN WANTS DUMMIES.  WHAT WILL YOU ALL SAY WHEN IRAN HANDS OFF ITS NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO TERRORISTS WHO WILL USE IT ON LONDON OR NY TO KILL MILLIONS AND SEND WESTERN SOCIETY INTO CHAOS?  WILL YOUR FAIR AND BALANCED DEBATE ON HIZBOLLAH, SYRIA, IRAN AND ISRAEL SAVE THE PEOPLE OF NY AND LONDON FROM HORRIBLE NUCLEAR DEATH BY EXTREMISTS?  THEY WILL LAUGH AT YOU AND POINT OUT THAT YOUR RELIANCE ON INTELLECTUAL REASONING, RATHER THAN GOD, WAS YOUR DOWN FALL.  DO WE HAVE TO FEAR THAT AMERICA OR ISRAEL WILL LAUNCH AN UNPROVOCATED NUCLEAR ATTACK ON A CIVILIAN POPULATION?  I DONT THINK SO.  BUT IRAN, VERY MUCH SO.
WAKE UP WAKE UP WAKE UP, THE BOMB IS TICKING.

Posted by traveler on Aug 25, 2006 at 4:32 PM

“YOU ARE ALL IRAN

Posted by Azathoth on Aug 25, 2006 at 5:36 PM

traveler:  If a nuclear weapon went off in NYC, democracy, as we know it, would disappear.  We’d become a society run by theocrats, spouting things like “God doesn’t want America to perish, so we must destroy the Arabs first.”  And then we’d respond with nuclear weapons.  Or chances are, out of fear, we’ll have nuked the Iranians first.  Trust me, extremists in America are waiting, almost on the edge of their seats for such a scenario, to be the first to fill a power vacuum, and then the world will REALLY be a mess.  (I’m not convinced that extremists aren’t already in power here.  Ahmadinejad in Iran just has the liberty to say what he really feels and intends.  At least Ahmadinejad is transparent.)

And after a bomb goes off, you’ll sit back and say, “I told you so, you stupid leftist intellectuals” and neither you nor the new fundamentalist leaders of the WWIII nuclear era will have been helpful in preventing the atrocities with your fear and rage.  In fact, you’ll have been the cause of it.  Fear begets fear…and fear is what drives people to commit atrocities.  It’s not like all terrorists are sociopaths.

DO NOT make this about one country having better sensibilities than another country, because while, yes, Iran is theocracy, and much of the population has highly negative views of the West, that does not mean that they’re any more intent on killing ~innocents~ than we are.  Listen to Khamenei’s speech back in March 2005:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Aqa_PvRfU4.
Listen to the fundamentalist Iranian crowd.  People have different interpretations of historical events, and this must be acknowledged and discussed before the bombs go flying (in hopes to prevent bombs from flying).  Don’t give in to the Hobbesian, Machiavellian, Orwellian Bush Doctrine.  Please?  It’s too dangerous.

Posted by ninelegyak on Aug 25, 2006 at 5:58 PM

There are certain Jews who are doing great harm to Jews with their immoral and stupid hatred of Muslims and their undying loyalty to Israel no matter what Israel does.  This right wing chorus has to be stopped.  Muslims are people, Palestinians are people and they have rights and they deserve to be respected as all people deserve to be respected.  Liberals should stop placating Jewish racism.

Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 25, 2006 at 7:51 PM

Jewish racism like the anti-Semitic holocaust cartoon fest right now in Tehran?

Posted by decampe on Aug 26, 2006 at 8:19 AM

decampe, here’s a more scholarly source regarding US/Israeli deliberate misstatements of Ahmadinejad.

www.juancole.com

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Ahmadinejad: We are Not a Threat to Any Country, Including Israel

Believe it, don’t believe it, that’s up to you. But at least we should know what exactly he said, which is not something our US newspapers will tell us about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech on Saturday:

Kayhan reports that [Pers.] Ahmadinejad said, “Iran is not a threat to any country, and is not in any way a people of intimidation and aggression.” He described Iranians as people of peace and civilization. He said that Iran does not even pose a threat to Israel, and wants to deal with the problem there peacefully, through elections:

“Weapons research is in no way part of Iran’s program. Even with regard to the Zionist regime, our path to a solution is elections.”

Ahmadinejad seems to be explaining what his calls for the Zionist regime to be effaced actually mean. He says he doesn’t want violence against Israel, despite its own acts of enmity against Middle Eastern neighbors. I interpret his statement on Saturday to be an endorsement of the one-state solution, in which a government would be elected that all Palestinians and all Israelis would jointly vote for. The result would be a government about half made up of Israeli ministers and half of Palestinian ones. Whatever one wanted to call such an arrangement, it wouldn’t exactly be a “Zionist state,” which would thus have been dissolved.

The schlock Western pundits, journalists and politicians who keep maintaining that Ahmadinejad threatened “to wipe Israel off the map” when he never said those words will never, ever manage to choke out the words Ahmadinejad spoke on Saturday, much less repeat them as a tag line forever after.

Supreme Jurisprudent Khamenei’s pledge of no first strike against any country by Iran with any kind of weapon, and his condemnation of nuclear bombs as un-Islamic and impossible for Iran to possess or use, was completely ignored by the Western press and is never referred to. Indeed, after all that talk of peace and no fist strike and no nukes, Khamenei at the very end said that if Iran were attacked, it would defend itself. Karl Vicks of the Washington Post at the time ignored all the rest of the speech and made the headline, ‘Khamenei threatens reprisals against US.” In other words, on Iran, the US public is being spoonfed agitprop, not news.

Although Iran’s protestations of peaceful intentions are greeted cynically in the US and Israel, in fact Iran has not launched a war of aggression in over a century. The US and Israel have launched several during that period of time.

Ahmadinejad made the remarks in a speech inaugurating work on a heavy water nuclear reactor in Arak. I don’t think that work is very advanced. The Iranians maintain that it is for peaceful energy generation.

Much of the electricity produced in France, South Korea and Japan is generated by nuclear plants.

posted by Juan @ 8/27/2006 06:36:00 AM 0 comments

Posted by accesslaw on Aug 27, 2006 at 4:54 AM

The Israelis have this racist fear of Arab people which is why they hate the so called one state solution.  However, if Jews want to stay in the area they are going to have to get accustomed to Arabs as neighbors with equal treatment and 0ne person one vote. No more Jewish state. Fair treatment for everyone.

Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 27, 2006 at 3:13 PM

An analysis of the cause of violence.

The violence in the schools, like conflict and violence everywhere, follows a model. The model presented here was developed by Stanford University Professor Rene Girard. It applies in general to conflicts at any level of intensity. It has 5 stages.

1. Mimetic Desire
One party identifies an object of desire and other parties imitate that desire. Examples of things children and adults desire: respect, attention, money, happiness, power, land, jobs, knowledge. Whatever the culture tells us is desirable, that

Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 27, 2006 at 3:17 PM

accesslaw:

My jaw dropped when I read this nonsense about Ahmadinejad being misunderstod, he who cannot even bring himself to say “Israel,” calling it instead the “Usurping entity.”

He is the man who said said in a speech denying the Holocaust to thousands of people in the Iranian city of Zahedan, according to a report on from Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting. (Quoted on CNN):
“They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets. The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets. (It) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet. If you have burned the Jews, why don’t you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel.”

He delights in sponsoring an anti-Semitic cartoon contest in Tehran. His country supplied Hezbollah with its hellish missiles and is now resupplying them. He is overseeing the plans for Iran to acquire the atomic bomb. (To be tested on Tel Aviv, no doubt.)

So when I hear that Ahmadinejad is “misunderstood,” what comes to mind is the Chad Mitchell Trio classic of denial, The I WAS NOT A NAZI polka. (Apollogies to today’s Germans who have disavowed the Third Reich as the shameful horror it was, but, fear not, Ahmadinejad has picked up the Nazi flag and is waving it merrily.}

The “I WAS NOT A NAZI” polka

As you travel through De Schoenerr Deutschland,
A melody will greet your ears,
It’s a melody that’s been around the Deutschland
For fifteen or twenty years.

Each and every German dances to the strain
Of the “I Was Not A Nazi” Polka.
All without exception, join in the refrain
Of the “I Was Not A Nazi” Polka.
Goering was a crazy we wanted to deport,
Sing the “I Was Not A Nazi” Polka.
We all thought that Dachau was just a nice resort,
Sing the “I Was Not A Nazi” Polka.

The German is so cultured, he does not like to fight,
The peaceful life is what he most enjoys,
For years the German people were utterly convinced
I. G. Farben manufactured children’s toys.

I never shot a Luger, or goosed a single step
To the “I Was Not A Nazi” Polka.

Was you not an S.S. Guard?
-I was not an S.S. Guard.
“I Was Not A Nazi” Polka.

Did you not love Ilsa Koch*?
-I did not love Ilsa Koch.
“I Was Not A Nazi” Polka.

Did you not despise the Jews?
-I did not—why some of my best friends….
“I Was Not A Nazi” Polka.

Did you not think Adolph great?
-I did n- Adolph who?
... Adolph WHO?
-Ja, Adolph who?
Fritz are you putting me on?
-Vas ist… “putting me on”?
Are you kidding me or something?
-No, I’m not kidding you. Adolph who?
Adolph HITLER!
-Should I know him? Is he a folksinger?
You don’t remember.
-No, I don’t remember. Who was he?

Well. He was a little man, very lean, very loud and brash.
-No….
Not too tall, never smiled, had a black moustache.
-I don’t think so….
Had a girl, Eva Braun, hair as red as flame.
-Ja….
Papered walls many years, until his moment came.
-Ahh! He’s the man, clapped his hand, went into a dance,
When the news came to him: we had conquered France.
He once said, as our flag proudly was unfurled:
“Today Germany, tomorrow the world!
Tomorrow the world!
Tomorrow the world!”

-I’ve never heard of him.
Neither have I.

To our Israeli allies, let us raise a toast,
Sing the “I Was Not A Nazi” Polka.
Sure there were some Nazis.
-Two or three at most,
Sing the “I Was Not A Nazi” Polka.

We tried to throw out Hitler, right from the very start,
That’s what every history book should tell,
We hated Heinrich Himmler, and Martin Bormann, too,
We believe, as Sherman did, that war is hell,
Hell,
Hell,
Heil,
Seig Heil!
Seig Heil!
Seig Heil!
Seig—

... oops.

Germans are as gentle as flowers in the spring,
Sing the “I Was Not A Nazi” Polka.
And Germans are a people who love to dance and sing,
Sing the “I Was Not A Nazi”—
WAIT A MINUTE!
You there.
You are not singing.
You do not like… to sing?
Sing.
Sing the “I Was Not A Nazi” Polka!
Seig Heil!

*Ilsa Koch was the German wife of the commandant of Buchenwald concentration camp (1939-42), notorious for her perversion and cruelty.

Posted by decampe on Aug 27, 2006 at 7:20 PM

Dizz,

The ICJ, on June 9, 2004, decided that the construction of the Wall violated several areas of international law including prohibitions on collective punishments prohibited under the Fourth Geneva Convention as well as confiscation of property, forcible moving of populations, and the dramatic alteration of the physical landscape of areas under foreign occupation. The Wall also violated several sections of the 1907 Hague Convention. 

The actual length of the Wall is intended at this point to be about 780 km.  Nearly half of the Wall is fully constructed and operational.  Under Olmert’s “Realignment Plan” , costing $2 billion, Israel will move thousands of settlers from the eastern to the western side of the Wall in an effort to unilaterally redraw Israel’s international boundaries.  Tens of thousands of settlers in far flung colonies will be moved to one of the three main blocs closer to the green line (the Ariel bloc, the Ma’ale Adumim bloc at the far end of the Jerusalem Corridor, and the Gush Etzioni bloc near Hebron)  with the blocs expanded to incorporate as much land as possible.  The construction of the Wall itself has already taken up nearly 9,000 US acres of land (over 35,000 dunnums) The wall is 60 meters wide in some areas with buffer areas around it. About 80% of the wall deviates from the Green Line. At completion well over 570,000 dunnums or 142,000 US acres of land will end up between the Wall and the Green Line. This will represent over 10% of the entire West Bank leaving another 35.5% of the West Bank under Israeli control (areas B and C) with little more than half the total amount of Land remaining in Palestinian hands. This will be enclosed in three main discontiguous bantustans encircled by Israeli buffer zones and checkpoints making a viable Palestinian State impossible.

Most of Jordan Valley, where over a third of Palestinian produce comes from, is in Area C under the Oslo accords. Travel is restricted and it is difficult to get produce to market.  Israel also has exclusive access to three quarters of the water from the West Bank aquifers with the Jewish settlement blocs consuming another 10%. Over 2 million Palestinians in the West Bank make due with the remainder. According to the UN, the Palestinian population consumes well under the per capita daily required quantity of water.

According to the World Bank (WB),  the West Bank economy experienced a strong recovery to pre-Wall levels of 5% annual growth. The area is now poised for another decline and much of the growth in the past two years has been from the production and export of consumer goods in the almost completely foreign owned industrial free zone sector established in 1998 with WB funding. The local workshop, farming, and small merchant sector, which has been harmed by the Wall, has declined as a portion of the West Bank GDP.

The occupation and its debilitating effects will persist under the current Olmert plan leading not to peace but only more violence.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Aug 27, 2006 at 10:38 PM

Cabedriver,

I see that we have rather diverged from our initial discussion of Iran’s ties to Hizbollah. If you wish to discuss israel’s politics as a whole, well, no problem, but please do not raise new issues before we have dealt with the old ones. As for now, instead of answering my arguments, you simply introduce new issues, which is hardly a way to get forward. So I’ll try once more to answer, but don’t bother to write if you have nothing to contradict what I’m saying.

>>
The ICJ, on June 9, 2004, decided that ...
>>

I had to cut out my words about ICJ, because the commentary was too long. But if you insist, I’ll tell you. Did they call NATO’s bombings in the FRoY a war crime too? Did they ever remind to people like you that combatants who, like Hizbollah, hide inside civil population bear all the responsibility for any damage caused to it, according to Fourth Geneva convention, if I remember correctly? Et cetera. Their so-called “justice” is too one-sided to be counted upon.

>>
The actual length of the Wall…
>>

Please post here a link to the source that has supplied you with the information you provided. I’d say that it looks rather dubious, but I’ll suspend my judgement till I see the proof.

>>
Under Olmert

Posted by dizz on Aug 28, 2006 at 10:00 AM

Dizz,

I believe that like one of your past elder statesmen from Israel’s early period, Abba Eban, advocated and extolled the virtues of ethnic cleansing in the 1950s at the United Nations in a speech blaming the Arab States for the enduring suffering of the Palestinian people.  He cited a litany of instances of 20th Century ethnic cleansing during WWI and WWII involving Turks expelling Greeks from Anatolia, Russians expelling Germans from Poland etc, and seemed to imply how unfair it was in their hour of need the Israel’s could somehow not follow in this wonderful tradition.  Unmindful of the fact that it was the Jewish experience of WWII that inspired so much international law to prevent what Eban wanted to do (expell or “transfer” all Palestinians to other Arab States) he advocated just this solution to the world.  No wonder we (I am also an Israeli Jewish citizen) look like hypocrites. I would say that if Israel completely withdrew from the Occupied Territories we would get peace. Not until that time.

As far as Hezbollah is concerned there is an almost complete concensus, which also includes many Israelis, that the current war in Lebanon was planned well in advance on behalf of US imperialist interests and against the interests of even the Israelis themselves. Hezbollah now has the sympathy of all the Middle East, is in a militarily and politically very strong position, and will probably increase its political base inside Lebanon. Syria will probably help them. Israel could become diplomatically isolated along with the US who will have increasing difficulties in Iraq. Most people don’t accept the Israeli response to Hezbollah entailing the total destruction of an Arab democracy and the incredible loss of life and property.  This is part of US imperialism’s plan to conquer the Middle East. There can only be more war and bloodshed.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Aug 28, 2006 at 6:14 PM

This is a must watch interview with Nasarallah.  It starts about the middle of the program.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/28/1440244&mode=thread&tid=25

Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 28, 2006 at 6:27 PM

> I don

Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 28, 2006 at 6:38 PM

Dizz,

You misrepresented what I said!  The Arab League offer of 2002 did not ask that Israel admit millions of refugees and employ them in high paying jobs while giving up its security concerns.  The offer was in return for a complete withdrawl to the pre-1967 lines and a willingness to discuss the refugee issue (there are still many stateless Palestinians in Camps all over the occupied territories from the 1948 War) in accord with UNGA resolution 194 III which would probably result in a repatriation of only several thousands of people, 22 Arab League states would offer Israel peace and completely normalize all diplomatic, economic, and cultural relations. This would be more of a benefit to Israel than to continue occupying land on behalf of 400,000 fanatical and racist settlers who do nothing for Israel but prevent the vast majority of the region’s people from enjoying the benefits of a lasting peace. The Arab states and Palestinians are tired of war. Israel seems to think it worth the price to keep the territories. The US backs Israel to the hilt in order to ensure that she is the only powerful country in the region. This is imperialisms’ goal. It can only harm the Israeli people in the very end. Israel must begin to discuss real change. It is this or no future. For anyone!

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Aug 29, 2006 at 12:10 AM

> This would be more of a benefit to Israel than to continue occupying land on behalf of 400,000 fanatical and racist settlers who do nothing for Israel but prevent the vast majority of the region

Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 29, 2006 at 9:50 PM

cabdriver,

wrote you a long post but it just disappeared. So I’ll just deal with one issue at this time.

>>
You misrepresented what I said!  The Arab League offer of 2002 did not ask that Israel admit millions of refugees and employ them in high paying jobs while giving up its security concerns.  The offer was in return for a complete withdrawl to the pre-1967 lines and a willingness to discuss the refugee issue (there are still many stateless Palestinians in Camps all over the occupied territories from the 1948 War) in accord with UNGA resolution 194 III which would probably result in a repatriation of only several thousands of people, 22 Arab League states would offer Israel peace and completely normalize all diplomatic, economic, and cultural relations.
>>

Let’s see the text of UN resolution # 194
11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

I just cannot see why it should lead to a repatriation of “only” several thousands of people, because there were hunderds of thousands of them already in 1948, and all their descendants count as refugees as well, as you surely know.

Moreover, the Arab states never went so far as to offer “peace” or “diplomatic relations” but rather “normal relations” (see http://www.meib.org/articles/0203_s1.htm - hardly a pro-Israeli site)
I think you’d agree that the notion of normal varies greatly among different countries and cultures.

Let me also remind you that Israel has formally diplomatic relations with Egypt and Jordan, but the latest I’ve heard was that their or only Egypt’s ambassador was withdrawn and that Israeli ambassadors in these places can hardly leave their homes there. The preachery of hatred for Israel in schools, public places, newspapers rages on. I can not see a single benefit of such relationships.

In your reply please also include a single historic example of any other country letting back refugees from a previous state. Searching for this example may throw a further light whay Israel keeps rejecting conditions that were never met by any other country ever.

Posted by dizz on Aug 30, 2006 at 5:24 AM

The Arab League proposal of March 2002 was really based on the Saudi Initiative of the Saudi Prince which envisioned “normal relations” between ALL Arab States and Israel as being “the same as relations between the Arab States and States other than Israel with which there are normal relations” that is peaceful relations with possiblities of deepening ties in other political, economic, and cultural areas.  The reason that the peace between Israel and Egypt and Jordan is not popular on the Arab street is Israel’s continued occupation of the WB and Gaza as well as attacks on Lebanon. The reason the refugee resolution was left vague except for its reference to UNGA 194 III was because of the Lebanese constitutional prohibition of the settlement of refugees from foreign wars on its soil and to give Israel an opportunity to contribute to diplomatic suggestions to a just resolution. The Arab League, I’m sure, would settle for token efforts by Israel in this regard as they are aware of the demographic issue. Their main audience is the US whom they hope to impress with such proposals and from whom they seek to gain favor.  They will not go to great lengths over this issue! This should not be a stumbling bloc to peace any more than some kind of accomidation on Jerusalem the annexation of which by Israel clearly violated international law. The creation of two states, based on UNSC 1397 which implies incorporating some of the quartet’s diplomatic proposals on shared sovereignty in the old city, should only further the peace process. 

There have been many recent conflicts in Europe and Africa where refugees have returned to their former homes. Logistical problems often loom larger than political ones. This is hardly the real matter. Israel has been repeatedly making embittered arguments about their right to ethnically cleanse in light of pre-1945 circumstances when the world never even made a pretention to civility in the annals of international law. This is an ironic thing for a Jewish State. Israel wants “Greater Israel” more than a lasting peace with her neighbors and has US military support to maintain this otherwise untenable position. The US military presence in Saudi Arabia in early 2002 and its battle carrier groups in the Persian Gulf encouraged Israeli diplomatic intransigence especially in the runup to the invasion of Iraq.  This is what also encouraged the excessive violence of Operation Defensive Shield and the reoccupation of the WB and Gaza where much of the PNA infrastructure for fighting Hamas and Islamic Jihad was destroyed by Israel. Israel rejects UNSC 1397 and the idea of Palestinian sovereignty. It seeks to impose its will militarily in order to support its expansionism.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Aug 30, 2006 at 11:25 AM

Ethnic cleansing as Israeli government policy? Israeli expansionism? This is nonsense.

About 1/5th of Israel’s populaiton is Muslim/Arab, with minorities of Druze and Christians. They are citizens, they vote, they can serve in the army. What individuals may have said in the past regarding so-called “clensing” (did they use that word?) is their opinion, not policy.

Regarding expansionism and “Greater Israel,” Israel has withdrawn from the Gaza Strip and was in preparation to withdraw from the WB until this latest war (started by Hamas and Hezbollah as a direct counter to the peace effort).

If the country was truly seeking a “Greater Israel,” then Israel would now be occupying most of Lebanon, all of the Egyptian portion of the Sinai and most of Syria all the way to Damascus. Israel occupied the Golan to keep from being rocketed from there by Syria.

You know better.

Posted by decampe on Aug 30, 2006 at 12:35 PM

A nation which bombs the crap out of a militarilly defenseless country and then, after sustaining unacceptably high military casualties, retreats behind the skirts of a proposed ceasefire which it claims will nevertheless threaten its preferential security, is hardly powerful enough to occupy anything but the territory of the refugees it expelled from its illegal borders sixty years ago.

You ought to know better.

Posted by Major Major on Aug 30, 2006 at 2:44 PM

And which “militarily defenseless” country are you speaking of? Certainly not the People’s Republic of Hezbollah, with better weaponry, better communications, better trained fighters and a bigger military budget than most of the world’s small countries.

Hiding behind skirts: Which beligerant in this war purposely set up its offensive weapons, missile launchers, etc. in the middle of civilian areas so that any retaliation was bound to kill and injure a lot of civilians, including many wearing “skirts”???  If you picked Hezbollah you win the cigar.

Which beligerant in this war has acted to obstruct Israel’s withdrawl from Gaza and the West Bank, has failed to lift a finger to help all those dispossed Palestinians “expelled” 58 years ago when every one of Israel’s Arab neighbors attacked Israel the instant that Israel officially became a nation?

Yeah, right, one more cigar for you.

Posted by decampe on Aug 30, 2006 at 3:24 PM

The Arab minority in Israel has highly qualified rights though admittedly many of them enjoy a better standard of living than Arabs in neighboring states. Ethnic Cleansing is not always 100% complete and Israel could not feasibly expel the Arab population within its borders. According to Benny Morris, Israel expanded its portion of partitioned Palestine in the 1948 War by 20% expelling 750,000 indigenous Arabs in the process. Left with 160,000 Arabs within the expanded boundaries of the new state of Israel she was hardly in a position to expel the rest while desparitely seeking support for a suitable armistice arrangement.

The possible expansionism you refer to is quit impossible and would never be tolerated by anyone even Israel’s benefactor the US. Niether would it be militarily sustainable!

Timelines are complex and controversial things. Did Hamas really start the armed conflict after winning the PLC elections in January 2006?  They were observing a cease fire.  No question Israel wants to destroy them by one means or another. Israel broke the ceasefire with a targeted, illegal assassination in the West Bank. Hamas only responded to the attack. Hamas has made it clear they are ready to recognize and negotiate with Israel. This is perhaps their undoing. They were treated better decades ago when they swore Israel’s destruction because they were not a tenable peace partner. Many Hamasniks held high municiple positions in Arab towns and villages in the 1980s with Israeli funding and complicity.  Israel savagely subjected Gaza to rocket attacks and artillary fire over the past several months.  It seems like there is an avoidance of peace by Israel. There is a desparite desire on the part of the State of Israel to avoid negotiations based on all of the relevant UN resolutions.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Aug 30, 2006 at 6:08 PM

This is why Israel is considered scum throughout the world.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14753.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14762.htm

Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 31, 2006 at 1:20 AM

This is why Israel is hated almost universally.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14762.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14753.htm

Posted by Spinoza750 on Aug 31, 2006 at 1:58 AM

It’s not the “People

Posted by Major Major on Aug 31, 2006 at 4:38 AM

cabdriver,

I do not wish to argue with you on the terms of “what was really based on what”, “what they really wanted to say” and “what I think they would settle for”. It’s absolutely unprovable and can be the other way round just as well. I’m showing (or should I say shoving) you the facts, the exact wording of the documents. You may call their meaning “vague” if you choose to, but then the arguing becomes meaningless.  What exactly is vague in the resolution # 194 re refugees issue? C’mon, do some copy paste and show me where it becomes vague to you.

By the same token, I will not argue about the true reasons of Egypt and Jordan’s hostility to Israel. Everything you said about the occupation is true (attacks on Lebanon are excuse my French, but it’s beside the point). Somehow other countries with whom Israel has diplomatic relations behave differently. And the difference is vast. So let me cast a doubt on your understanding of the reasons for the hostility.

>>
There have been many recent conflicts in Europe and Africa where refugees have returned to their former homes.
>>

Just give me one example instead of this meaningless sentence.

I will not argue about “excessive violence”,  “Israel has been repeatedly making embittered arguments about their right to ethnically cleanse” and other slogans of yours. Please don’t tell me what you think, I’ve grasped it already. Give me the facts. When you write a sentence - think about how you can prove its meaning, and paste the proof nearby.  If you do not know how or can’t find a proof - don’t bother.

Posted by dizz on Aug 31, 2006 at 4:56 AM

cabdriver,

Decampe has some cute remarks about certain slogans of yours, so I’ll keep it extra short this time.

>>
The reason the refugee resolution was left vague except for its reference to UNGA 194 III
>>

For me the reference is clear, and the resolution is clear. Please do some copy paste and show me what exactly is vague in the resolution wording re refugees’ issue.

>>
The reason that the peace between Israel and Egypt and Jordan is not popular on the Arab street
>>

I’m not writing about virtual “Arab street”. I’m writing about what’s going on in these very countries and about the behaviour of their very governments. See the difference?

>>
The Arab League, I

Posted by dizz on Aug 31, 2006 at 5:10 AM

Here’s why the world hates the Israeifascist regime. For 38 years the people of the occupied territories have lived under an Israeli military dictatorship, being denied all rights of citizenship in Israel, while there is endless talk of “transfer” by Zionazis. Ovens being out of fashion, incineration of individuals and groups has become the preferred solution, the question being, what is the proper mixture of hasbarah and chutzpa that will maximize the world’s tolerance for Palestinian casualties . . . if 10 per day is acceptable, why not 100, or 1000? Not to mention the day to day brutality that escapes the attention of the diligent proIsraelifascist sloganeers. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/756413.html

Posted by accesslaw on Aug 31, 2006 at 11:05 AM

Your calling the Israelis “Israeifascists” is about the gutter level of debate I’d expect of people like Ahmedinijad who delights in sponsoring a Holocaust cartoon fest. It is interesting to see apologists for the world’s Arab terrorists—people who turn their own children into suicide bombers—attacking Israel as fascists.

When you use such language remember that in the 1940s many of the leaders of the Arab states and the Palestinians collaborated with the Nazis and spoke of extending the Nazi genocide to Jews in Palestine.  As Alan Dershowitz has noted there was a “close relationship betweenHaj Amin al-Husseini, the Palestinian leader during World War II, and Adolf Hitler. Al-Husseini toured Auschwitz and wrote in his memoirs that he hoped “to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world.”

Or this: Just three years after the defeat of Nazi Germany and the liberation of the death camps, prominent Arabs (many of whom collaborated with Hitler during World War II) boasted openly about the new extermination campaign which awaited the Jews of Palestine. As Azzam Pasha, secretary-general of the Arab League, put it on May 15, 1948: “This will be a war of extermination, and a momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.

Posted by decampe on Aug 31, 2006 at 11:51 AM

“The alternative is to understand that terrorism is fundamentally community-based.”

WOW, what a whopper.

Lebanese civilians fighting against an Israeli military invasion, completely illegal and the highest war crime (“the supreme international crime”) are to be labelled “terrorists.” 

Their “community”, I suppose is supposed to be labeled a “terrorist community,” because they dare to fight back against the 4th or 5th ranked mightiest killing machine in the world.

Ignoring that Israel invaded Lebanon in 1976, 1978, 1982 and just last month, we must understand the civilians there and their communities are the “terrorists.”  Israeli state terror and a massive criminal bombardment, mass murder and collective punishment (far greater terrorism than anything Hezbollah’s inaccurate rockets could respond with), goes unmentioned (and unmentionable).

Ignored, also, is that these allegedly “kidnapped” Israeli soldiers which provided the pretext for this mass murder, were captured on Lebanese soil, not Israeli soil, as admitted to by Israeli sources in the government and IDF on July 12th (before the story changed).

“Rather than looking for global fantasy structures such as al-Qaeda and their state supporters…”

The Pakistani government and intelligence service ISI created “Al Qaeda” in conjunction with the Saudi government and the US CIA.

How anyone can argue against investigating that is beyond me.

The article is suspect, as is most of what ITT puts out.

Crimes of the State Blog

Posted by johndoraemi on Aug 31, 2006 at 12:53 PM

Israel’s real reasons for invading Lebanon (again) MP3

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s river…

Posted by johndoraemi on Aug 31, 2006 at 1:34 PM

OK, I’m curious, how did you include a link and make the type bold? Did you use HTML tags?

Posted by decampe on Aug 31, 2006 at 3:47 PM

decampe.

If Hass’ summary (did you even read the link) of the nationalistic Jewish supremacist Israeli mentality isn’t fascism, I don’t know what is, and it translates into thousands of discriminatory laws and regulations, and whole generations of Israelis serving as sadistic occupation army soldiers. I could come back with ten times the nasty quotations from the founders of Zionism, or the state supported settler movement’s leaders and followers, or bits of history from Jewish scholars demonstrating that Zionists found common cause with Nazis because it served their purposes to have Jews flee Europe for Palestine (and not to flee to the other countries that are accused of not providing refuge).

Posted by accesslaw on Aug 31, 2006 at 11:07 PM

Dizz and Decampe,

Your arguments are rediculous. The 1967 War was an aggressive war. The capture of the West Bank was certainly not necessary as it was held by a non-aggressor, Jordan, who didn’t violated the armistice of 1949 by militarizing the West Bank considering that hostilities threatened Jordanian held territory and the fact that Jordan was liable for the Palestinian population there and in Jerusalem that would soon be subject to Israeli aggression and occupation. 

The fact that ethnic cleansing and aggressive military conquest was the norm before 1945 doesn’t make it morally acceptable or a reasonable option today. I am sorry that Israeli statesmen think so. The occupation is not about security but expansionism. In 1948, the Jewish population of Palestine plus the refugees from Europe recieved from the UN 55% of an Arab country despite the protestations of the indigenous inhabitants. The Jewish forces expanded that 55% to almost 75% in a pre-planned war that they intended to wage with or without Arab provocations based on Plan Dalet-the intent to invade and conquer as much of Arab Palestine as possible!  Most of the Arab inhabitants were expelled from the additional areas as well as from areas originally partitioned to the Jewish State by the UN in 1947 like the Eastern Gallilee, Haifa, the coast north of Tel Aviv, and the Negev.  The world still recognized the expanded State of Israel and supported it for the next 20 years until the 1967 War.

This was a war that lead to an occupation which Israel siezed upon in order to expand. This was wrong. The world accepts a Jewish State not a foreign occupation of Three million Arabs which is not only not necessary but cruel and immoral. Many Israelis are ingenuous and don’t see themselves the way most of the world sees them. Their occupation is not seen as just or defensive. You are jeopordizing your future every minute that you fail to accept the fact that most Arabs have not only been ready to recognize Israel in return for peace and withdrawl but are offering normal relations. This war in Lebanon is only the start of a new epoch in which the military tide will for the first time since 1973 turn against Israel. This war has proved Israel vulnerable. She took high casualties. She also failed to smash Hezbollah. This is the talk everywhere. Most people who have a concern about this country as well as those who don’t recognize this central fact. This is not rhetoric or sloganeering. It is common sense.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Aug 31, 2006 at 11:34 PM

Spinoza,
citing a source that boldly states

>>
but not the 18 Israeli Arabs who were excluded from Jews-only bomb shelters
>>

does not add weight to your arguments

Posted by dizz on Sep 1, 2006 at 1:01 AM

cabdriver,

>>
The Jewish forces expanded that 55% to almost 75% in a pre-planned war that they intended to wage with or without Arab provocations based on Plan Dalet-the intent to invade and conquer as much of Arab Palestine as possible!
>>

Pre-planned war without Arab provocations! My oh my. As I said, when confronted with facts you just think about new issues, piling more and more nonsense, but this time I will not argue with you. 

Boy, I really tried. No facts, only bla-bla-bla on your side.  See you next time, then.

Posted by dizz on Sep 1, 2006 at 1:25 AM

Cabdriverinconfusion:
Maybe your skull is too thick for this to get through. Israel does NOT have expansionism as a national policy. If Israel had such a policy then the “Greater Israel” you seem so paranoid about would today include half of Lebnon, the Sinai and Syria all the way to Damascus. It does not because though Israel captured those lands in defensive wars of the past they have returned them all. 

Where is the expansionism? Israel has left Gaza and was in the process of withdrawing from the West Bank when Hamas and Hezbollah decided they couldn’t stand to have a working peace process and launched new attacks (in both cases, Gaza and the WB, Israel showed itself willing to contend with its own hardline settlers who opposed the withdrawls).

I agree that some Arab nations are willing to recognize Israel or at least engage in long-term détente. Jordan not only stayed out of the battle with Hezbollah, it atcually supplied intelligence to Israel on reported plans of terrorists to travel from Jordan through the WB and attack Israelis. Egypt has attempted to act as a mediator.

Meanwhile, if any country in the reigon can be called expansionist it is Iran, which dominates Syria and virtually owns Hezbollah (and is angry in the extreme that Hezbollah provoked the clash with Israel that decimated Hezbollah’s war machinery).

Fankly, you and I come from such different world views that we will never agree (it is a microcosm of what is happening in the middle East). I see Israel in a struggle for survival against implaccable, dangerous and beligerent enemies. You see Israel as an aggressive, expansionist state. There seems no middle ground for us. So I declare a stalemate and intend to move on to other issues.

Here I think of Kipling’s Ballad of East and West:

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, tho’ they come from the ends of the earth!

Posted by decampe on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:23 AM

decampe: There is too much cant in your writing, the us-against-the-whole-world emotion of the idealistically eternally victimized Jew, that leads you to accept CCN as the authoritative translator of Persian politics, Little Green Footballs as the authoritative statement of American politics, and to rely upon Kipling and anti-German ballads as your battle hymns.

Unfortunately much of the rest of the world looks at that with as much or more stupefied incomprehension than we see the 72 virgins in paradise of the proverbial suicide bomber; at least the suicide bomber is a real time product of the surreal deprivation of checkpoints, closures, land seizures, settler massacres crop thefts beatings that continue with impunity under a military administration that ignores court orders to stop it (see Hass article again). Whereas the IsraeliNazi who conducts this minute-by-minute exercise in inhuman cruelty for 38 years, expanding the land seized in ‘48 by terror and ethnic cleansing, is justifying arrogance on the basis of historic crimes. If indeed it was the goys who set the Jews up as the money lenders etc. to take the brunt of the anger of the suffering masses in the pogroms of history, how much more are the Jews being set up today by the neocon goys . . . or are they setting themselves up by behaving the most beastly manner possible in front of the whole world? And insulting everyone’s intelligence by presenting the childish excuse that Joey did the bad thing then so it’s ok for me to do it now so stop picking on me already.

Grow up and grow a brain.

Posted by accesslaw on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:47 AM

In general I think the West and Israel have forgotten how to wage war.  Who cares how many Shite are involved in Hezbollah?  You keep shooting until they stop shooting back, leave it up to them.  Whether that results in their entire destruction is then up to them.  Again, if the West (which it just did again, today - Europe pledging 500 mil to Hamas) would also just stop sending them aid and force them to reap what they sow, then this whole conflict would have dried up a long time ago.  That is the only way, one side simply has to lose.

Posted by Hyjinx22 on Sep 1, 2006 at 12:26 PM

accesslaw:

I’m impressed at the virulence of your hate for Israel and Jews. There are, after all, only 13 million Jews in the whole world while there are about 1.5 BILLION Muslims. There is one small Jewish state compared to 46 countries with majority Muslim populations (if you count the countries that are at least 20% Muslim, there are 66).  Israel occupies just 20,330 sq km, 1/81 the size of Iran. Israel’s 6.35 million population is less than 1/12th that of Egypt.

Yet to you and many of the others here,  tiny Israel is the greatest threat to world peace since Genghis Khan. I suppose you don’t pay any attention to the genocide going on in Darfur, Sudan or the resurgence of the vicious Taliban or the chaos in Somalia. Apparently that’s piddly to you compared to the world-shaking events on the Israeli border.

You speak of how I quote mistranslations of Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, claiming that he didn’t say that Israel must be destroyed (or wiped off the map or pushed into the sea or some such crap), that he was speaking only of a peaceful transition from the Usurping Entity (His word for Israel) to a Peaceful Multi-ethnic Palestine. Fine. But why then do you throw mud on your own words by calling Israel IsraeliNazis? That’s vile, fighting-word style hate speech and you know it.

I don’t know about my 72 virgins in paradise, but let me ask this: If I convert to Islam at the point of a gun as the two journalists kidnapped in Gaza did, will I get my own set of virgins or will I have to share yours? (And do the virgins get any say in the matter?)

As to Kipling, I happen to like his stuff. He won the first Nobel Prize for literature. The Ballad of East and West from which I quoted is a song of respect between two very different peoples. I daresay we could all learn from such an idea. If there is an Arab-language writer who speaks of such things, then by all means quote him or her. My most recent experience in that regard was the book “Reading Lolita in Tehran: A Memoir” by Azar Nafisi. Its tale of Iranian repression was chilling, (as was the “Kite Runner” in its tale of Islamic extremism in Afghanistan).

So, before you go throwing charges of cant or hypoocrisy at me, perhaps you ought to examine how loaded your own words are.

Posted by decampe on Sep 1, 2006 at 2:21 PM

Do those 20,330 square miles include the settlements in the West Bank, or Jerusalem, or the potential occupation of the Southern “half of Lebnon, the Sinai and Syria all the way to Damascus”?  Israel can barely maintain its occupation of the West Bank, let alone the Gaza Strip or the Sinai Peninsula, or the Southdern sectors of Syria and Lebanon.  The sad truth is that the unilateral creation of Israel and the subsequent occupation of the West Bank has brutalized both the Palestinians and the Israelis, and forestalled the economic integration and regional development of the Middle East (including Israel), a process which can only occur without the military intervention of the West.

Posted by Major Major on Sep 1, 2006 at 3:41 PM

No, the figure includes only Israel proper at 20,330 sq km. The West Bank includes an additional 5,640 sq km and Gaza is 360 sq km. I agree negotiation rather than war is the way to ultimate peace. I personally believe (speaking for no one but myself) that a workable peace settlement should include a return to Israel’s pre-1967 borders (with some small exceptions such as a DMZ in the Golan and South Lebanon), they must be secure borders, though, with solid agreements to quell cross-border attacks.

Despite the charges of expansionism, Israel has repeatedly offered similar secure border deliniations only to have extremists from the Palestinians and/or others kick up terrorist attacks that scuttled the deal. We can fight forever as to who is at fault here. But what is really needed is a true sit-down between the parties and a negotiation that is backed by some strong enforcement (perhaps the UN if it ever acquired a pair of cojones)

As I have said before the potential for escalation in the region is terrifying, having more than a passing resemblence to the stages of conflict Herman Kahn describes in his scary book “On Thermonuclear War.” The terrifying truth is echoed by film critic Stanley Kauffmann in his 1964 review of the black comedy Dr. Strangelove: “Ban the bomb and they’ll find another way. The real Doomsday Machine is men.”

Posted by decampe on Sep 1, 2006 at 4:11 PM

Decampe,

You claim that my skull is thick and that I am somehow in a different world. It is you to whom these observations apply!  I lived in Israel for three years in the early 1990s and spent a summer there in 1978 when I met the Israeli historian Benny Morris.  He gave our group (the American Zionist Youth Federation-no friend of the Palestinians or the peace movement I may add!) a guided tour of Jerusalem and a very thorough rundown of the city’s long history. He didn’t shy from making political commentary. I now realize that he had been researching the issue of Palestinian refugees for a long time-ten years later his book appeared from Cambridge University Press. He was also it seemed included in the roster of guides in order to give balance (he was the left voice among a huge litany of hard right wingers).

Most of the history I know is from Israeli historians. Avi Shlaim, Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, and Simcha Flapan are among the ones whose work I most consult.  I’m sure you know of them. I also ran across and interesting link which I may suggest regarding attitudes of the Palestinian Arabs. Google research Surveys Palestinians. I noticed that the vast majority of WB and Gazan Palestinians, two-thirds to three quarters, support proposals such as the disarming of fringe Islamic militias in the territories including Hamas in favor of a single and accountable armed force under Fatah run by the PNA, full recognition of Israel, maintaining a ceasefire and peace, and economic integration with Israel.  Further over 70% view unemployment and poverty as the key problems to be addressed by the PNA and place priorities on this rather than sweeping political demands. This shows realism, responsibility, and a readiness for peaceful relations. If Israel cooperated and withdrew to the 1967 boundaries and agreed to assist the PNA in meeting the aspirations of the majority there could be peace and prosperity in the region for all and a major setback for the forces of violence and terror.  Instead, it seems, from the recent Olmert proposals which is more of the same stuff we’ve been seeing, we have a greater desire to hold onto the occupied territories than for peace.  Yes, Israel, holding the occupied territories also counts as expansionism!  Peace makes better borders than borders make peace! Hows that for a slogan? Despite its avid sponsorship the US, in encouraging this outragous war in Lebanon on behalf of its military aggression in the Persian Gulf has made Israel part of its illegal war effort for oil.  They have thus subjected Israel to great danger and put her long term survival at risk. This is unforgivable. I would cut the legs out from under US imperialism immediately and enter into multilateral talks with the PNA for a final status peace agreement now!

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Sep 1, 2006 at 7:00 PM

Ok cabdriverinchicago, your skull may be thinner than I suspected. My time in Israel was briefer than yours, but I’ve also watched this develop for a long time (I’m a few years older than Israel). 

I was particularly affected by a recent editorial in Ha’aretz, which I saw as an excellent discussion of the frustration many Israelis feel over the current situation. It said they tried military force and were seen as aggressors, they tried partnership and it was seen as appeasement, they tried withdrawl and it was seen as weakness and surrender engendering only another round of attacks.

You are clearly learned and well read on the subject. You have concluded that Israel is expansionist. I just do not see it that way and I have read much of the same history and discusison you have. Tell me please what you think Isarael can do, short of moving lock-stock-and-barrel to Siberia or Uganda, that would satisfy the Palestinians or Hezbollah or Syria or Iran? I am at a loss for ideas.

Posted by decampe on Sep 1, 2006 at 9:39 PM

It has long been understood by the Arab World that no real military option against Israel exists and that negotiations based on the relevant UN resolutions and international law is the best way to assure peace and justice for the Palestinians.  Israel could respond by pulling up all the settlements in the West Bank while seeking an accomidation with the PNA on shared sovereignty in Jerusalem without dividing the city.  The eastern municiple boundaries will definately have to be redrawn and settlers withdrawn closer into the pre-1967 lines. Obviously the separation wall will have to be removed.  The only thing that I see as bringing long term peace is two sovereign states along side one another with maximum political independance and significant economic integration.  It would help to allow the PA state to use the port of Haifa and to allow other common infrastructural facilities like drainage and sewage piping out to Israeli facilities on the coast (the PA could pay for these services) and roads connecting the WB and Gaza.  The PA state also needs sufficient water and control of the WB aquifers would be helpful.  As indicated most Palestinians are more concerned with resolving economic issues more than the finer points of sovereignty and also fully support measures to ensure peace, stability, and accountability. The average Palestinian is still quite practical and has had enough suffering.  A reasonable final status arrangement that provides a viable state and a sustainable economy that is integrated into both Israel’s economy as well as Jordan’s where increased direct investment is creating jobs and export markets will bring peace and stability to the region undercutting terror and fanaticism.  Finally, it will be helpful if Israel allows a certain number of Palestinians to work in Israel and bring their wages back to Palestine to support the economy there. The occupied territories have long been an export market for Israeli agricultural and other goods and a source of millions of dollars in taxes.  Genuine sovereignty and economic cooperation will effectively end the conflict and bring peace to the region.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Sep 2, 2006 at 1:08 AM

That’s actually fairly close to what I see as the solution. I imagine that secure borders for Israel with some sort of internationally guaranteed action to prevent cross border incidents would be acceptable to most Israelis and to many Palestinians.

Would Israel’s Arab neighbor states (and quasi states like Hezbollah) and outfits like Hamas find this acceptable?

Posted by decampe on Sep 3, 2006 at 10:56 AM

States like Syria would be thrilled so long as they get the Golan Heights returned. They have been looking for a land for peace deal for a long time and if they got one they could probably be counted on to do the US bidding in Lebanon. They did just this in the early part of the 1975-6 Civil War in Lebanon by helping the Maronites against the PLO and the Shi’ites before switching sides after a military confrontation with Israel. All the other Arab League states have either a peace treaty with Israel or would sign one with US mediation if Israel fulfilled most of the terms of the 2002 Saudi Plan.

As far as Hezbollah and Hamas are concerned they would begin with a cease fire (they have no long term military option against Israel) and end up with recognizing Israel and establishing some sort of diplomatic relations. This is why the region must be demilitarized and the various occupations ended as soon as possible.

Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Sep 3, 2006 at 6:43 PM

I suspect those are generally possible, though I cannot see it happening without supervision by an international force with some teeth, at first at least. Israel for sure doesn’t want rocket or mortar bases on the Golan again or Hezbollah’s rockets within range of its cities. Hezbollah, for all its bravado, clearly had its fighting capability badly wounded and would probably like a ceasefire to recouperate. 

I believe, though, that the central player here is Iran which has been emboldened by the US’s stupidity in Iraq and that it will take more than simple negotiation to back them off.

But unlike you, I am not convinced that the radical Islamists in the region will be satisfied by anything that leaves Israel as a sovereign state and their intractability may be the biggest sticking point.

Posted by decampe on Sep 3, 2006 at 10:29 PM

decampe:

I have concluded that it always comes back to your fixed belief that “Iran” or “radical Islamists” or maybe just all non-Jews cannot be trusted wth the future of Israel or maybe the Jewish People. I have concluded that your emotional belief is nurtured by fearful factoids produced by the likes of CNN and Little Green Footballs, and maybe many other agences of warmongering and cant: Us against Them emotions.

It is not the practicalities that you wish to discuss that hinder peace, it is the psychological factors.

I was appalled that you were duped by the Haaretz opinion piece that said, we have tried everything and nothing has worked, oh what are we to do . . . . the innuendo of the piece was that the other side are innately violent and incapable of reason. It was a wholly dishonest piece of writing, pure hasbarah, because it’s factual premises never happened: Israel is the grandmaster at saying one thing and doing another.

Israel never tried non-violence, the unrelenting violence of the occupation has continued for 40 terrible years, during which Israel has attempted to expand by constructing settlements on land stolen from the non-Jewish inhabitants. Israel never left Gaza, that was merely a charade, Gaza was surrounded as an open air prison cut off from relations with the world and subjected to all kinds of violence.

And it is false to say that I hate Jews because of my criticism of the deceits and violence of the Israeli regime.

Posted by accesslaw on Sep 4, 2006 at 5:38 AM

accesslaw:
I, on the other hand have concluded that you see everything through the filter of belief that Israel is an aggressor, an expansionist state, a usurper and thief of Palestinian land and economy.

Frankly, you and I are not going to agree, not on the issues, not on which news sources are factual, not even on the timeline of history in the region.

I am as wary of news sources like CNN and Fox and Little Green Footballs as you are. I am just as wary of Arab language sources like Al Jazeera, which has its own biases.  But through the magic of internet technology and the avaiability of thousands of sources, many, many independent of teach other, I believe I get as good a picture of what is happening as you do.

The fact is, though, that none of the news we get is anywhere close to objective. The US government tries to push fake news, Hezbollah etc,. also use news as propaganda (Take a look at this story: HotAir.com’s Michelle Malkin exposes terrorists’ use of UN ambulances for jihadi attacks. ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS2Cmvy4V6o )

Meanwhile, you say Israel has never tried non-violence: how would that work in your view? Secure, peaceful borders, an end to cross border raids? Israel out of the WB and Gaza? No more katushyas fired at Israel? Would that stop the suicide bombers?

What’s your definition of non-violence as it applies to the Middle East? And how do we get there?

Posted by decampe on Sep 4, 2006 at 3:07 PM

Decampe:

I didn’t start out with this worldview. I started with the contagious idealism of the dream of Israel, and with liberal Jewish friends, classmates and roomates working on community and political projects together. Incidentally I have also developed great respect for Persians as friends, clients, neighbours, and business associates over the years.

The discussion and research process that took place over a period of years unfortunately was all stored on a hard drive that crashed. It mostly involved Haaretz and follow up discussions with Haaretz opinion writers and spin offs towards others of the Israeli academic left and peace activists two of whom have visited here in person and who as Jews mixing wth Palestinians have personally experienced the violence dished out at every opportunity.

Many events shocked me. The indiscriminate Israeli bombardment of Beirut in 1982, and in particular the deliberate bombing of a Palestinian cultural centre—- a library. The racist statements about indigenous peoples generally made by Jewish students at a forum I organized and chaired while at the University to promote dialogue around the issues. Golda Meir’s contemptible lie about a land without people for a people without land. The indignity, humiliation and cruelty practiced routinely at checkpoints. The election of the bloodthirsty savage Sharon as the leader of Israel; his provocative walk on the temple mount. The state supported settler-terror movement. The fact that the photograph of Jabotinsky “Nile to the Euphrates Israel” hung over Sharon’s desk. The tenets of Jewish fundamentalism ranking goys lower than animals such that murder of goyim is not murder and theft from goyim is not theft, and its practice in the liberation of the land of Israel from goyim metre by metre, demolished house by demolished house . . . systematic racial discrimination in every area of life in Israel and the jackboot on the neck in the occupied lands . . . constant talk by high officials of “transfer” as the solution to the “demographic problem” meaning the maintenance of racial supremacy.

The Israeli violence is so perpetual and overwhelming that the response of insurgents is no more than the fly on the raging bull, but the Western press constantly wants the occupied to disavow violence, not the occupier. Simply incredible.

The UN created Israel, it should now take responsibility for it. Put Israel’s nukes under UN guard, disarm the IDF and have the Europeans guard Israel’s 1947 borders while the UN implements all 66 or so UN resolutions that Israel has contempuously ignored over the decades. End of argument.

Posted by accesslaw on Sep 4, 2006 at 5:10 PM

decampe:

I’d like to see how you interpret this regulation . . . how does it serve Israel’s interests to behave in this manner?

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/printstory.php?sid=090406104717

Posted by accesslaw on Sep 4, 2006 at 11:35 PM

accesslaw:
I’m sorry, I’m not informed enough on this regulation to comment. Perhaps someone more knowledgeble can present the Israeli perspective.

It is, of course, in Israel’s interests to see the Palestinians prosperous peaceful and democratic. But what else is operating here I don’t know enough to say.

Comments from others?

By the way, it appears that this thread has run its course on the ITT website. We are now buried among the “more” list of stories. So I suggest we leave things here.

To its credit, this discussion has laid out the positions on both (several?) sides pretty well. There are a lot of raw nerves and longtime animosities exposed here. For me, at least, I have learned a lot abot those who see Israel as the problem, their viewpoints, their issues and gut concerns.

On the negative side, I do not believe we truly got past these to the answer to the question of what must be done to bring peace in the Middle East. I hope others gained some understanding of the pro-Israel viewpoint, though I tend to doubt that we moved any opinions very far in either direction.

Posted by decampe on Sep 5, 2006 at 9:44 AM

Statement:

“It is, of course, in Israel’s interests to see the Palestinians
prosperous
peaceful and democratic.”

Was it in Washington’s “interest” to see the Iroquois Nation “prosperous, peaceful and democratic?”

Those whom the founders stole their ideas about democracy found themselves dispossessed and exterminated.  Their land was stolen, their people humiliated, relocated, and massacred repeatedly.

By “settlers,” along with peace treaties that weren’t worth the parchment they were written on, and along with technologically superior military forces.

Israel does not want peace.  It is the major military power and has repeatedly expanded its puny bit of territory at the expense of its neighbors.  These neighbors are viewed in racist derogatory terms by the Israeli leadership. 

Israel’s long term goal is to take enough territory and water resources (divert the rivers of the region) so that it cannot be dislodged. 

Israel has always rejected peace and has always rejected justice for the several million whom they stole the land from originally, and have been stealing it from incrementally ever since. 

It is Israelis stealing Palestinian lands, not vice-versa.  It is Israel invading its neighbors, not vice-versa. 

Hezbollah did not even exist until Israel had been occupying Lebanon with its armies for several years.  Hezbollah are the pepple of southern Lebanon who have come together to force Israeli aggression back to Israel.  That is the real conflict.  That is why history has to start on July 12th of this year in order for the Zionist propaganda machines to make sense to the ignorant.

Israel lies about everything all the time.  Theirs is a history of lies and atrocities (much as in our own foreign policy).  It is in Israel’s interest to take more land (according to its founders, and numerous Israeli leaders who explicitly said so), and so that is how they behave.  They provoke conflicts constantly with war crimes against civilians, and through outright military aggression.  This is a long repeating process. 

Israel does not want peace.  They never have.

Crimes of the State

Posted by johndoraemi on Sep 5, 2006 at 11:36 AM

Same song again.  My refrain is also the same. As I said, I believe this thread has run its course.

Posted by decampe on Sep 5, 2006 at 10:14 PM

decampe

>>Frankly, for all I care, you can put laurel wreaths on the heads of everyone in Hezbollah and anoint them with patchouli oil. They would still be murdering scum who target women and children and other innocent civilians with vicious anti-personnel weapons intended to maim and kill as many as possible. As I said above, they fired 4,000 anti-personnel misslies at Israel and did not aim a single one at a military target. By their own words, they give not a damn for human life. There

Posted by Devils_Advocate on Sep 18, 2006 at 2:34 AM