As it has been suggested just lately that Israel will be used by Cheney and Bush to make the initial attack on Iran, will US' faithful alley our Aussie JH be all for it, and what should global opinion be?

It seems so incredible after the virtual failure of the US illegal occupation of Iraq, that Cheney and Bush are now determined to attack Iran.

An attack on Iran, a nation much larger than Iraq, of nearly 80 million could be devastating not only for the population, but also by the fact that Iran now holds not only the world’s largest single supply of oil, but also the world’s highest quality oil - indeed said to be part of the gain for US corporates.

It could be said that the reported visit of Vladimir Putin to Tehran to discuss further nuclear construction could be welcome news to the point there-on, that it might help divert US warlike intentions against Iran.

In Realpolitik, there is a saying that an unpopular move by an outside power to befriend a power that was accused in the same locality of being a danger, can often prevent local war against that power.

In fact, the move by Putin could also create interest from China as well as India, and because the anger from the US is towards an important Islamic state, we could hope it will also spread to Malaysia and Indonesia.

Indeed, it could even be said that the very presence of little Israel in the Middle-East with its US-supplied nuclear warheads now continually ranged on Tehran, could certainly not be regarded by these nations with glee.

BB Part Two

It is said in reports, furthermore, that the growing confrontation between the US and Iran has been much revved up by a ridiculous big power rivalry about Iran gaining through problems that the US is having over its lack of success in Iraq, with not only after four years getting badly bogged down, but also the Americans being made fools of much earlier with the US embassy staff in Iran held prisoners for over a year after the ousting of the puppet Shah. Then in 1982 America still angry, had Donald Rumsfeld help to arrange the Iraqi attack on Iran, which still ended with Iran winning the campaign after eight terrible years.

It has now got to the stage as formerly in Vietnam that America has to sell itself even more dangerously and globally unpopularly as it did when it brought in Cambodia, but still only making things worse.

Certainly the Neo-Con brag about America out to prove ownership of the Twenty First Century is proving damned expensive

Keith,

Your comparisons of Israel with other western democracies are shallow and don’t bear scrutiny. Witness the behaviour of liberal democrat Britain in dealing with a guerrilla war on their doorstep. Internment, Diplock courts, shoot to kill policies and paramilitary police were among the many, some would say draconian, measures invoked in the attempt to maintain security in Northern Ireland.

Witness the French in Algeria and Indochina during their divestment of Empire period, torture was commonplace.

Your attempt to contrast Israel’s occupation of the West Bank with the Allies occupation of Germany and Japan is either cynical or ignorant.

To suggest that Israel is not under siege is an incredible statement that is totally at odds with the actual evidence. Rockets are fired into Israel everyday by the dozen. Major suicide attacks occur on a regular basis. A total of 2135 terrorist attacks occurred in 2006 according to the Israelis.

The newly evacuated Gaza Strip has been used as a forward staging post for Hamas’s rocket attacks on Israel. It is clear any more concessions from the Israelis will only encourage more terrorism in the belief that only a weak Israel would concede anything.

I wonder if you consider the Northern Europeans who do their obligatory military service to be indoctrinated. What a silly statement. Israelis usually vote for their Generals because a) they have served in combat – a feat prized in societies with mass participation in the services and b) because ex-military personnel have an advantage in dealing with armed conflict.

Lev

I see you have a trumpet and you’re not afraid to blow it. I think it’s remarkable that you would criticise anyone for not offering any feasible solutions to current situation. The case you make is virtually the same as Hamas’s. A one state solution is not a realistic option although it is hardly surprising that a Marxist analysis might define things differently.

Once the Palestinians desist in their attacks on Israel, a two-state solution with pre 1967 borders is the sensible choice. The one-state proponents are apologists for Hamas and the other extremist Islamic organisations.

Paul,

It is clear that you have comprehended a single word of anything that has been written here.

The proposal is not for a single state solution simply because it is one state. The proposal is for a single, democratic and secular state where people are treated as individuals in respect to the law and not as an ethnicity or religion or anything like that deserving collective advantage or collective punishment for that status.

I know it's cruel to pick on those who are obviously brain damaged, but the fact you could not discern that from all that has been written is the clearest indication that mentally you're on par with a soggy cardboard box.

Lev,

I peg you for a socialist, or ... Doesn’t worry me ... but provides an idea from where you’re coming.

Read the links ... then defend McGreal. You cite “$“ Carter ...!

Are you stating that Israel is Totalitarian ... or ... a Colonialist power...

I lived in a colonial country, Malaya, for 7 years during the communist emergency.

There is no similarity whatsover between colonialism and Israel.

Ironically, the blue-print for Malaya’s sovereign independence had been decided immediately after WWII, but could not implemented until the Emergency was officially over in 1960.

To secure their communist utopia - the end, apparently, justified whatever means.

Europeans were targeted; we lost many friends. At 14 yrs I knew how to handle arms and grenades - I had to. I was instructed: “shoot first, ask questions later”.

However, I understood communist attitudes towards British colonialism better than I could accept the attrocities meted to their own people.

To instil fear and compliance amongst the locals - to harbour, feed, fund, and provide information ... Communist terrorists used the carrot and the stick, but found the stick much more effective. They killed and victimized at will; ambushed buses and cars, machine-gunning the occupants - never mind children inside .. and no Europeans.

At 16 yrs I knelt amongst the immediate aftermath of grenades lobbed into a cinema packed full of local families and their children, many toddlers - (no Europeans). The dead were fortunate. Fragmentation grenades in confined spaces are lethal - one can kill everything within 5 metres, while injuring those within a radius of 15 metres. From then I hated terrorists of all stripes with a passion. There is a vast difference between terrorists and freedom fighters.

Brits were merciless in fighting them - no limit was placed on their eradication. Brits erected razor wire fences, used tanks, bombers, targetted killings - the full gamut of warfare.

Everyone had ID cards ... Malay, Chinese, Indian, Eruopean ... so ... ?

Checkpoints were frequent for everyone - cars were searched - under bonnets, boots, underneath, even parcels and handbags.

cont ...

For those tempted to run a checkpoint, no matter who, the order was “shoot to kill” - terrorists could hijack vehicles.

The Palestinian Authority is weak from within. Hamas hijacked the Riyadah talks ...

You choose to ignore that Palestinians are fleeing because of indiscriminate murdering and torture carried out by terrorist groups.

Palestinian terrorists have achieved what Israel never did, ... nor wished to.

How do you think the parents of small children feel, seeing them indoctrinated as suicide-bomb martyrs via electronic media and schools ... they daren’t protest ...

Hamas don’t care about Palestinians - their rights, nor welfare, nor an independent Palestinian state. But, they, like you, want the whole area a “single-state”.

Are you brain-numbingly naive to think libertarian or social democracy could be introduced into this area of the world. Islam is utterly antithetic to it.

Or, do you think it should be “imposed” - if so, how? The pen (Palestinians control all media) or the sword... or what ...

A theoretical utopia (?), but a practical impossibility. Whilst upholding the right of the individual, completely denies human psychology; read Nietzsche.

Hamas is an agent for totalitarianism of this Middle Eastern area ... and has Iranian fingerprints all over it.

Iran supports Hamas ... also Hizbollah, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban - all terrorist organisations.

Bruce Riedel states:

“Al-Qaeda wants to play a larger role in the Palestinian conflict. Whilst critical of Hamas’ participation in electoral politics, Al-Qaeda is very supportive of the Hamas coup in Gaza”.
(The Return of the Knights: al-Qaeda and the Fruits of Middle East Disorder)

Israel is undeniably a democracy. It was the first country to offer citizenship to Bosnian Muslim refugees; and the only country to offer it to a manifest of Vietnamese boat-people whom all other countries had rejected.

In physical terms, what would be achieved by a “single-state”? Israel is tiny, at its narrowest point 9 miles across.

Israel’s right to exist ...

The UN, the Arab League, Turkey, EU, Britain, US and Russia ... and albeit “double-speak” Arafat, gave the nod to this.

You’re out-voted.