1. If Iran gets nukes it will use them to attach Israel

Would that be the same Iran that scrambled to sign a cease-fire with Iraq when Saddam's NON-NUCLEAR rockets started falling on Tehran during the Iran-Iraq war?

Does anyone truly believe the cowardly and CORRUPT mullahs in Iran are willing to be vaporised?

It is one thing to send gullible young Muslims filled with religious zeal to be martyrs. It is quite another to put yourself in the firing line.

On a more practical note, Iran is the centre of Shia Islam. The destruction of Iran would be the end of the Shia. I don't see the mullahs giving the Sunni that satisfaction.

Bottom line:

Do I want to see a nuclear Iran?

No. The danger of a nuclear Iran is that it would spark a nuclear arms race with Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Might Iran launch a nuclear attack in Israel?

It is always possible but unlikely.

And, yes, I know all about Ahmadinejad's threats. I'm sure he would destroy Israel if he could. But it seems highly unlikely he would be prepared to see Iran destroyed in the process.

Most likely he will continue to arm Hamas and Hizbullah.

2. Hamas wants to destroy Israel

Hamas wants to destroy Israel the way I want to win the lottery. We can all dream a little.

In the end I suspect that Hamas will be pragmatic. Unfortunately I think many people, mainly Palestinians, are going to die before that happens. In keeping with Palestinian leadership tradition, Hamas is stupid.

And, yes, I do think Israel needs to mount a more robust response to the Palestinian rocket attacks. That could include a partial re-occupation of Gaza.

But no settlements.

3. Hizbullah will attack Israel again

Perhaps.

However they apparently have more arms and better training than in 2006. So what is staying their hand?

Maybe they don't want to risk the myth of their invincibility.

Dear Steven,

Have you read - Antony Loewenstein's book, "My Israel Question?"
The issues are so complicated - and you begin to lose heart that there will ever be resolution and peace.

Loewenstein's book affirms, " On one side of the conflict, in the face of suicide bombings and international criticism over its military aggression, Israel asserts the right of the Jewish state to exist in Palestine. On the other, the Palestinian people struggle, some peacefully, some violently, for survival. Far beyond Israel's
disputed borders, in New York, and Washington, London, and Paris, Sydney and Melbourne, the conflict is replayed in passionate public debate by Holocaust survivors, Zionist organisations, Arab advocates, the anti-war movement, newspaper columnists , presidents and prime ministers and politicians and activists of all shades..."

We can argue backwards and forwards about this subject - without resolving much at all. I tend to agree with Loewenstein's summation
and I quote:

"...Sooner or later, Israel and the Palestinians will have to meet face-to-face, listen to each other's grievances and negotiate with honesty. Only then - and on the condition that both Israel and the Palestinian state achieve safety and security - will this conflict be resolved. Neither side has a monopoly on suffering, but only one party has the power to end the occupation and to recognise that Israel and Palestine are historically destined to share the same homeland."

Do you agree with his point of view?

Foxy said:

"We can argue backwards and forwards about this subject - without resolving much at all."

Not only can we, we have :)

Keith.. adamant opponent of Israels current position.
Logic.. persuasive advocate for Israel.

with many in between.

Given your statement Foxy, and the many and varied opinions held and posted here on OLO where none of us really stands to gain or lose anything but an argument.... perhaps we can appreciate that those in the firing line tend to have a rather more focused view on things.

If we begin our disucussion with "But look at what side A did there"

It will be just back and forth with each side picking out events which suit their argumentative purpose.

For this reason, I tend to be rather 'sledgehammer'ish in my posts.
We cannot pick a 'good guy' really.. because it doesn't count or matter in the end (practically speaking).. what matters or counts, is what always has.. "power".. which has always over-ridden moral concerns.

I think the only thing restraining Israel from doing a clean sweep and total ethnic cleansing (something they have the power but not the will to do) is our global interconnectedness and the instant replay of all that happens.

If we look back at the various conflicts of the world, in the long run the losers havn't done all that bad. Look at Germany, Japan.. Russia..
They all look like winners now.

I saw a Toyota Corolla model called 'Corolla conquest' :) and I said.. yep.. you sure did, not militarily, but economically.

Many of us seem to cling to the idea that the Palestinians MUST have the land back that they occupied. (which was a result of previous invasions by Arabs)
History is rarely so kind.

Foxy,

I am NOT going to enter into a discussion about the rights and wrongs of Israel vs Arabs. I am not so vane as to believe I have the power to change anyone's mind on this issue. Instead I shall confine myself to what I believe is a factual analysis of the situation.

I think there is no chance in the foreseeable future of Palestinians and Israelis reaching any sort of amicable settlement.

--No Palestinian leader can give up on a right of return to pre-1967 Israel. If a Palestinian leader were to sign an agreement that left out a right of return it would be back on the agenda and a source of renewed conflict within a day.

--No Israeli government can accede to a right of return. If it tried it would be voted out of office.

--The wider Muslim world will never concede the legitimacy of a Jewish enclave within what they regard as Dar-ul-Islam. Israel will always be viewed as an alien excrescence that must be expunged when the opportunity presents itself. They will continue to try and use the Palestinians to achieve this.

Under these circumstances the sentiment expressed by Lowenstein is simply a pious hope.

Do I agree with his sentiment?

Yes in the sense that I agree with many motherhood statements.

But I do not expect to see it actually happen.

The very best the Israelis and Palestinians can hope for is a pragmatic solution. The Palestinians decide to get on with the business of living their lives and building their nation. They agree to prevent their land being used as a platform to attack Israel. In return the Israelis vacate most of the land they occupied in 1967. Both side prepare for the next conflict and hope it won’t happen for a long time.

In the longer run I do not know whether Israel can survive as a Jewish enclave in an increasingly Muslim dominated Eurabia.

Dear Steven,

Thank you for responding to my question.

I appreciate your views - and respect your wish not to take this thread into emotive territory.

I agree with Loewenstein, "it is time for a radical rethinking of the conflict" - but as you point out, it's not something that will happen anytime soon.

1 If Iran gets nukes it has nukes forever!

Ahmadinejad will not lead Iran forever somebody even worse may come into power there and thus up the ante!

If Iran gets nukes this may provoke Israel to strike Iran! This will put everything back 30 years and reinforce Arab hatred of Israel as well as course chaos for Aussie troops in the Middle East!

Would Israel succeed in a strike on Iran? Israel had better hope it has a lot of technical support from the United States! I am sure Iran has already planned an air defence for it nuke facilities that could defend itself from the likes of the Israeli air force. Unlike Iraq in 1982!

2. Hamas does want to destroy Israel but firing a couple of ww2 earer rockets is hardly going to do it.

Israel can destroy Hamas by bring peace to the Middle East.

This can be done by fixing the amazingly ridiculous political system that is in Israel! First they need to stop Nazi like groups such as shas from vetoing any attempt to withdraw from occupied lands or dismantle illegal Jewish settlements.

The Israeli political system is awash with religious fanatics! If these Jews had been born Muslims in Saudi Arabia they would be fighting along side Osama bin Laden or blowing themselves up for Allah in suicide attacks. Take this lot for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Religious_Party

The NPP actually believe that the Jewish messiah is going to come if the occupy more of Palestine! This is there movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gush_Emunim how the hell will they ever make peace with Palestine if this lot have say in it

Only the Ignorant or extremist Jews think the problem lies with the Arabs right now.

The only way I can see this being fixed is if Israel adopts a two party system similar to the United States where people can vote for one or the other! Peace or no Peace! Not the current system where you have extremist Jews who want to expand Israel and conservative Jews who want to make a real attempt at peace “trying” to “work” together in a coalition to make peace with the Arabs.

3. Hamas has time on its hands! Israel as an ideology is dieing! The numbers of Jews moving to Israel is drying up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliyah but as each day goes by the Palestine’s get more angry and the Arabs get more money thanks to oil and the like!

Israel should try and make peace while it still has most of the chips! As each year passes more of those chips go into the hands of the Arabs!

For the benefit of future generations of Israeli I hope they make peace soon!

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10960108

EasyTimes

As I said above, I am NOT going to get into a discussion about who is to blame.

A few points about your posts:

You write:

"Only the Ignorant or extremist Jews think the problem lies with the Arabs right now."

The evidence says to me that neither the Arabs nor the wider Muslim world will EVER accept the legitimacy of a Jewish enclave in what they regard as Dar-ul-Islam. I have yet to meet a Muslim prepared to countenance Israel's continued existence AS A JEWISH STATE.

So, A meaningful peace, one which guarantees Israel's security, is NOT an available option. Regardless of what deals may be struck now, Muslims will seize the first opportunity to destroy Israel. Jews who pretend otherwise are practising wishful thinking.

You may be right in saying that Israel as an "ideology" is dying. Many Jews may decide to pack up and leave. They can do the calculations as well as I can. I am not optimistic about Israel's longer term chances of survival in an increasingly Muslim dominated "Eurabia" region.

Would Israel "die quietly?"

Seymour Hersh reported in "Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal & American Foreign Policy" that in 1973 Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan were hours away from ordering a nuclear attack on Cairo. They stood down only when Kissinger phoned to tell them a US re-supply operation was starting up.

Since then American policy towards Israel has been guided by one principle. Israel must never again be in a position where it feels there is nothing left to do but press the nuclear button and go down in a blaze of radioactive glory. That, rather than AIPAC, has been the reason the US has kept Israel well supplied with conventional weapons.

Since 1973 Israel's nuclear capabilities have multiplied. Here you have a country with a well advertised MASADA COMPLEX* and with the capability to take out one third of the world's oil pumping capacity on 15 minutes' notice.

How will this end?

I don't know.

*See http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/masada.html

The fear of Iran letting off nukes if they have them isn't really problem.....well it is, but it isn't. It's the political muscle power that nukes would give the fruitloops that run Iran. Of course Iran wouldn't want their own territory vapourised. Neither would Israel, obviously. But that question is still there. Could they really do it if provoked hard enough?. Nuclear detonation is the the 'final solution' in warfare. The world CANNOT allow a nation like Iran to have that sort of political clout. In war there is only one weapon greater than a nuke. That's fear. Picture the fear of cuban missile crisis and then lay those weapons in the hands of 'GOD-DRIVEN' anti-christian, anti-semitic, anti-western militant crazies. We would have to be insane to hand that sort of power over. We talk about fear of Israel and us. What about the political clout and arrogance that would give Iran over its neighbours. I don't believe they could handle it, and I believe the fear that would create would further implode the ME. The other Islamic nations in the ME would have to be isane to allow Iran that sort of power over them.

It will never happen as long as Israel is on the map.

The other thing with Iran having nukes is as well. You're all under the assumption that Iran will 'deliver' those nukes to Israel via missile. The only way Israel will have fore-warning of an attack is if they ARE fired at them with missiles. What's to stop 'a militant organisation' from detonating one just off the coast from a boat?. Or having been transported via truck?.

It's a FACT Iran backs fundamentalist terror groups. What's to stop an Iranian backed terror group from letting off 'dirty bombs' using DU?.

A scenario. A nuclear weapon is detonated in some desert. Next day CNN gets a call from 'unknown militants' demanding Israel releases all militant 'freedom fighters' and ceases action against 'friends of Allah', America withdrawals all it's assets from the ME etc etc. If not, two more nuclear weapons will be detonated in populated western cities, and five 'dirty bombs' will be detonated in other western cities.

What do you do?. 'Five years ago' you gave Iran nuclear capability and free-reign on nuclear weapon development. Quite easily there could be that sort of weaponry in the hands of militants.

Get my point?. Iran doesn't HAVE to be under direct threat of retaliation if they unleash nuclear global terror.

There seems to be no recognition that there is no solution.

The Jews turned up in Jerusalem some millennium ago.
They were there for a very long time, maybe Boaz David can insert the dates.

Then the Romans threw them out around 60AD.

Aound 300 or 400 AD the Arabs turned up.
In 1946 the Jews came back.

So the Arabs claim it is their land and demand Jerusalem.
The Jews say we had it before you.
The Arabs say we have been here for nearly 2000 years.
The Jews say we have been here for four thousand years.

Both claim sole rights and cannot give way for religious reasons.

So thats it a problem without solution.

Bazz,

A few points of fact.

The Zionist enterprise pre-dates 1946. It is over a century old. The word "Zionism" itself was coined in 1890.

Most Zionists were secular. So are most Israelis.

Religious Jews were on the whole opposed to Zionism until about 1945.

The concept behind Israel was a safe haven for Jews who were suffering persecution in many countries. Politically correct propaganda notwithstanding, Jews were also suffering discrimination, if not outright persecution, in most Arab countries long before Israel existed.

Jews began moving back to Israel in fairly large numbers from the turn of the 20th century. Mostly they lived on land that was purchased from Arab landowners.

However there has been a continuous, albeit tiny, Jewish presence in Israel / Palestine for millennia.

The number of Jews who fled to Israel prior to the Holocaust would have been greater but for the obstruction of the British.

Before the establishment of Israel as a state and before the start of mass Jewish migration after 1948, there were already 600,000 Jews living in Israel. Most of these would have been born in Israel or arrived prior to the start of World War 2.

Nearly half the current population of Israel is made up of refugees from Arab countries, and the descendants of such refugees. These folk will never voluntarily share a state with large numbers of Muslims, let alone large numbers of Arabs.

If the same criterion for "refugee" is applied to Israelis as is applied to Palestinians then nearly 40% of the Jewish population of Israel consists of "refugees." (Bear in mind that most Palestinian "refugees" were born outside Israel. In fact the parents of many Palestinian "refugees" were born outside Israel.)

I am simply offering up fact.

I am NOT going to enter into the debate as to who, legally, morally, ethically, etc owns Israel. Nor am I going to debate the legitimacy or otherwise of a Jewish State in what most Muslims consider to be Dar-ul-Islam.

Steven, I was aware of most of the historical points you made.
it is just that the situation became critical after 1946.
I don't think anyone has an answer and if one was enforced it would
open endless cans of worms, eg as a possible Celtic refugee from
Bath in the UK perhaps I could start demanding that these Saxon and
Norman interlopers should surrender their lands to me.
After all we Celts have been expelled for as long as the Jews were
expelled from Jerusalem.

You said:
Nor am I going to debate the legitimacy or otherwise of a Jewish
State in what most Muslims consider to be Dar-ul-Islam.
unquote
That is really the point I am making, there is no point in that
debate, it just goes around and around.

Stevenlmeyer,

1. As has already been put, Iran need not launch missiles to do massive damage to Israel and others. Merely by regularly opening silos and fueling up missiles, Iran can bring all Israel to a complete stop, destroying the economy. It is also true Iran could allow one of it's terrorist proxies to “hand deliver” nuclear material. Finally, you should read a little about Ahmedinejhad and Khamanei. They believe in the hidden imam, the Mehdi, and his return to the earth. The problem is, his return will be on a day of judgment quite like an apocalypse. Beginning to feel a little uneasy yet? You should be. They believe in the literal truth of his existence and may feel compelled to bring about his early return using a nuclear conflagration. If that sounds nuts to you believe me I share your wonder. But when Ahmedinejhad was mayor of Tehran he had the streets of Tehran widened so the Mehdi could make a more triumphal return. He believes the Mehdi hides down a well awaiting his return. Further they have seen fit to drape their shttab3 missiles in a banner reading "wipe Israel off the planet" in a recent military parade. These are their nuclear capable missiles by the way. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/23/iran
See "the Iran threat" by Alireza Jafarzadeh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alireza_Jafarzadeh

2. Hamas will not ever be able to destroy Israel militarily. All they need do is cast themselves in the role as the protector and benefactor of Palestinians. Hamas knows its only way to power is politically. Whats really scary is that some in the west actually want to put power in the hands of these madmen. Hamas do real damage to Israel every day. The sorts of violence that in this country would be front page news for six months is everyday for the people of Israel.

TBC

"I am NOT going to enter into the debate as to who, legally, morally, ethically, etc owns Israel. Nor am I going to debate the legitimacy or otherwise of a Jewish State in what most Muslims consider to be Dar-ul-Islam."

Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 12:35:56 PM

But ya won't discuss the topic either?.

Cont,

3. Quite right, Hizbullah are riding high on their perceived victory over Israel in the 2006 war. To suggest it was a pyrrhic victory would be to entirely understate the matter. But such is the mentality of the Islamo-fascists. It is, however, well known that Iran and Syria are the masters of Hezbollah and the reason that further provocation has not been forthcoming is not easily divinable.

Foxy,

Lowenstein is usually full of nonsense but I can agree with all but the last section of the last sentence you have quoted.

“...Sooner or later, Israel and the Palestinians will have to meet face-to-face, listen to each other's grievances and negotiate with honesty. Only then - and on the condition that both Israel and the Palestinian state achieve safety and security - will this conflict be resolved. Neither side has a monopoly on suffering …”

I would add that it is within the Palestinians power to end the occupation by ceasing the relentless attacks upon Israel and acknowledging Israel right to exist. If they could do that I could find it possible to support them in their quest for a country of their own. I could support them in their attempts to have settlements removed etc. But not whilst they insist upon blowing themselves up on school buses and in restaurants and carrying out other wanton acts of terror upon the innocents of the conflict, including their own people.

EasyTimes,

The NPP have only 9 seats in the current Knesset. That’s less than the number of Arab members (12), and no one suggests that the Arab members define the Knesset. Your follow on suggestions are therefore entirely moot.

Israel is not dying as an ideology, that’s absolute nonsense, What is happening is that the Palestinians are breeding, as most of the muslim world is, at a rate which far outstrips that of Israel. The average age of a Palestinian is 15 years old.

However Israel is only vulnerable politically (in the absence of Iranian nukes) and such is likely to remain the case for a long time to come.

StG,

I see no point in "discussing" the topic either.

BAZZ,

I guess we agree then.

Paul.L

I am well aware that Ahmadinejad is crazy. I would prefer it if he did not have nukes. But he has given no indication that he is prepared to see Iran nuked. I do not think that he, or the mullahs, are willing to see Iran vaporised and Shia Islam disappear.

My guess is that Iran can be deterred just as the Soviet Union was.

You describe a game of nuclear chicken in which silos are uncovered and missiles fuelled. Most combat missiles today are solid-fuel. They do not have to be fuelled up in order to be launched.

Iranian missiles, like Israeli ones, are likely to be mounted on mobile launchers rather than stuck in silos.

Of course a nuclear armed Iran could occasionally adopt an aggressive posture in order to test the nerves of the Israelis. The Soviets did that in the cold war. But after you have done it two or three times without actually firing your missiles people adjust.

The big thing is to have a second strike capability which Israel has thanks to its mobile launchers. It looks as if Israel will soon have a submarine based deterrent as well.

What about a hand "delivered missile?"

Well that may be the worst thing the Muslims could do. A single nuke would leave Israel's nuclear strike capabilities intact but the country acting like a wounded predator. I think Israel's neighbours understand that under these circumstances Israel will shoot first and ask questions later. Bang goes the Middle-East's oil.

UNDER THAT SCENARIO BETTER INVEST IN A BICYCLE. YOU CERTAINLY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD PETROL.

A minor victory for Israel. The EU has agreed to deepen ties with Israel abeit it not to the extent the Israelis wanted. See:

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL15520405

The EU did this in the face of Arab opposition.

Steve – Calling Israel legitimate is a fallacy and you know it! Its like saying Hitler driving the Jews out of Germany is legitimate!

What can be said is that Israel is going to continue to exist and that’s a thing the Muslims are going to have to accept!

You seem to purpose status quo as the solution to problems there. The facts are that the only solution Israel can purpose is to with draw to the pre 1967 borders or even the original borders. It’s better to make an effort at peace rather then no effort. I am sure with the UN help peace can be maintained in some sort of manner.

I never realized that Israel almost used nukes! If what you are saying is true! The Jews are as mad as the Muslims! I guess it makes sense as to why the Americans are very one sided with there views taking into account the Jewish lobby as well.

Paul L – The seats it controls give it the potential to veto. Israeli politics is made up of many small parties! And a group of them form a coalition to form government. With so many different ideologies it makes it next to impossible to make big decision seeing that if one member of the coalition walks away the ruling party breaks down. Its perpetual compromise! You could compare it to the Liberals, Nationals, Greens, Democrats and One nation forming a government and trying to get along.

Israel is dying the Arabs who live in Israle are increasing the Jewish population is almost static and all it enemies are getting more and more powerful! More and more Jews are leaving Israel and only leaving the fanatics behind. Its laws which discriminate against anyone who is not Jewish well only make the problems worse by discouraging anyone who is not of Jewish decent to live there.

Poor desperate people with revenge on their mind and a with a religion as crazy as the one they fight against can wait forever!

They have nothing more to lose!

"All aboard the Titanic!!"

THE DEPTH OF THE PROBLEM......

is seen and illustrated in this invterview.

Argue with these men.. look at what they say.. Specially the Israeli man about JERUSALEM..

Have I not said, repeatedly.. over and over and over....that the key to understanding this region.. peace/war everything.. is in..
Jerusalem.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212659742480&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

But hey... what would I know :)

EasyTimes

I am not going to debate Israel's legitimacy, or illegitimacy.

I am simply observing the following:

--Muslims will never concede the legitimacy of Israel. (Statement of fact)

--THEREFORE

--No meaningful peace deal is possible. (Logical inference)

--THEREFORE

--Your advice to the Israelis about what they should do to achieve peace is IRRELEVANT. (Stating the bloody obvious!)

PEACE IS NOT AVAILABLE.

Full stop!

Get it?

The best the Israelis can hope for is armed TEMPORARY non-belligerence.

I tend to agree with you that the Israeli political system is dysfunctional. It should be repaired for many reasons. But repairing Israeli politics will not bring about peace because peace is NOT POSSIBLE.

I am not sure what you mean by "privileging the status quo." No status quo ever lasts more than a few decades at most.

If by "status quo" you mean the existence of Israel as a Jewish State then I doubt Israelis will surrender that easily. For one, the largely secular Israelis would be no more prepared to risk shariah law than would most Australians.

In the longer term, as I have made clear, I doubt Israel will be able to survive as a Jewish enclave. But I also doubt it will die quietly. More likely Israel and her neighbours will have a radio-active end.

Posters may want to listen to "Talking to Terrorists" on the ABC's "The Spirit of Things" program. See:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/spiritofthings/stories/2008/2270131.htm

This may seem a little off beat but having read through these posts the only conclusion available is that if Israel is going to hold on to their nuclear weapons then probably the best thing for the Middle East is for Iran to get them too.

I'm not sure that Ahmadinejad is any crazier than any of the end time US politicians. In fact I have just read a book titled The Apocalypse of Ahmadinejad, by Mark Hitchcock loaned to me by a christian fundamentalist friend and in the last pages he compares the 'end times' of both faiths and there ain't a hell of a lot of difference. But what was really interesting was how Ahmadinejad was portrayed, linking him with Hitler etc. No mention was made of the Jews living in Iran and the fact that the Iranian constitution decrees that as a religious minority they have parliamentary representation.

From my other readings I can tell you Bush has scared me a hell of a lot more than Ahmadinejad. Remember both the US and Israel refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in the two gulf wars and probably as a result Saddam deferred from loading his Scuds with anything nasty. Iran would recognise the ‘blowback’ of a terrorist nuclear strike on Israel and I feel would do all they could to prevent that ever happening.

My contention therefore is that atomic bombs are by their very nature defensive weapons. As such it might just turn out that the way forward in the Middle East is for Iran to possess them. There certainly appears to be few other options presenting themselves.

Dear Paul,

I'm glad that you agree with Antony Loewenstein's summation that I gave in my previous post - and that you would support Palestine in their bid for a homeland - were they to stop attacking Israel.
Unfortunately, as I said earlier, I don't think that it's going to happen anytime soon.

As Loewenstein tells us in his book," One of the most powerful messages I heard over and over again during my travels around Israel and Palestine was that neither side thought the other cared about its stories or suffering. This made reconciliation next to impossible..."

I agree with Loewenstein when he says,"I support the state of Israel and believe in its existence...There must be a way for Israel to exist securely while allowing justice for the Palestinian people."

But how to do that is the million dollar question. As another poster said - we'll go round and round in circles because it appears that so far this problem does not have a solution.

Any thoughts?

Jerusalem is considered a Holy place to Jews, Christians, Muslims and non religious tourists with interest in ancient history.

Jerusalem 's simple solution is to become an independent city/ state like Monaco where people and tourists with different religious persuasions could have access to it.

I can't think of any other way to achieve real long term peace in this region. One religious group keeping it inspires everyone else to capture it too. It was happening for the last 2000 years and will keep happening unless we change direction.

Peace,

Fellow_Human,

Are you saying that were Israel to agree to make Jerusalem an independent city the Muslim world would be prepared to accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state?

Because if that's not what you're saying then what advantage is there to Israel in giving up Jerusalem?

And if that is what you're saying then I don’t believe you. What is more I don’t think you would believe you.

Foxy,

Here is the reality.

The elimination of the "Zionist entity" has become the focal point, I may almost say the obsession, of Muslims around the world. It is beyond the power of Israel to change that. Other than vanish there is literally nothing that Israel can do to assuage Muslims.

The consequence is that the Palestinians could not negotiate a lasting peace with Israel even if they wanted to. There will always be elements in the wider Muslim world egging them on to have one more go.

Lowenstein is wrong. Peace does not come when foes "feel each others' pain." It comes in one of two ways:

-- One side scores a knockout blow; or

--The parties to the conflict feel it's not worth carrying on the fight.

Israel cannot land a knockout blow and right now neither can the Muslims. But the Muslim side thinks, probably correctly, that time is on their side. So they are prepared to fight on.

That is why talks of peace or reconciliation are MOONSHINE.

That is why Fellow_Human's suggestion is besides the point.

Many Jews find it hard to let go of the MYTH of peace. They figure, probably correctly, that if conflict persists Israel will eventually succumb. If they live in the Diaspora they feel that continuing conflict will make it difficult for them to live with their neighbours. So they clutch at the straw of some sort of peace.

But bitter foes who feel they will eventually win do NOT make peace Foxy.

Learn to live with that.

Deal with it.

Dear FH.... your thoughts are indeed practical as far as most of us (Who don't live there) would see them.

But do you honestly think you can convince Hamas, or Islamic Jihad or the Israelis of your idea?

My view on the situation is the same as it's always been:

"It doesn't matter which side we support, the issue will only ever be resolved as it always has.. force"

Not that one condones or welcomes that.. but it's the historic reality.

All of our existing states came about by force and displacement.

OH.. did you see my report on the mind body spirit event ? :)
It was QUITE illuminating I assure you.. words cannot convey what it was like.

You, of all people here can probably better imagine the look on the Saudi blokes face when he explained 9:29 to me and added "The Jihad will go on till the last day" and he also went to considerable pains to emphasise "Islam is not a religion of peace..I don't want to mislead you" :) and he said that before I'd said "I'm Christian"

So.. as I've also always said.. "Your" Islam does not bother or worry me. "His" does.

On Jerusalem/Israel/WestBank/Gaza..I am actually attracted politically to the idea of David Singer, absorbing the various Palestinian bits into Jordan and Egypt...but we all know that the same problems would arise as for your own idea.. "the radicals".

TORTURE.. u know.. last night I was tortured. We were 'forced' to hold our arms up in the air while jogging on the spot.. until we could stand it no more.. the threat was "first person to lower his hands.. is shot" OOPs..no..sorry..that was Abu Graib :) in our case it was just pushups..and I was first.. The pain was incredible.

When Loewenstein writes, "I support the state of Israel and believe in its existence...There must be a way for Israel to exist securely while allowing justice for the Palestinian people.", why can't we reverse it and put the proposition again?

I support the state of Palestine and believe in its existence...There must be a way for Palestine to exist securely while allowing justice for the Israeli people.

That state would not have the illegal settlements of an occupying power dissecting it into submission.

Maybe justice and a secure homeland go hand in hand.

Would the security of a Palestinian state be improved by Iran having a nuclear deterrent? Would it help curb the excesses of the Israelis?

Logic says it would

Stevenlmeyer,

The Iranians are not comparable to the Russians, especially now that they have Ahmedinejhad and Khamanei. These are people who believe in the literal truth of an apocalypse which will bring destruction only to their enemies. The Mehdi will save all the good muslims.

Iran, like the Soviet Union, has a mission to spread its particular revolution by any and all means. There is little doubt that nuclear weapons will embolden Iran to carry out its aggressive ambitions. Islamic republics throughout the Muslim and Arab world are its primary goal, and this makes Iran’s sunni neighbours rightly, very nervous.

Possession of nukes will mean Iran is better able to blackmail or intimidate its neighbours, including Israel. It also makes it more likely that Iran will use its stores of chemical and biological weapons.

It will secure the rule of the mullahs and make democracy in Iran an impossibility.

But the idea that the regime can be deterred, because the Soviets were deterred, is a fallacy. You can’t deter suicide bombers by threatening to kill them. Have a read of “The Iran Threat” by Alireza Jafarzardeh. He analyses the regimes behaviour and points to 30 years of failed attempts to engage Iran in dialogue.

I wonder what message you think Iran is sending when they plaster their nuclear capable missiles with “wipe Israel off the map” posters?

CSteele

>>” the only conclusion available is that if Israel is going to hold on to their nuclear weapons then probably the best thing for the Middle East is for Iran to get them too.

WTF??

>>” As such it might just turn out that the way forward in the Middle East is for Iran to possess them.

That’s your reason?? The way forward to where? Nuclear conflagration? You are talking about a fundamental change in the balance of power.

You say >>” I'm not sure that Ahmadinejad is any crazier than any of the end time US politicians

I beg your pardon??

TBC

cont,

Bush may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but he doesn’t converse with 1000 year old men living in wells. He doesn’t regularly make threats to wipe whole countries off the map. He doesn’t make POLICY, based upon the likelihood of the return of a prophet or messiah in the next parliamentary term

You say >>”. In fact I have just read a book titled The Apocalypse of Ahmadinejad, by Mark Hitchcock loaned to me by a christian fundamentalist friend and in the last pages he compares the 'end times' of both faiths and there ain't a hell of a lot of difference.”

The difference between Bush and his cabinet and Ahmedinejhad and Khamanei, is that the Iranians are expecting the Mehdi’s imminent and literal return. Ahmedinejhad had the roads of Tehran widened to better accommodate the mehdi's triumphal return, for example.

In his speech to the UN he claimed the audience became ENRAPTURED, saying

On the last day when I was speaking before the assembly, one of our group told me that when I started to say "In the name of God the almighty and merciful," he saw a light around me, I was placed inside this aura. I felt it myself. I felt the atmosphere change and for those 27 or 28 minutes the leaders of the world did not blink. When I say they did not bat an eyelid I am not exaggerating because I was looking at them and they were rapt. It seemed as if a hand was holding them there and had opened their eyes to receive a message from the Islamic Republic” http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec05/iran_12-9.html

Yes Iran’s 25,000 Jews have a parliamentary representative who is obligated by law to support Iranian foreign policy and its Anti-Zionist position. Jews may not occupy senior positions in the government or the military and are prevented from serving in the judiciary and security services and from becoming public school heads. In 2004, many Iranian newspapers celebrated the one-hundredth anniversary of the publishing of the anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iranjews.html

"Does anyone truly believe the cowardly and CORRUPT mullahs in Iran are willing to be vaporised"

And this is the salient point that gets drowned out in WMD hysteria. People who spend their lives struggling to attain power and dominance don't want to see it vapourised in an instant. The mullahs, the CCP officials and Kim Jong Il all want to live long, despotic lives, and military power enables them to maintain it.

Currently, the most dangerous apocalyptic thinkers are in the US Republican party, because they think they can nuke at will and not pay the same price because god's on their side.

These arent't reality checks. They're hypocritical, paranoid fantasies.

PaulL."These are people who believe in the literal truth of an apocalypse which will bring destruction only to their enemies. "

You must be talking about Christians.

Csteele,

A reality check.

The notion that Iran would risk nuclear annihilation in order to "help" the Palestinians is, frankly, LUDICROUS. States do not behave in that way.

The cowardly and CORRUPT mullahs in Iran are NOT going to get themselves vaporised on behalf of the Palestinians or anyone else?

The Iranians will continue to provide the Palestinians with weaponry that they can use to strike at Israel. Mostly this will take the form of rockets.

But risk a nuclear war?

Nope.

But now I am asking you to consider a deeper question csteele.

When Bush says his motives in Iraq are pure and he is acting in the best interests of the Iraqi people we dismiss this as malarkey. We suspect the welfare of the Iraqi people is not high on whatever agenda the Bush administration is pursuing in Iraq.

Yet many people prepared to assume that Iran's President Ahmadinejad is acting in the best interests of the Palestinians.

Why?

Csteele,

Can you understand that Ahmadinejad's professed concern for the welfare of the Palestinians may be as BOGUS as Bush's concern for the Iraqis?

That Iranian interference in Iraq may have as little to do with the welfare of Iraqis as America's?

Consider that both Iran and the US may be engaging in old-fashioned power politics and that Iraqis and Palestinians are pawns in the game.

If Ahmadinejad truly had the best interests of the Palestinians at heart would Iran be equipping Hamas with rockets? Or would it be offering more in the way of economic assistance?

From your posts I infer that you have much sympathy for the Palestinians. I doubt whether Ahmadinejad shares your sympathies.

Note also csteele that many Muslims also believe in an apocalypse that bring destruction only to their enemies.

Excerpt from an Hadith narrated by Abu Hurira:

"...Then the rocks and tree would call: oh Muslim, oh servant of God! There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him..."

This hadith, and variants thereof, are often quoted on Arab TV services.

Dear Steven,

"And bitter foes who feel that they will eventually win - do not make peace..." Live with it, Deal with it.

Those words of yours take away all hope. In this world of ours - we need hope so badly, because there's enough hatred in the world.
We've got to think of our children's and grandchildren's future.
What kind of a legacy will we be leaving them - if we accept a world where hatred rules.

Surely the moderates from both sides of the equasion could affect the future outcome? Why are fanatics granted so much influence? Sanity should prevail - but obviously it doesn't.

At least not yet.

I never imagined that the IRA would ever become a somewhat more moderate politically party. Is it possible that in the future Hamas will do the same? Where there's life, there hope.
It isn't much, I know, but it's all we've got.

When a man believes himself to be the "Mahdi" or Muslim messiah..or..partly believes this, and then a body of opinion surrounds him encouraging this belief..and he speaks of supernatural visions at the UN.. ETC...

...the danger is not to Israel if he gets Nukes.. by far the bigger danger is to the USA by stealth.

If Ahmadinajad had this technology, his best bet would be to keep it quiet..and quietly slip some nukes over the US/Mexican border, or.. just place one or 2 in a ship.. which for reasons unknown.. does not seem in any hurry to unload.

LAWYERS and NUKES.
Once America is disabled.. who knows what he might do or try to do.
And given our wonderful system of justice and a veritable ARMY of left leaning "Lets discuss it with them/lets gaze at our navels and work out why all this is our fault/We mussst have 'due process'/ It's all our foreign policy that caused it....LAWYERS..

CONSPIRACY THEORISTS
Not to mention the legions of 'They are in fact US.. WE did this to ourselves.. Mossad..the CIA.. its a vicious plot to justify a war' conspiracy theorists....

By the time good ol Ted Kennedy can decide that "WOAH.. it WAS 'them'"
i.e. someone to actually blame besides the USA.. it will be too late.

In fact, some spoon bill/bright spark kinda claims that this type of thing will happen... but then, he also claims to be one of the 'two witnesses' spoken about in Revelation..and his wife is the other one.

http://the-end.com/2008GodsFinalWitness/?gclid=CKCnzKGg_ZMCFSUqagodYjVPWQ
He apparently "knows" things which were not revealed to John. (blink)

But whacko's aside.... I still feel there would not be any kind of serious attack on Israel until the USA was not a threat.

Foxy,

Interesting that you should mention the IRA.

We have to be careful when applying the lessons of one conflict to another. All conflicts are different. There are no "one size fits all" solutions.

However there is a lessons from Northern Ireland that can be applied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And it is this.

Gerry Adams realised that the "armed wing" of the IRA had been DEFEATED.

Thanks to British diplomacy and robust action by various US administrations the IRA's North American support base was haemorrhaging. A new generation of Irish-Americans were asking themselves what the IRA was on about.

Simultaneously support for the "armed wing" of the IRA was slipping in Ireland itself. Ireland was becoming less Catholic and VERY PROSPEROUS. Younger Irish people were also asking what the IRA hoped to achieve by blowing people up.

The "armed wing" of the IRA was looking increasingly anachronistic.

I do not want to minimise Adams' achievement. It took the ability to think outside the box plus personal courage to convince the hard men in the IRA that their time was up; that the future lay with ballots, not bombs.

So peace came to Northern Ireland.

Peace.

NOT reconciliation. Catholic and Protestant continue with mutual antipathy.

The people in Northern Ireland realised they did not have to love each other. They did not even have to like each other. They certainly did not have to hug and kiss in the streets.

All they had to do was quit killing each other and get on with their lives.

Before any of this could happen the IRA had to understand that its armed wing had been defeated. Thanks to Gerry Adams they did although Adams himself would not put it that way.

Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians think of themselves as being anywhere close to defeat so the conflict will continue.

Note that peace does not always imply a benign outcome. Amid cheering by Western Lefties the Smith regime was defeated by Mugabe's forces in 1979. The result has not improved the lives of Zimbabweans.

No, steven, that's not a reality check. It's merely your opinion (and a crazy, paranoid one at that). Here are some facts for you.

The USA:
- Is the only country to have deployed nuclear weapons (on a civilian population at that).
- Created a war of aggression in Iraq. According to Nuremburg such a war is the "supreme war crime".
- Overthrew the Democratic government of Iran in 1953, replacing it with a dictatorship.
- Shot down an Iranian civilian airliner killing all 290 passengers instantly in 1988.
- Aided Saddam Hussein against Iran (despite use of chemical weapons and supplied him with components for them).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war#U.S._support_for_Iraq
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/220.html

Recent USA policy questions of US Republican candidates:

"Almost All Republican Candidates Willing to Nuke Iran"
http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=1205
'Bomb, Bomb, Bomb; Bomb, Bomb, Iran'
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/12/bomb_bomb_bomb_bomb_bomb_iran_1.html

Now what has Iran done, exactly, to warrant your conspiracy theories? Is it all you can do to quote their religious text, that is no different from the Bible to supportr your claims?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=m5QFnAoqRZM (Richardson: 500,000 dead kids OK in pursuit of U.S. policy)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5S1YkQs5nXQ (Madeleine Albright: Killing the Muslim children is worth it)

Steven,

There is a precedent for peace in the middle east. Its the one between Israel and Egypt since 1977. In that deal Israel had to give back an occupied territory for a long term peace deal and it worked for the last 30+ years.

There is little point trying to convince the world that Israel is serious about peace if they are unable to compromise on the occupied territories and keep expanding settlements. Thats the point that Bush and Rice were trying to make in their last visit.

Boaz,

I am not biting into your 'lets turn it a religious debate'.
Hope you are well.

Peace,

1. I recognize that Palestinians are the real victims, as they pressed to leave their land and they are blocked to return back etc.
2. I recognize the right of Israel to live in peace and defend its state from Arabs or Muslims who try with various ways to destroy it.
3. I recognize the right of Palestinians, including Hamas to fight for Palestinians rights.
4. I recognize Hizbullah to defend Lebanon and Support Palestinians.
5. I recognize USA or other countries to support Israel
6. I recognize Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Arabs or Muslims to support Palestinians.
BUT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THEIR REFUSAL TO USE THEIR BRAIN, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THEIR REFUSAL TO LEARN FROM THEIR MISTAKES, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THEIR REFUSAL TO FIND A SOLUTION FOR THEIR PROBLEM!
Is there a solution for the Israel-Palestinian Conflict? YESSSS!
a) Americans can not find any solution for the problem, because Arabs and Muslims do to trust them, and they have right.
2) Israelis can not risk their state and can not accept any solution if they are not sure 1000% that it will work for ever!
This kind of solution it is POSSIBLE ONLY IF THE ISRAEL BECOME MEMBER OF EUROPEAN UNION, AND EUROPEAN UNION NOT ONLY PROTECT THE EUROPEAN SOIL OF ISRAEL BUT ALSO SUPPORT PALESTINIANS TO CREATE THEIR OWN PROSPEROUS STATE.
If Israel become member of the European Union then Israelis can live with peace and security and Palestinians could have enough support to create the most prosperous state in the Muslim and Arab world.
The question is not who and how to win the war but how to support both of them to be prosperous and live in peace and security.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

LOL STEEL,

I adhere to no religion. To me they are ALL examples of superstition.

I am not going to defend the Bush administration. Bush has won the title of "Worst President since World War 2" hands down.

My SOLE purpose in quoting the hadith was to point out that it is not only Christians who believe in a sort of final judgement day. So do many Muslims. That is a simple statement of fact. Nothing more.

Most of my previous post HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HADITH I QUOTED.

I pointed out that we should be AT LEAST as sceptical of Ahmadinejad as of Bush. Iran's actions smack of old-fashioned power politics of the sort that nations have engaged in for centuries.

In other words Iran behaves like a NORMAL, albeit unpleasant, state. If you had read my posts you would see that the NORMALCY of Iran has been the thrust of my argument.

It follows that if Iran acquires nukes it can be deterred as the Soviets were deterred.

However I must add that Ahmadinejad obsession with the "Hidden Imam" makes him weird. See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1507818/%27Divine-mission%27-driving-Iran%27s-new-leader.html

Fortunately the mullahs seem to be reining him in:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/world/middleeast/20mahdi.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast&oref=slogin

This supports my view that the mullahs are pragmatists who do not want to be vaporised and that Iran is simply another state engaged in power politics.

FOXY, FELLOW_HUMAN

Looks like Hamas may be having an attack of pragmatism.

See:

http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSL18386606

Maybe the Hamas leadership has concluded that for now they cannot defeat Israel and must focus on the mundane details of making Gaza work.

Let's see how this plays out.

FELLOW_HUMAN

I am not trying to convince you that Israel is "serious" about peace. I am merely pointing out that I believe permanent peace between Israel and the Muslim world is impossible.

Egypt's willingness to sign a peace deal with Israel had as much to do with their defeat in 1973 and their realisation that they almost got nuked as it had with land. Sadat the pragmatist decided the conflict no longer served Egypt's interests.

Dear Steven,

If Barack Obama wins the American Presidential Election,
do you think he'll be able to bring Palestine and Israel to talk peace?

PaulL

While admittedly Bush is a little more circumspect about end time proclamations Ronald Reagan was not. It is a matter of history now that he scared the buggery out of the Russians and his apocalyptic thoughts were a huge contributing factor.

The ‘mullahs’ of the US, while kept a little more at bay through the constitution, wield significant influence and are no less rabid in their pronouncements. Jerry Falwell repeatedly insists that senior positions within government should be reserved for Christians and Jews.

I’m wondering the difference between a US congressman advocating the ‘nuking of Mecca’ and the Iranian president’s proclamations about Israel?

Indeed what is the difference between Ahmadinejad with his quirky beliefs and those of the Mormon senator who ran for the Republican nomination? Both may well be regarded as members of sects, sects that are out of step with the religions that spawned them.

I have sat through a few recordings of Ahmadinejad’s speeches including the Columbia University episode and although I find some of what he has to say distasteful, to paint him as a lunatic would require the same label to be affixed to many in power within Israel and the US.

I’ve had my moment when I have shaken myself out from under the perceptions produced from the strident denouncements of Ahmadinejad by the Bush administration, the same crew that had us sold on the WMD story. May I invite some of you to do the same.

PaulL, history says MAD works, so why shouldn’t it work here?

Stephen

I imagine Ahmadinejad has a little more regard for the Palestinians than Bush has for the Sudanese Christians but is guilty of just as much rhetoric. I wonder if Palestinians were supplied with the same accurate weaponry that the Israelis have at their disposal would the indiscriminate use of rockets be diminished?

If Australia had been occupied by the Japanese and the population was shuffled off to outback South Australia would we have resisted as strongly as the Palestinians? The question is whether or not we would have employed similar tactics. The answer, probably.

CSteele

It is nonsense to pretend that somehow Bush and his cabinet are comparable in their zealotry to the mullahs of Iran. There just isn’t ANY evidence to suggest it.

Fallwell is DEAD, for starters. Secondly his influence in American politics is negligible. Just because you can quote one nutbag Christian, doesn’t mean you have made a case against the US administration.

Reagan is DEAD. But the reason that lefties hate him is because he described the battle between the US and the Soviets as one between Good and Evil. I wouldn’t go quite that far, however in many respects Reagan was right. At that time, few in the left had any idea of the horrors which took place behind the Iron Curtain. There was still much support for the Soviet Union among leftist groups. Reagan knew, but was much derided by the left for supposedly overstating the case. As it turned out he was 100% right.

Ahmedinejhad and Khomeini both suggested Israel should be wiped out. And they are the people who actually run the country. And Kamanei and his mates chose Ahmedinejhad, the new President.

In the most recent US primary elections the most non-Christian Republican got up. I can assure you that John McCain doesn’t believe in an apocalyptic confrontation with the forces of EVIL.

>>”to paint [Ahmedinejhad] as a lunatic would require the same label to be affixed to many in power within Israel and the US.”

This is a man who believes he was bathed in the light of GOD during a speech at the UN and that GOD was working through him to deliver a message. He converses with a 1000 year old man living down a well. He widened the streets of Tehran for the imminent return of the Mehdi. There is absolutely NO COMPARISON with ANYONE in the US administration.

>> “I’m wondering the difference between a US congressman advocating the ‘nuking of Mecca’ and the Iranian president’s proclamations about Israel?

A US congressman (WHO??) doesn’t actually have the power to do ANYTHING. Amedinejhad on the other hand …. That’s the difference.

Stevenlmeyer& CSteele

>> “We have to be careful when applying the lessons of one conflict to another. All conflicts are different. There are no "one size fits all" solutions.

>>” history says MAD works, so why shouldn’t it work here?”

Ahmedinejhad, Kamanei et al, have no parallel in modern history. Merely because previous regimes have been deterred doesn’t teach us anything about what the Islamo-fascists in Tehran might do. We are talking about religious fanatics whose greatest reward is to die in Jihad, fighting the infidel.

Mutually Assured Destruction rests upon the underlying reality of reasonableness of the principal combatants. But how can we rely upon the reasonableness of Ahmedinejhad. The man is clearly a zealot, he’s already made threats for god sake. Yet for some reason the lefties doubt his word. Why?? ??

Steven,

I thoroughly agree with your analysis of the IRA/Northern Ireland. It is clear that the same solution is the only viable one for Israel and the Palestinians. They need separate states.

Foxy,

Barack Obama?? The man’s a first term senator.

Fellow Human,

You say>>” In that deal Israel had to give back an occupied territory for a long term peace deal and it worked for the last 30+ years.”

This is a very distorted view of the actual circumstances. Israel offered the territory in return for peace. Egypt never had it within its power to demand anything from Israel. Egypt was beaten twice, so badly that they got the idea that it was pointless fighting the Israelis. Lets get that bit straight. Israel has consistently said that it will offer land in return for peace.

And now Israel has again shown that it is interested in peace by agreeing to a 6 month ceasefire. This ceasefire, if it is too fail, only benefits Hamas, since they need time to rearm and repair their damages. There is no benefit at all to Israel if this ceasefire fails. I hope it does not fail, however I hold little hope that Hamas is doing anything other than buying itself some breathing space at the expense of Israeli goodwill.

Two things Paul. The illegal occupation of Palestine is collective punishment. Every citizen is being punished by Israel and that means that every citizen may decide to seek justice with their own hands. No state on the planet can control all of it's population...that's a bar set so high it is almost certainly going to fail (barring a stroke of luck).

Next Israel benefits greatly from a broken ceasefire, since it still provides them with an excuse they can present to the crippled (by the abused US veto in the UN) and limp-wristed international community for occupying Palestine that has bought them decades of illegal occupation. This means they can continue their assassinations and detentions and violence toward often innocent Palestinians and the destruction of their homes, the increases of their settlements, which will make the cycle last longer.

Israel are the ones with something to lose. They have everything to gain by keeping the stolen land and inciting the Palestinians to even more violence.

Dear Paul,

Barack Obama is way, way, more than just a senator... - he's won the Democratic nomination as their candidate - for the office of President of the US - beating Hilary Clinton and her team.

He may just represent, "The Change we can believe in," as the placards say.

Don't discount him so easily.

ASymeonakis

I want to expand on your comments.

The best possible outcome would be a "Mediterranean Union" that includes the EU, North Africa and the Middle-East. I do not know whether this will come about. Judging by the growing opposition to Muslim Turkey's EU membership it will be a hard sell.

However, consider this:

North Africa and the Middle-East are next door to one of the richest markets in the world

They have abundant labour though, it must be said, Israel and the Palestinians aside, much of it is unskilled and poorly educated. Illiteracy is at high levels especially among woman. However these are problems that can be overcome.

North Africa and the M-E should be able to attract investment from the EU. At least some of the EU investment that currently flows to China, Vietnam and other parts of Asia could be invested in job-creating assets around the Mediterranean.

In fact it is a measure of ARAB FAILURE that they have managed to attract so little investment given their proximity to the EU. It seems EU business people prefer distant Asia to next-door North Africa / M-E.

Current the only M-E non-oil producing country able to attract significant EU investment is Israel.

There are signs that all this is beginning to change. Egypt has adopted a far more business friendly stance and its economy has experienced a growth spurt. It helps that they have a bilateral free trade agreement with the US. (But not the EU! Why?)

The Palestinians recently held an economic conference in Bethlehem in an effort to attract investment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7412129.stm

Even Hamas sent a representative!

So maybe Hamas us beginning to re-think its strategy. Their attendance at the Bethlehem conference plus agreeing to a truce may mean they are considering going for economic growth rather than war.

Perhaps their new motto will be:

MAKE MONEY, NOT WAR

We can but hope.

Steel,

>>” The illegal occupation of Palestine is collective punishment”

You mean the occupation of the West Bank, since Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza already. This is a ridiculous concept. Israel has said for many, many years that it will give the land back when the Palestinians accept Israel’s right to exist, and lay down their arms and make peace. This is exactly what happened with Egypt and Jordan.

Israel only occupied the land because of the repeated invasions by Arab armies. The two countries (Israel and Palestine) are still at war, why should Israel surrender or stand down? There been no standing down on the Arab side. The Arabs began these illegal wars of aggression that you so love to yak about.

>> and that means that every citizen may decide to seek justice with their own hands”

So you support the suicide bombers do you?? Where is the justice in blowing up a school bus, or a restaurant full of innocent people??

>>”This means they can continue their assassinations and detentions and violence”

So that’s why they occupy the West Bank is it?? So they can assassinate and detain and make life difficult in general for Palestinians??

>>” No state on the planet can control all of it's population...”

Israel isn’t trying to control the population, they are trying to best ensure the security of their people. Hamas have shown that, were Israel to withdraw unilaterally from the West Bank, they should not expect peace. What incentive then is there for Israel withdrawing? Far better to stay and negotiate peace for land bought with the blood of many Israelis.

>>” Israel are the ones with something to lose”

That’s my point regarding the peace treaty. Hamas has nothing to lose at all. It’s a sign of Israel’s commitment to peace and a sign of Hamas’ desperation. Hamas is most likely using this period to rearm and consolidate after their devastating losses recently.

Are you really suggesting that this peace initiative is Hamas’ idea and that they aren’t being deceitful, they really want peace, but the Israelis don’t??

tbc

cont,

>>”Next Israel benefits greatly from a broken ceasefire”

So Israel is making peace so that when Hamas break it, Israel will look like they are trying?? Is that what you are suggesting?? That’s such a no brainer. Because if Hamas break the ceasefire it means that Israel has been right all along when it has said that Hamas does not want peace. Have a read of the Hamas Charter and try and tell me that Hamas are really interested in making peace and living side by side without recrimination.

>> “By the abused US veto in the UN”

You must be joking, The whole concept of the UN is a joke. Arab and Muslim countries, voting as a block, are the reason there are so many UN resolutions regarding Israel in the first place. And those oil producing countries have very little problem getting other countries to vote with them by threatening the withholding of oil, or offering highly lucrative terms. The UN is a basket case because the non-democratic countries have a say. The Security Council is a joke because China and Russia (and France for that matter) have a veto. It’s a total waste of space. Just look at China's recalcitrance regarding the conflict in Darfur.

I don’t recognise, (although I understand you do) the right of dictatorships and theocracies to dictate terms to one of the few democracies in the region. The US wouldn’t need its veto if these countries were excluded. The Arab league voted against American resolutions 88.7% of the time in the 85 yes-no votes the US proposed up until 2003. Why should countries which deny their people democracy enjoy the fruits of democracy themselves?

No state can control what every citizen can do, particularly if they have systematic violence agaisnt them.

That's why bombing someone's house or wedding and killing the people (such as in Iraq) can make 'terrorists' out of thin air. These people have received no justice, never will, so their only resort is to revolt and inflict similar harm.

I'm not sure about Hamas' goals but the current situation demands a restoration of the Palestinian land as decreed by the UN immediately.

As for the veto situation, don't you think it's a little disingenuous and even specious to pretend that an illegal occupation would not be the subject of more resolutions than average? Where else in the world is there an illegal occupation?

It's also reasonable to see that both cases may be true. There may be an intense focus on Israel (that is arguably well due since it's one of the only illegal occupations in the entire world), but there is still a terrible bias in the US vetos, as described here where it looks at the whole history and various cases:

http://ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/p-neff-veto.html

Also it should be noted that on nearly every occasion the US vetoed the resolution, there was not a single other nation to support their view on the subject across the whole world. If it were reasonable position you would see an even split.

STEEL,

As I've said repeatedly I am NOT going to enter into a moral debate. I shall confine myself to a few observations.

When the Israelis vacated Gaza the Palestinians were free to choose from a range of options.

One option was to focus on economic development. As I explained in my previous post, they are ideally placed to do so. Perhaps they could have become the "desert Singapore" or Hongkong.

Whenever I bring this up some people say the choice of going for economic development was not open to them; the Israelis would have blocked it.

Personally I think the Israelis would have been delighted had the Palestinians chosen the path of economic development. However we shall never know what the Israelis would have done because the Palestinians never tried.

In fact the Palestinians chose a path that was diametrically opposed. They opted to use the territory of Gaza as a platform to attack Israel.

Note: This was their choice.

The consequences – a blockade and Israeli counter-attacks – were entirely predictable.

Now I am NOT going to debate the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the Palestinian choice. You may feel that the Palestinian choice was the morally and ethically correct one. So be it.

But I do point out that in Gaza the Palestinians DID have a CHOICE.

FOXY,

The Bush administration is so discredited that any successor is bound to have a better chance of bringing about not peace but a long term cease fire.

Whether Obama or McCain would be better placed to this I cannot say.

PaulL,

“It is nonsense to pretend that somehow Bush and his cabinet are comparable in their zealotry to the mullahs of Iran. There just isn’t ANY evidence to suggest it.”

I know you dismiss the relevance of past deeds but I use them only to illustrate how similar the regimes are. If one side is slightly more belligerent at this moment it shouldn’t distract us from a more complete view.

How many countries has Iran attacked since the mullahs have been in control?

What are the difference between threats on Israel and the threat to bomb Pakistan "back to the stone age" unless it joined the fight against al-Qaeda?

How does a country permit one of its warships to shoot down another country’s passenger airline then award the ship’s air-warfare coordinator the navy’s the Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement," citing his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire" that allowed him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure"?

That was enough to scare the buggery out of the Iranians forcing a review of their conflict with Iraq and ultimately leading to them accepting a UN brokered ceasefire.

Middle East veteran David Hirst wrote “America would very likely discover something else: that the friend and ally it has succoured all these years is not only a colonial state, not only extremist by temperament, racist in practice, and increasingly fundamentalist in the ideology that drives it, it is also eminently capable of becoming an 'irrational' state at America's expense as well as its own.” and “Israel will remain at least as likely a candidate as Iran, and a far more enduring one, for the role of 'nuclear-crazy' state.”

If you appreciate how America and Israel are regarded by many in the world and for solid reasons then I think you might enjoy a more balanced viewpoint.

General John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command until March 2007, said, "I believe we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear. . . . There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran."

So why not let it.

Csteele,

Australians of the "Left persuasion" do tend to convince themselves that the United States is viewed as a hateful monster throughout the world.

ANOTHER REALITY CHECK.

There is no doubt that the years of the Bush administration have not been good for the US image. However a surprisingly large number of people still have a favourable view of the US despite Bush.

Here is a link to the Pew Global Attitude Survey.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=825

Surprisingly even in China 49% of the populace seem to have a favourable view of the US. In India the number is 56%.

Even more interesting is which segments of the populace have a favourable view of the US. (This is not covered in the Pew Global article. I don’t have an online link)

In Indian and China entrepreneurs and people in business are most likely to have a favourable view of the US.

European based university academics are the group least favourably disposed to the US. No surprises there. However, in Europe, people on low incomes are the most favourably disposed.

My own feeling is that after Bush the US will experience a bounce in popularity among people who are not European academics or Australian lefties.

Whatever the view of European academics, EUROPEAN BUSINESSES LOVE THE US. They are scrambling to buy up US companies and businesses.* In the process they are helping create jobs in the US. This should help mitigate the rise in unemployment due to the recession now under way.

To European businesses the current US dollar weakness is seen not as a negative but as a buying opportunity.

Attitudes towards Iran seem aligned with the US view in non-Muslim countries. See:

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=826

Even in Europe people have a less favourable view of Iran than of the US.

In India and China those that do not like Iran greatly outnumber those that do.

I think Australian Lefties need to understand they do not always reflect world opinion.

*See Foreign Policy Magazine, May / June 2008 pp95 – 9

stevenlmeyer

"The best possible outcome would be a "Mediterranean Union" that includes the EU, North Africa and the Middle-East"
This is an other, bigger story I wrote only for the role which the European Union could play to support for a permanent solution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It is seemed that sooner or later the Israel (and Palestine) will become FULL member of the EU and the problem will be solved with the best possible way for both sites, Israelis and Palestinians.

EU Expansion to Israel and Palestine
With the election of a new US president, Europe could gain more control in the Middle East, but only if it simultaneously accepts more responsibility.
http://www.atlantic-community.org/index/articles/view/EU_Expansion_to_Israel_and_Palestine

Possible Integration of Israel in European Market
examing the possibility of Israeli integration into the European market.
Israel will join European agencies, programs, and working groups to bring the Israeli economy and society closer to European norms and standards, to increase the competitiveness of Israeli companies in the European market, primarily in the field of high-tech.
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-6-18/72044.html

srael's integration into the European single market - A joint working group will examine the areas in which Israel is capable of integrating into the European single market. This will lay the groundwork for an additional upgrading of relations in the future.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/MFA+Spokesman/2008/The+EU+and+Israel+upgrade+relations++16-June-2008.htm

EU, Israel set to boost economic relations
The Associated Press June 16, 2008, 2:27PM ET
Officials from the European Union and Israel were meeting Monday for talks on upgrading economic and political relations.

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni was to meet with Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU external relations commissioner, and foreign ministers from the 27-nation bloc.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D91BB2T00.htm

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

ASymeonakis

You are correct. Israel has made a lot of progress in strengthening and deepening its ties with the EU. I think Israel would like to become a full fledged member. Perhaps it will happen.

Simultaneously Israel is deepening it ties to NATO.

There are also signs that Syria wants to come in from the cold. It needs investment to get its stagnant economy moving.

See:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-syria-peace_slyjun17,0,3937256.story

Perhaps "make money, not war" will finally resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

That's an appeal to majority you responded to csteele with, steven. I think csteele was hinting at emprical analysis of past misdeeds, rather than ignorance or apathy toward past and current misdeeds among populations of the world. Are there scores for other countries to compare it with?

CSteele,

>>”I know you dismiss the relevance of past deeds but I use them only to illustrate how similar the regimes are. If one side is slightly more belligerent at this moment it shouldn’t distract us from a more complete view”

What?? ?? ?? ??

IRAN IS A THEOCRACY. The president is APPOINTED in a sham election after being chosen by the Supreme Leader and his coterie. They have no real democratic tradition anyway. Their laws are made by religious men supposedly enacting gods law (Shar’ia). Their standing army is supplemented by a Pretorian guard, The IRGC aka Pasdaran, which has its own ground, air and naval units. IRGC commands the Quds force. The primary mission of the Quds Force is to organize, train, equip, and finance foreign Islamic revolutionary movements. The Quds Force maintains and builds contacts with underground Islamic militant organizations throughout the Islamic world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force

America is a liberal democracy with hundreds of years of this tradition behind them. Their government and the public school system are secular, as are the courts. Presidents may have had religious views but the imminent apocalyptic visions of Ahmedinejhad have NO PARALLEL in ANY US president.

>>”How many countries has Iran attacked since the mullahs have been in control?”

Through their paramilitary Quds forces, Iran has carried out attacks in Argentina(on the Jewish Embassy) killing 85 and wounding 300. They have masterminded the attack in Saudi Arabia on the Khobar Towers killing 19 Americans and wounding 372. Iran was heavily involved in the war in Lebanon and was behind the attack on the US marine barracks which killed 305 with 75 injured. Since then Iranian backed terror organizations (proxies) have been involved in attacks in Israel, Iraq, Turkey and Algeria.

Iran does not attack anyone openly because it doesn’t need to. They have the paramilitary and terrorist infrastructure which allows them to achieve their goals without declaring their hand.

It’s interesting that neither you, nor Steel has bothered to deny that Iran is chasing these weapons, even though the Iranian regime denies it completely

TBC

Cont,

>> What are the difference between threats on Israel and the threat to bomb Pakistan "back to the stone age" unless it joined the fight against al-Qaeda?”

Richard Armitage was not suggesting that were going to actually wipe Pakistan out. They certainly wouldn’t have used nuclear weapons to do so. That’s the difference. If Iran wasn’t chasing nukes it wouldn’t be an issue.

>>” How does a country permit one of its warships to shoot down another country’s passenger airline then award the ship’s air-warfare coordinator the navy’s the Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement”

Shooting down the airliner was a tragic mistake. Its typical of those who know nothing of the military realities of naval air defence to suggest that there is no way it could have been an accident. I work on radar and I can assure you, that at the range that the jetliner was shot down, it is often difficult to tell the difference between an F-14 and an airliner. You also have ignored the fact that in May 1987, USS Stark was struck by two missiles launched by an Iraqi Mirage F-1, killing 37.

David Hirst?? ?? So what?? ?? There are extremes of opinion and every shade in between, why is he relevant??

>>”If you appreciate how America and Israel are regarded by many in the world and for solid reasons then I think you might enjoy a more balanced viewpoint.”

I didn’t realize until stevenmeyer pointed it out, that you seem to believe yours is a majority viewpoint. It is clearly not. Just look at the statements made by the various foreign gov’t on Israel 60th anniversary. Israel has many allies in western gov’ts across the world. You would do well to realize that, although you may be surrounded by like minded people, your views are decidedly NOT universal in any way, shape or form.

As for the idea that yours is a more balanced viewpoint, I have just provided evidence I believe shows that it is my viewpoint which is more balanced and consistent with the facts.

I believe Iran has a sovereign right to the whatever it wants, IF they so choose to pursue them. It's none of your goddamned business, Paul. I don't see you whining about Pakistan, India and Israel's nuclear weapons or sanctions being laid against them??

i don't see sanctions or threats being made against the USA, whose various senators and potential leaders have threatened *another* illegal, aggressive war, and have also stated they would consider nuclear option against Iran. Have you? No. Because the "international community" you think is so objective is actually extremely hypocritical and biased, western-centric and supremacists, who can't stand the idea of someone else being on an equal footing. The Iraq War is essentially a war crime. And who is paying for their lies and deception for it? No one. In fact, it's being passed off as a noble enterprise on a regular basis. Also, the USA is trading nuclear materials with India, which is not a signatory of the NPT.

Now if you are a country being threatened by a superpower that has used nuclear weapons in the past, has just successfully made an illegal war, and has threatened your country on a regular basis (even without any evidence at all of wrongdoing...it's all propaganda), you have no recourse but to protect your country from these nuclear threats of destruction. It's extortion. Where is the proof Iran is developing them?

This is EXACTLY the same as the Iraq situation, with the same hypocritical mouthpiece lying about Iraq WMD making claims about Iran without any evidence at all...are you people insane? Why are you so gullible for the lying scum in the USA? This is why respecting and not trashing international law is so important. If you ignore it for your allies (Israel), then it's disingenuous to pretend international law means anything (except as a means to bully and control other nations) when it comes to a country like Iran. There is no moral highground here, especially when one of the most egregious countries recently (the USA) is using what amounts to extortion of Iran.

> Shooting down the airliner was a tragic mistake. Its typical of those who know nothing of the military realities of naval air defence to suggest that there is no way it could have been an accident. I work on radar and I can assure you, that at the range that the jetliner was shot down, it is often difficult to tell the difference between an F-14 and an airliner.

You are a *!@#ing apologist. What class of radar do you use? And what other intruments do you use to idnetify an enemy (are they for example, equivalent to a US naval vessel of the time?) Do you realise the other circumstances of the incident? How are there no other mistakes by countries with much inferior technology? What you are saying is rubbish and an absolute disgrace considering civilians were the victims.

*IF* it was a mistake, that makes it no less a serious crime because of it's criminal incompetence. Would you excuse Iran for making such a mistake onm a civilian airliner? Would the USA? No, it would be deliberate and cause for war. And if it was a mistake, why are you so happy about having the USA around and making threats? How many "mistakes" happen on a day to day basis?

If you want some serious insight into what could be the consequences of a mistake, then you should look real hard at the case of the USSR in the Cold War, and the role of the man in charge of nuclear deployment. The USA would be in ashes today had the man followed orders (something which I highly doubt the people put in charge in the USA nuclear arsenal would have questioned and held back on).

Wow Steel,

Chill man. This is only an unimportant debate forum.

As I have said repeatedly, I am not going to engage in a moral argument.

My previous post referred to the following statement of Csteele's:

"If you appreciate how America and Israel are regarded by many in the world and for solid reasons then I think you might enjoy a more balanced viewpoint."

I was merely pointing out that, in the case of America, the non-Muslim world tends to take a more nuanced view than Csteele seems to think.

I also pointed out that many people outside America do have concerns about Iranian nukes.

You plainly feel those who have a more benign opinion of the US are wrong; that America is the "great Satan." I am not going to argue the point with you.

In the case of Israel investors at any rate seem to love the place. Both Microsoft and the German SAP have laboratories in Israel. According to the World Bank net foreign direct investment (FDI) in Israel in 2005 was about $1,000 per capita. It has grown since then as the Israeli economy has expanded. On a per capita basis Israel is among the most sought after investment targets.

Again, you may think investors should steer clear of Israel and the US. I am not going to argue the point. I confine myself to describing what is.

You wrote:

"I believe Iran has a sovereign right to the whatever it wants,…"

How far do you believe the sovereign rights of states extends?

Does Zimbabwe have the right to kill members of the opposition and their wives for example?

Does Sudan have the right to kill the Darfuris?

Just curious. What limitations, if any, on sovereign rights do you recognise?

In the mean time it looks as if Hezbollah is planning to kill more Jews – this time in Canada.

See:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/19/UPI_NewsTrack_TopNews/UPI-23771213909200/

Perhaps you feel this is a justified response. Perhaps not. I am not going to debate you on this. Just interested in your comments.

PaulL,

Lets clear up any misunderstanding. I think the current situation in Iran is far from ideal an that there are many areas requiring improvement. I feel their human rights record is pretty ordinary and the treatment of minorities can be deplorable.

But as I condemn the abuse of political prisoners in Iran I can also condemn Guantanamo
Bay, torture, rendition, and Abu Ghraib.

I am also a little bemused at being referred to as a ‘leftist’. It is not how I see myself, if anything I would consider my views as pragmatically centralist. However it matters little.

Can I imagine how any Iranian might reply to your points?

You say my government is a THEOCRACY and yet your head of state is the head of the Anglican Church. Our Supreme Leader is elected and supervised by the Assembly of the Experts who are in turn directly elected by the people. Something akin to your senate they serve 8 year terms. While their role is quite diminished, reform of this body was a campaign issue in the last election. I believe your own ‘house of review’ had little effectiveness during the final term of your last prime minister. I don’t believe your head of state ever faces an election and is not even a citizen of your country. Her representative can dismiss your entire government and while it is true our Supreme Leader has control over the armed forces a quick read of s.68 of your own constitution reveals “The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative”

Though I dispute the charges of Iranian organised attacks can I remind you of your ally’s actions in Nicuragua, the pardoning of Orlando Bosch, CIA organised car bombings in Bagdad before the invasion and the statement that the deaths of 500,000 Moslem children is ‘worth it’.

Can I finally remind you that you have been cited by the UN for the neglect of your own indigenous people.

I do think that Iran possessing nuclear weapons is undesirable but not to the point that another Iraq is created.

I didn’t make the claim that the Iranian Airbus tragedy was deliberate because I think it is unlikely that it was. However Saddam was quick to apologise for the "unintentional incident." And to make reparations to the families of those killed and for the damage to the frigate.

Iran had to take the Americans to the International Court to force them to pay compensation for the taking out the Airbus. Actually George Bush during the election campaign in 1988 stated “I will never apologize for the United States. I don’t care what the facts are,” and two years later to rub the Iranian’s noses in it gave the captain a medal.

Why I said the Americans permitted the incident to occur was because they put a aggressive, gung ho, incompetent fool in charge of a billion and a half dollar warship in a critical hotspot with an inadequately trained crew.

From Wikipedia

“Commander David Carlson, commanding officer of the USS Sides, the warship stationed near to the Vincennes at the time of the incident, is reported (Fisk, 2005) to have said that the destruction of the aircraft "marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers' aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago." “

An analysis of the events by the International Strategic Studies Association described the deployment of an Aegis cruiser in the zone as irresponsible and felt that the expense of the ship had played a major part in the setting of a low threshold for opening fire.[27] The Vincennes had been nicknamed 'Robocruiser' by crew members and other US Navy ships, both in reference to its AEGIS system, and to the supposed aggressive tendencies of its captain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

So I’m wondering Paul how the hell the most expensive ship afloat at the time saw an Airbus ascending at 12,000 feet as a fighter 1/3rd the size descending at 7,000 feet on an attack run? Ultimately though it is the actions of the American government afterward that is most telling.

I find it amusing that the only possible conflict that anybody here sees coming from a nuclear armed Iran is between it and Israel...

Big hint, the Sunni & Shia have been fighting for a millenium (and long before the advent of Mohammed) and now the Shia have control of Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawite), Lebanon, Iraq & Iran, half of the Middle Easts oil, in addition to having nukes?

The sheer danger of this has seen the Saudi's, the UAE and the other oil-rich Arab States investing heavily in both offensive & defensive weapons. It seems to have escaped a LOT of people that Pakistan is Sunni and it too has nuclear weapons, in addition to a huge amount of advanced delivery systems (although Saudi has better supplies of US-made medium range rockets). It is known that this will destablise the region: http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/Article.aspx?id=1323

This is why the fighting in Iraq is like it is, Sunni v Shia for the most part now, the US Troops only remain to safeguard the profits of US Corporations and provide a buffer for the Saudi's, there is zero prospect of stabilising the joint.

Wake up, for gods sake - Israel could well end up on the sidelines of this one, whether we will remains to be seen (expect to see conscription if we don't)

Dear Haganah Bet

you seem to have it together quite well, but I'm not sure how you work out the following:

"the Sunni & Shia have been fighting for a millenium (and long before the advent of Mohammed)"

The terms 'sunni' and Shia only have meaning in connection with Islam, which came from Mohammad.. so I'm not sure what ur driving at there.

I don't want your credibility diminished, because of other things you say which seem helpful, you might like to re look at that one.

As things stand now, Israel has every moral right to demolish Gaza.
They have this right based on the Hamas Charter which is becoming increasingly known in the West, and that it is the Muslim/Arab equivalent to Mein Kampf.

If Hamas were 'democratically elected' there is no escaping that their charter was also 'elected'...this it is a declaration of unceasing WAR against Israel who should deliver an ultimatum to them, giving them 1 month to change the Charter and deliver up for trial all those involved in hurling rockets at Sderot and Ashkelon. Then, they should re-consitute their charter in peaceful harmonious language which does not have any hint of the destruction of Israel in it.

Failure to do this should by all standards of morality and justice, result in total war.

No nation which has a brain in it's head can expect to survive a written agenda for the destruction of another.

My own personal position, is that all sides should embrace Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah and Lord, thus removing the barriers of race and religion and the associated predictable violent outcomes.

Csteele

Let me make this clear, I also condemn the renditions and the “torture” at AbuGhraib and Guantanomo. However I would like to make the point that if we are realistic about this, the “torture” that we engaged in, was, on the continuum of unpleasant acts, rather benign. It was unprofessional, unnecessary and may be counterproductive, but don’t think for a second it puts us in the same league as Saddam’s Mukhabarat or Iran’s SAVAM. Things like being placed in a stress position, which is used on our own soldiers during training, sleep deprivation or white noise, do not compare with watching your child ripped to pieces by attack dogs in front of your eyes, as Saddam was wont to do. I know that people were “menaced” by dogs in Abu Ghraib, I think that only illustrates my point.

Which ever way an Iranian might choose to reply, you cannot really believe there is anything other than superficial similarity. The idea that anyone is elected in a democratic manner in Iran is an absolute joke. See the election of Ahmedinejhad, who didn’t even bother campaigning even though nobody really knew who he was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2005

Iran stones people to death, carries out floggings and amputates limbs and sentences people to death for changing their religion. They have religious police for god's sake. The President converses with an imaginary man hiding down a well and makes policy based upon prophecies of his return. Where is the similarity?? http://www.iranfocus.com/en/special-wire/un-condemns-human-rights-violations-in-iran.html

>>” So I’m wondering Paul how the hell the most expensive ship afloat at the time saw an Airbus ascending at 12,000 feet as a fighter 1/3rd the size descending at 7,000 feet on an attack run?

I work in radar and if you have a look at the “Evaporative duct effect” (one of many radar difficulties) you will see that mistakes with RADAR are eminently possible. http://www.vhfdx.radiocorner.net/docs/GTPaper2004V2-1.pdf

tbc,

cont,

If you have ever stuck a pole into a pool and noticed that it seems to bend at the waterline you may understand something of the ducts effect. However the duct varies significantly in strength from second to second.

You forget that the US was only in the Straits of Hormuz because Iran was blowing up international shipping. In this way Iran was effectively holding the world to ransom, again.

>>” Can I finally remind you that you have been cited by the UN for the neglect of your own indigenous people.

Forget neglect, Iran has been cited by the UN for its deliberate and vicious OPPRESSION of its minorities, including the Baha’i and the Kurds

“Since the revolution, more than 200 Bahá'ís have been executed or killed, hundreds more have been imprisoned, and tens of thousands have been deprived of jobs, pensions, businesses, and educational opportunities. All national Bahá'í administrative structures have been banned by the government, and holy places, shrines and cemeteries have been confiscated, vandalized, or destroyed” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_minorities_in_Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Kurdistan

If Iran didn’t regularly threaten Israel’s existence the issue would be much less straightforward. I too would question the relevance of the regimes threats if Iran was not chasing nukes. But Ahmedinejhad has said he would sacrifice half of Iran to wipe out Israel. And he's made threats like this repeatedly. What do you make of this?? ?? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1689559/posts
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/dec/13/secondworldwar.iran

Why is it that you accept that Iran is chasing nukes, when the regime is vehemently denying it?? Then again, they also deny the holocaust so how can one believe anything they say.

I am not pushing for an invasion of Iran. I think we should properly exhaust ALL possibilities before we even consider a military option. But there can only be a peaceful solution if the world accepts the risk Iran poses and bands together to do something about it. What do you suggest??

Can you honestly suggest that Israel and the US are not at abnormally high risk if Iran succeeds in gaining nukes??

Steel,

You’re an absolute hysteric, What are you, a fourteen year old girl??

>>”I believe Iran has a sovereign right to the[sic]whatever it wants, IF they so choose to pursue them. It's none of your goddamned business, …”

Mate I don’t whine, and on this issue I wouldn’t have to anyway, as my concerns are shared by many political leaders around the world. Your tone, however, is decidedly whiney.

“Its none of my goddamned business” Mate that is so funny, what are you going to do next,?? Poke out your tongue at me??

The reason Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons is problematic is their repeated threats to wipe out Israel. It’s as simple as that. If any of the other states were regularly threatening the existence of one of our allies then we would be concerned about that as well.

>>”the "international community" you think is so objective is actually extremely hypocritical and biased, western-centric and supremacists …”

It isn’t Iran’s mentally ill leader, their theocratic dictatorship, their brutal punishment to supposed transgressors, or more importantly their deliberate and regular threats against Israel’s existence which concern world leaders, which makes people uneasy, is it?? ??

You say >>”Now if you are a country being threatened by a superpower that has used nuclear weapons in the past…and has threatened your country on a regular basis, you have no recourse “

Who’s an apologist?? ?? I am happy to be an apologist for the US if the only other option is being an apologist for the Mullahs in Tehran. You can’t seem to make up your mind whether Iran is actually chasing nukes or not.

>>”with the same hypocritical mouthpiece lying about Iraq WMD making claims about Iran without any evidence at all...”

You’re virulent hatred of the US blinds you to the obvious reality of the situation. Iran HAS a nuclear program. They ARE enriching fuel, Why are you so gullible to the lying scum in Iran?? ?? Liberals like you would last about 2 seconds in Iran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

tbc,

cont,

You can continue to pretend that Iraq is an illegal war, but with the UN there on the ground I do not think you will be vindicated. I don’t accept the premise anyway, and there is plenty of support for that viewpoint. And you don't make it true merely by repeating it ad nauseam.

“The UN Security Council demanded Iran suspend all enrichment and reprocessing related activities. They imposed a series of sanctions on Iran for its non-compliance with the earlier Security Council resolution demanding that Iran suspend enrichment-related activities without delay. ” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

Saddam hid WMD capability from the UN inspectors for years. It took 12 years to find it all, while he played hide and seek with the inspectors.

It is of little use to provide you with evidence of Iran’s nuclear programs because you’ll only believe what you want to believe but see “The Iran Threat” by Iranian opposition spokesman Alireza Jafarzadeh, for example.

You say >>” The USA would be in ashes today had the man followed orders (something which I highly doubt the people put in charge in the USA nuclear arsenal would have questioned and held back on).

You highly doubt it do you?? ?? Tell me how this is anything other than you having a wild guess?? ??

>>”What class of radar do you use? And what other intruments do you use to idnetify an enemy (are they for example, equivalent to a US naval vessel of the time?)”

I’m an electrical engineer and I work on all types of EM detection. As above, see the “evaporative duct effect” as one example of the difficulties radar experiences.

>>”?) Do you realise the other circumstances of the incident? “

Yes the ship and its helicopter were in combat with a number of Iranian “boghammers”. It is highly likely they were anticipating Iranian air attack. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/3/newsid_4678000/4678707.stm
Have a look at the other potential interfering factors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

See the Russian attack on a Korean airliner. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/1/newsid_2493000/2493469.stm

and another http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_902 both during the cold war.

PaulL.>"The reason Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons is problematic is their repeated threats to wipe out Israel."

The USA has made explicit threats against Iran. Israel has done the same. Israel has held aggressive exercises recently that have been reported to be practice sessions for attacking Iran. They are both *actually* nuclear armed, unlike Iran.

Let me repeat this very clearly for you:
- US has nuclear weapons
- Israel has illegal nuclear weapons
- US leaders have *explicitly* threatened Iran (eg, Hillary Clinton claiming she would "obliterate" Iran. Others have said nuclear attack on Iran and/or bomb Iran)
- Israel has attacked and bombed Syria.
- Israel has held long-range airforce exercises.
- USA has stationed and increased the size of it's navy outside Iran.
- All are the actions of leaders (or politicans seeking such leadership) who have the capability to declare war.
- USA has invaded and occupied Iraq under false pretenses and spread lies about Iraq's nuclear capability.

Now this is your position:
- Ahmadinejad has said repeatedly that the regime in Israel must go, if not the state itself.
- Ahmadinejad has no power to make war.
- Iran does not have nuclear weapons.
- There is no evidence of nuclear weapons in Iran (exactly like the Iraq situation).
- Iran has not attacked anyone.
- Iran has not held war games off the coast of Israel or the USA, nor has it's navy stationed there.

These are all facts and it can be seen who is threatening imminent destruction on the basis of hysteria and propaganda. This doesn't include the historical chain of western violations of Iran, that I posted earlier in this thread.

As for the "wipe off the map claim", you are merely showing your ignorance again and reliance on the words of politicians who lie to your face.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/History_07/Persia_220307.html
If you are fooled for a second time (after Iraq) then it's your own fault for being a gullible twit.

your qualifications are laughable in the context: Tell me, what class of radar have you used? Have you seen the profile of an F-14 and the passenger airline? Is this all theory on your part?

here are some things that you ignored seeing as i gave you the opportunity to read some sources that are referenced:

-=-==-=-=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
"in the past "the United States has steadfastly condemned the shooting down of aircraft, whether civil or military, by the armed forces of another State"

"when Iraq attacked the USS Stark, United States found Iraq FULLY RESPONSIBLE on the grounds that the Iraqi pilot "KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN" that he was attacking a U.S. warship. (§4.49)"
-=-=-=-=-=

You should read,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Iranian_government_account
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Independent_sources
which have references and is undisputed information.

The circumstances and crime against these people is sick and so are you for ignoring the evidence while proclaiming it was an accident, when there was criminal negligence and aggression.

-=-=-
Three years after the incident, Admiral William J. Crowe admitted on American television show Nightline that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles.[30] This contradicted earlier Navy statements.

Commander David Carlson, commanding officer of the USS Sides, the warship stationed near to the Vincennes at the time of the incident, is reported (Fisk, 2005) to have said that the destruction of the aircraft "marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers' aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago......
-=-=-=

Steel,

You don’t seem able to clearly delineate the difference between cause and effect. You therefore have formulated a circular argument. Iran wants nukes to “defend” itself. The US and Israel are threatening Iran’s nuclear sites. Iran needs nukes to defend itself.

>> As for the "wipe off the map claim", you are merely showing your ignorance again and reliance on the words of politicians who lie to your face.

Says the man who, for reference, uses an unreferenced blog dedicated to the writings of holocaust denier David Irving. Now I know why you are so vehemently anti-Israel, you’re reading holocaust denial rubbish. If you want to be a gullible twit and believe that Ahmedinejhad doesn’t really mean it, that he’s merely being misreported, be my guest.. I tell you what, I’ll go with the view held by most of the reputed international broadsheets, and you can believe unreferenced Irving, a discredited muck-raker and professional bigot. Talk about gullible …

Here are other Ahmedinejhad quotes which put the “misrepresented” quote into proper focus.

"We must prepare ourselves to rule the world and the only way to do that is to put forth views on the basis of the Expectation of Return [the return of the Mahdi]." http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5166

The criminals imagine that by holding celebrations (...) they can save the Zionist regime from death." … "They should know that regional nations hate this fake and criminal regime and if the smallest and briefest chance is given to regional nations they will destroy (it)". http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSHOS43245220080514?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

"The real cure for the conflict is elimination of the Zionist regime." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/04/wmid204.xml

"The way to peace in the Middle East is the destruction of Israel." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/04/wmid204.xml

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/15/wiran15.xml

The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/800098.html

“The rage of the Muslim peoples will not be restricted to the boundaries of our region... The waves of the explosion... will reach the corrupt forces [i.e. the Western countries] which support this fake regime." http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP12040

tbc,

cont,

"So long as Israel exists in the region…there will never be peace and security in the Middle East. So the resolution of the Holocaust issue will end in the destruction of Israel. http://www.roozonline.com/english/015942.shtml

"…With respect to the needs of Islamic countries, we are ready to transfer nuclear know-how to these countries." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/16/wiran16.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/09/16/ixnewstop.html
See http://www.jnewswire.com/article/2417

If it weren’t for the fact that Ahmedinejhad has made many threats against Israel it might be possible to imagine he was mistranslated (by his own media organisations) but he has used the same language again to threaten Israel and this time there was no doubt what he meant. http://www.jnewswire.com/article/2417

Your incredibly selective and distorted readings of the facts make it clear you have no real comprehension of the situation whatsoever. So let me make a little list of my own and repeat this for you slowly and clearly,

- Iran is chasing nuclear weapons
- Iran is doing so in spite of UN resolutions to desist
- Iran refuses to negotiate on this point even though it has been offered free civilian nuclear technology
- Iran has explicitly and regularly threatened Israel’s existence
- Iran is the major supporter of Hezbollah, who attack Israel regularly
- Iran has other terrorist proxies carry out atrocities worldwide
- Ahmedinejhad was hand picked by Kamanei for the post of President, and together they have power to do whatever they like.
- Ahmedinejhad and Kamanei are absolute nutters who believe in the imminent and apocalyptic return of the Mehdi

______________________________________________________________________

Regarding the Iranian airliner:

>>”your qualifications are laughable in the context”

Tell me what qualifications you have in this area to even be a judge?? I’ve designed and worked on software which adjusts radar bearings and displays for interference due to the evaporative duct. See slide 11 AREPS 3.0 Environment Window for example

What the f@ck do you know about it anyway?? YOU don’t have any idea what YOU are talking about?

Originally posted by Boaz_David

"the Sunni & Shia have been fighting for a millenium (and long before the advent of Mohammed)"

The terms 'sunni' and Shia only have meaning in connection with Islam, which came from Mohammad.. so I'm not sure what ur driving at there.

I don't want your credibility diminished, because of other things you say which seem helpful, you might like to re look at that one.

True, to an extent at least. I would have explained that more fully, but 350 words really doesn't give one that choice.

One thing which not many will have noticed is that the current strife is between different ethnic/language groups, the conflict between which predates their latest choice of organised religion by some significant period.

This can be traced through history, well before Persians, Philistines, Phoenecians, Babylonians, Trojans, Kurds, etc (and the various varieties upon the same theme) adopted Islam. Funnily enough very little attention is paid by most commentator's to this historical aspect of the entire conflict/region, which is difficult to understand, given that the modern day power blocks and conflicts are so similar to those throughout history (with many of the same participants - which is understandable only if one looks at the historical tensions which precipitated the schism within the various branches of Islam - so similar to that within the Eastern & Western Christian Churches ie. the Greeks & Romans).

The coming conflict truly scares the hell out of a lot of people, rationality is not a pre-requisite to statemanship in the region under discussion and nuclear weapons will not fit well into the power structure.

PaulL,

You ask…“Can you honestly suggest that Israel and the US are not at abnormally high risk if Iran succeeds in gaining nukes??”

Can I ask instead “Can you honestly suggest that Iran is not at abnormally high risk from the U.S. and Israel unless it succeeds in gaining nukes??”

I am concerned by your statement that the torture ‘we’ engaged in was “unprofessional, unnecessary and may be counterproductive,”. Mate it was torture! I am old enough to remember when this country prided itself on its abhorrence of this criminal act and rightly condemned countries that engaged in it. I think of it more as vile, inhuman, despicable and inexcusable.

It would seem the greater the perceived threat the greater the excuses for torture but surely an Iranian might say while it is unfortunate we have torture in our country the threats are real and of far greater magnitude that those you experience in yours.

Although I deplore many of the actions of the Israeli Government their judicial system must get some kudos for moderating the excesses of its forces, for instance the banning of the use of human shields which had gone on for so long.

You say “You forget that the US was only in the Straits of Hormuz because Iran was blowing up international shipping. In this way Iran was effectively holding the world to ransom, again.” Both Iran and Iraq were trying to cripple each others economy by stopping oil exports, reasonable acts in time of war one would have thought though one has to wonder why the Cuba Blockade continues to this day. The very fact Iraq hit the American ship shows it was actively seeking out shipping targets. The U.S. was suppose to be neutral but ended up destroying Iranian oil platforms for which they were condemned internationally.

However it is easy to forget the Americans initially tried to stop Israel getting the bomb and it was actually France who did the dirty deed. I see little difference in the manner in which Israel gained nuclear capability and what Iran is doing now.

Dear Paul L....

mate.. you are totally wrong there.. I mean..did you know know that all these Ahmadinajad quotes are in fact FALSE FLAG operations?

- Iran is chasing nuclear weapons
- Iran is doing so in spite of UN resolutions to desist
- Iran refuses to negotiate on this point even though it has been offered free civilian nuclear technology
- Iran has explicitly and regularly threatened Israel’s existence
- Iran is the major supporter of Hezbollah, who attack Israel regularly
- Iran has other terrorist proxies carry out atrocities worldwide
- Ahmedinejhad was hand picked by Kamanei for the post of President, and together they have power to do whatever they like.
- Ahmedinejhad and Kamanei are absolute nutters who believe in the imminent and apocalyptic return of the Mehdi

You see.. its like this, the CIA with its close connection to Mossad, is in fact producing animated look alikes of Ahmadinajad, and George Lukas at Dream works is under secret contract to them to bring it all to life, and make us all live in fear so the "Imperialist US forces can further there demon empire in the peaceloving Middle East"

The Mehdi has no foundation in fact, and is the creation (Just like Al Qaeda) of the dark forces at the heart of the evil Bush and zionist entities.

Now..having provided abundant evidence of all this, and showing you how wrong you are, I hope we never hear a peep out of you again.

*wink*

Dear Haganah...I had a feeling it might be as you outlined in that last post.
Kind thanx.

Yes.. and this problem of course underlines the fundamental formula for failure of Islam as a system.

It's one thing to maintain that an Earthly Caliph will unite all Muslims into a super Ummha..its another to be sure he comes from the 'right family or tribe' and of course..that, in my understanding is where the Sunni/Shia power struggle came from.

I know that it arose 'ostensibly' over a dispute about succession to Mohammad, but it boiled down to 'which tribe/clan/family runs the show' in the end.

Could you introduce yourself a little for us? I'm guessing you are Israeli or Jewish.

I'm Christian, evangelical conservative protestant.

Welcome to OLO.

PaulL.>"I’ll go with the view held by most of the reputed international broadsheets"

Are these the same ones that reported on Iraq WMD? Your ad hominem on the source makes no sense if you read the content. It has the direct translation and Ahmadinejad's words. This was one source that reported it of many. If you want to go down this path you are quoting a single tabloid.

Your list of facts about Iran are really opinions...and those of a country that has already lied to the international community and launched an aggressive war on another nation (usa).

PaulL>"You therefore have formulated a circular argument. Iran wants nukes to “defend” itself."

No. The USA overthrew the Democratic government of Iran and installed a dictator in 1953. The USA aided Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war while he used chemical weapons and it also looks like they supplied some of these wmds or their components to Iraq. Iran have every reason to defend itself from aggressive nations.

Steel, I am sorry but it is the height of rudeness to require those who are arguing against you to provide the 'proof' upon which you base your argument, that said:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

Although it may suprise you, that actions taken by the CIA in the 1950's to remove a Soviet-Dominated Nationalist from taking power, which power was reinvested in the Shah, falls well short of what you suggest, the imposition of a Dictator - the monarchy in Iraq dated to the 15th century and prior to the CIA's interference had long exercised total control of the country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_of_Iran

The Islamic Revolution seems to have been rather more violent than the CIA inspired counter-revolution, so I'd suggest the two should not be directly compared (especially as one simply returned a Country to where it had previously been).

You are right in saying that Iran has the right to defend itself, every sovereign nation has the right. It does not have the right to fund International Terrrorists and fund the murder of thousands of people. That said, the fundamental right to self-defence is valid, as is that of the State of Israel. The only difference is whether Iran is mixing up ambition and ability, I think it just might be. Although if the recently resurgent Russians get involved directly, who knows (they do owe America one for what happened in Afghanistan in the 80's).

Boaz, just another jewish university student (mature age).

Yes Haganah Bet welcome.

This may trump Steel's "height of rudeness" but it is interesting to me what nicknames people use on OLO when they don't use their real names. A casual glance may see you and Boaz-David getting on swimmingly but I will refrain from judgement just yet. May I ask why you chose Haganah Bet?

"Irgun (Hebrew: shorthand for HaIrgun HaTzva'i HaLe'umi BeEretz Yisra'el, "National Military Organization in the Land of Israel") was a militant Zionist group that operated in Palestine between 1931 and 1948. It was established as a militant offshoot of the earlier and larger Jewish paramilitary organization Haganah (Hebrew: "The Defense",). For secrecy reasons, people often referred to the Irgun, during that time, as Haganah Bet."

"Irgun's tactics, which included bus and marketplace bombings, were condemned by both the British mandate authorities and the mainstream Jewish leadership, the Jewish Agency."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

"Several Jews were wounded. In response Haganah-bet fired on a trainload of Arabs."
Terror Out of Zion: The Fight for Israeli Independence By J. Bowyer

Haganah Bet, your post makes little sense and I'm having trouble tyring to understand it's randomness.

By the way don't you think this statement of yours should require proof:

"It does not have the right to fund International Terrrorists and fund the murder of thousands of people."

It is also a name associated with Likud and some of the settlers I think you wil find... But that aside, the name is of some symbolic note and a proud history:

The founder of Irgun/Etzel, one Ze'ev Jabotinsky, was a co-founder of the Zion Mule Corps, which amongst other places, accompanied the ANZACS to Gallipoli:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze%27ev_Jabotinsky

The leader of Irgun/etzel in 1948, one Menachem Begin, interestingly the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and also one of the men sentenced to death in absentia by the British, is an idol of mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin

He demonstrated that peace without security was an illusion and that true peace could never be acheived in the region without the power to demand it. His doctrine:

"On no account shall we permit an enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against the people of Israel."

A statement made in relation to the Osira reactor in Iraq, still has resonance today...

Let us see if Hamas/Hizbollah can ever boast the same level of acheivement, shall we?

Why Steel, is the problem the big words, or the fact you cannot argue the point?

To continue - Steel, are you honestly doubting that Iran is directly tied to Hizbollah? I would cite references to support the contrary view, but you seem to prefer to choose your own, so here is a google search on the terms: Iran + Hizbollah:

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=hizbollah+iran&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

Please follow the link and pick whichever one you choose.

Or is it that you deny that Hizbollah is a terrorist organisation? It is listed as such in this Country, go challenge it succesfully in the High Court and someone might agree with you...

http://www.austrac.gov.au/files/aic50_ausgov_relist_terlorg.pdf

http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(153683DB7E984D23214BD871B2AC75E8)~Attachment+A+-+AG_s.PDF/$file/Attachment+A+-+AG_s.PDF

Finally, are you suggesting that there is ANY doubt that Hizbollah is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands? If so you are an idiot. Even Keith in all his glory would hesitate to deny that which the group themselves boast of.

Steel,

You are unbelievable. I supply you with a dozen other references of Ahmedinejhad threatening the Israeli state, and yet you still insist that “the wiped off the map” quote is a disinformation campaign. Even if the direct quote is “[the regime should be] removed from the pages of time”, to suggest that this does not constitute a direct threat to Israel is to live in some parallel reality. And Ahmedinejhad was agreeing with this statement made by Khomeini …“This cancerous tumour of a state [Israel] must be removed from the region.” Moreover, There’s literally dozens of other quotes, some of which I provided, (and you ignored, why?? Do you accept the reality) which contain threats against Israel? How can you seriously suggest that there is not a pattern of threatening behaviour towards Israel’s existence?

Steel >>”Your list of facts about Iran are really opinions...and those of a country that has already lied to the international community and launched an aggressive war on another nation (usa).”

That’s absolute rubbish. The claims about Iran’s nuclear weapons program have been made by Iranian dissidents (Alirezza Jafarzadeh), by Israel, by the Saudis, and by most of the western world. See http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm and

… “Iran insists enrichment activities are intended for peaceful purposes, but much of the West, including the United States, allege that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran and

… “The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) published a series of analysed satellite images of Iran's nuclear facilities at Natanz and Esfahan. Featured in these images is a new tunnel entrance near the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) at Esfahan and continued construction at the Natanz uranium enrichment site. In addition, a series of images dating back to 2002 shows the underground enrichment buildings and its subsequent covering by soil, concrete, and other materials.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran and

… “A comprehensive list of Iran's specific "breaches" of its IAEA safeguards agreement, which the IAEA described as part of a "pattern of concealment," can be found in the, 2004 report of the IAEA on Iran's nuclear program.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

TBC,

cont,

… “February 2006, the 35 member Board of Governors of the IAEA voted 27-3 to report Iran to the UN Security Council. The measure was sponsored by the United Kingdom, France and Germany, and it was backed by the United States. Two permanent council members, Russia and China, agreed to referral only on condition that the council take no action before March. The three members who voted against referral were Venezuela, Syria and Cuba”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

… “On 31 July 2006 the UN Security Council demanded Iran suspend all enrichment and reprocessing related activities. In December they imposed a series of sanctions on Iran for its non-compliance with the earlier Security Council resolution deciding that Iran suspend enrichment-related activities without delay.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

>> “No. The USA overthrew the Democratic government of Iran and installed a dictator in 1953. The USA aided Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq”

Haganahbet has already dealt with the specious claims regarding the Shah. Tell me how nuclear weapons would have helped in that situation anyway?? And the US sold arms and provided satellite intelligence to the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. The Americans did not want either side to win. Israel, on the other hand, supported Iran throughout the war, providing weapons and attacking the Osirak reactor, which was producing materials which were intended to be used on Iran.

The real reason Iran has to fear the US is its pursuit of a nuclear weapons program. That the US, Israel and other Western countries have since threatened Iran’s nuclear program is proof of this. No one is saying “lets wipe out Iran” Most of the saber rattling has been directed towards the threat that Iran’s nuclear program poses to others.

So which of these is opinion??

- Iran is chasing nuclear weapons
- Iran is doing so in spite of UN resolutions to desist
- Iran refuses to negotiate on this point
- Iran has regularly threatened Israel’s existence
- Iran is the major supporter of Hezbollah,
- Iran has other terrorist proxies carry out atrocities worldwide
- Ahmedinejhad was hand picked by Kamanei

Haganah Bet, you are singing the praises of an historical terrorist organisation if csteele's information is correct.

PaulL.,

This is why I had some problem with the links:
- Many of them are from the same article in the same tabloid.

Of that article,
- it uses the "wipe off the map" phrase without qualification, not mentioning any mistranslations (it presents the quote as fact).
- In that sense, how can one believe the other translations are accurate?
- Assuming the translations are accurate, they are really about the Israeli regime and this is perfectly reasonable. The current regime is extremely hostile to peace, and arguably criminal. These are not threats but the truth albeit from a different viewpoint. Western countries for example use threatening language about despotic regimes of their choice around the world. It's also perfectly reasonable to question the creation of Israel and whether it really has any legitmacy (at least in it's current form).

Are you advocating thought crime against Iran (while ASSUMING their intentions) based on some quotations that are questionably translated and utilised over and over again in western media despite this?

Iran is not producing nuclear weapons. There is no evidence that they are at all. (and even if they were, where are the sanctions and threats against India, Pakistan and Israel, who developed them illegally and/or are not signatories to the NPT?). What I'm saying is, the ones who are threatening here, with the track record of bombing other countries and implementing aggressive sanctions, is not Iran, it's the West....in fact the West has been violating Iranian sovereignty since 1953 at least. Iran under these threats and constant attacks have every right to pursue nuclear weapons (in my minority, but correct opinion)

here is something you should read on this issue. The IAEA has called bulls!@# on USA "facts" on Iran on numerous occassions. The US' own NIE also does this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#International_Atomic_Energy_Agency

"Fool Me Once, Shame on You, Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me"
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080225084143AAXuaEx

Why Steel do you need to quibble about CSteele's assertions when I admitted to the veracity of the same? Irgun/Etzel (but don't forget Lehi) was indeed, at one time, viewed as a terrorist organisation, yes I freely admit that.

The leader of Irgun/Etzel during the War of Independence is also the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for his part in the Camp David accords while the leader of Israel.

He is the single most revered and reviled figure in Israel's history, yet his input was critical to the formation of the State.

Now, what do you mean by legitimacy in regard to the State of Israel, legitimacy how?

Under International Law? That is easy, it is recognised even by it's enemies (or some of them at least) who have entered into peace treaties, thereby recognising the legitimacy of the State.

Under the auspices of the UN? That is also rather simple, the State of Israel came into being as a result of UN Resolutions. That said, the validity of UN Resolutions comes a poor second to International Treaties, which supercede Resolutions by a big margin.

Biblically? Well that really is neither here nor there, regardless of the semantics entered into by either side, legitimacy is determined solely by reference to more earthly concerns (I have found that biblical arguments underlie a weak position).

Historically? Well, the State was promised as a homeland by the British as a lure to secure the yishuv's support during WWI. They fulfilled the deal, like King Talal(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Talal) of Jordan, King Faisal of Iraq(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_I_of_Iraq) & King Ibn Al'Saud of Saudi Arabia(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud), they were/are entitled to the benefit thereof. That is the result of the Balfour declaration, as was agreed between Weizmann and Al'Saud.

As a matter of fact? That is the true position, because much as some people here dislike the fact, the State of Israel will continue to exist. Nothing short of coordinated offensive action between it's neighbours will change that (something they have proven to be singlularly inept at arranging to date, touch wood).

You're right it definitely has a solid basis and it's essentially part of the past. But that doesn't mean people or governments in the Middle East have to accept the circumstances upon which the state of Israel was built and must be silent on the issue. The current form of Israel probably wasn't envisioned by the original people who pledged such a state. I meant legitimacy in the sense of the comination of factors in the setup of it and the political system, which likely could be much better and which almost certainly exacerbates racial and/or religious frictions through it's exclusivity.

Thank you for being open Haganah Bet.

From my earlier posts you would have probably gained a fair inkling of how I would view the organisation and man that you idolise so I don’t feel the need to waste anyone’s time by elucidating those views here.

However following the theme of my conversation with PaulL permit me to point out that Yasser Arafat was also awarded the Nobel Peace prize. Therefore I am wondering if we follow your logic, and history, Arafat also “demonstrated that peace without security was an illusion and that true peace could never be achieved in the region without the power to demand it.” Doesn’t it therefore lead us to the conclusion that the only real difference between the two men is that Arafat never gained that power?

A Palestinian may hold just as legitimate view of Arafat as you do of Begin. It all comes down to what side of the fence you live on. I just seem to have a need to see both sides.

This follows when examining the histrionics about Ahmedinejhad from the various posters here. An earlier link from stephenlmeyer said “Roughly nine-in-ten (89%) Nigerian Christians have a favourable view of the U.S., compared with only 32% of Nigerian Muslims.” This tells us little about the merits of the view or the U.S., but far more about who holds them. Boaz claims to be a Christian and you have flagged your biases but I wonder about PaulL and Stephen.

I have tried to illustrate valid counter view points from my imaginary Iranian. It is certainly not that I have sympathy for those views more that I have empathy for the people who might hold them, as I would for you.

For instance when I hear that 7000 Taliban have been killed so far this year I can’t help but feel for them and their families. It is their invaded country and they have been caught up in the currents of world events not solely of their own making. Are they not deserving of our grief?

I will admit to being a little loathe to ask these questions Haganah Bet because of the audience they may play to and the connotations they draw from the past but since I expect I will get and honest answer I will take the risk. They do form part of a larger argument/theme.

Are you an Australian?

If you are and push came to shove whose interests would you put first, Israel’s or Australia’s?

Have you supported past actions by Israel that have run dramatically against the interests of Australia?

If not where have you drawn the line.

Did you support Australians with Jewish backgrounds joining and fighting with the IDF in the last conflict in Lebanon?

CSteele,

You ask some interesting questions, I will try to do them justice...

As an Australian Jew, I would hope firstly that the two were never in serious conflict, if that unfortunate turn of events should occur, my response would be dictated solely by my conscience. I do support the right of Australian Jews to fight for Israel, they are entitled to citizenship, which has it's price. Then again, service in the IDF is not specifically prohibited under Australian Law.

As to whether I regard Arrafat and Begin as being on par, I do not - my opinion in this regard is based upon the demonstrated duplicity (the maintenance of an armed terrorist wing actively killing Jewish civilians whilst supposedly seeking peace), the equally demonstrated level of corruption within the Palestinian Authority (the scale of which was breathtaking - while their people died for lack of food, aid and medical supplies) and the fact that Begin is remembered for seeking the best outcome for his people, not just himself.

That said, I have previously stated that I personally hold some, small hope that Hamas may have the makings of a genuine contender. If they remain true to their roots and continue to look after the communities that they have sworn to protect, then there may be some hope. If they can keep the balance between using force to protect and acheive limited objectives, if they can see that violence is not ultimately the answer, then yes, there just may be - the question is, can they do so while still remaining relevant within their electorate?

It may be counter-intuitive, but lasting peace is only ever derived from strength, not weakness (eg.Begin-Sadaat). Peace (as opposed to a cease-fire/truce) only lasts when neither party can afford to breach it.

Thank you for the reply,

If I may beg your indulgence again.

Given your answer and in light of Haganah Bet’s history, I am interested in how you would regard an Australian citizen returning to Gaza to fight for Hamas?

You wrote, “It may be counter-intuitive, but lasting peace is only ever derived from strength, not weakness (eg.Begin-Sadaat). Peace (as opposed to a cease-fire/truce) only lasts when neither party can afford to breach it.”

Given the support of the U.S. to Israel which consumes ½ of its foreign ‘aid’ budget why is it unreasonable for Iran to support Hamas or Hezbollah? Surely they need to be in a position of strength to facilitate the peace you speak of.

If you keep a people in a state where they feel they have nothing left to lose then isn’t it obvious they will never be in a position of not being able to afford breaching the peace?

That last statement of mine is a little convoluted but I hope you get the drift. Actually as the answer is obvious (you are a supporter of Israel) you may leave it as a statement.

As an aside, having read Victor Ostrovsky’s book I am wondering if you supported Israel supplying our nearest neighbour Indonesia with 28 Seahawk fighter aircraft at a time when the US expressly forbid it because of security concerns? If you do why isn’t this treasonous?

Do you condone your secret services training and equipping Tamil Tigers? Would it be totally unreasonable for Muslim to see a link to the later ethnic cleansing of Muslims on the Jaffna peninsular and particularly the Kattankudi mosque massacre? If so why do you seem happy to engage in the same types of links for Iran?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kattankudi_mosque_massacre

Finally thank you for not claiming the difference between Begin and Arafat was that Arafat was a terrorist.

Well, to run a similar line, would supporting this be treason for Indian/Australians: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/11/06/1194329225075.html. The A4 Skyhawk is truly obselescent: http://www.skyhawkstudygroup.a4skyhawk.org/stdygrpforum/index.php?topic=75.msg288 (are these Australia's old ones?) so it is rather easier to ignore than if one had been British in 1982 when Israel supplied Argentina with MirageV/Nesher Aircraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Nesher. Also note the sale of the 105mm Tank Gun design (British) to China.

As to training, it is a source of foreign currency and yes Israel has trained the Tamil Tigers, as well as the Sri Lankan Defence Force (one possibly apocryphal story has it that it once hosted both at one base in Eilat and had to struggle to keep them from realising that the other was there), but that is by the bye.

As to whether it is for Israel to find a reason for Palestinians to want to live, I fail to see how they can acheive this. This surely is a matter for their elected representatives? The obscene death cult, which has both the West Bank & Gaza in thrall has to end. It is time for leadership and the provision of basic essentials by the Palestinian leadership themselves, perhaps even the building of industry and/or farms so as to have employment within their areas for their own people. The realisation that conducting nuisance raids/bombings which result in massive retaliation are counter-productive and harmful (this seems to have happened, I hope so) is the first step. Please let them try and improve the circumstances of their own people, rather than continuing to try and bring everyone else to the same horrific circumstances.

Yes, this is an idea that many will scoff at, probably not quite as many as would have scoffed at the idea in 1948 that the outlawed leader of a terrorist group would win a Nobel Peace Prize, but still a lot. It would take a strong leader, with the will and the commitment to see it through, it remains to be seen if this will occur. Perhaps when they wake up to Hizbollah's hidden agenda of liberating Palestine as a part of Greater Persia?

Thank you Haganah Bet,

Quite illuminating probably more for the questions you didn't answer rather than the ones you did.

There are similarities between yourself and Boaz-David, he is in love with the idea of a Christian God and you with the idea of Israel.

I'm not passing judgement just trying to understand how that love deforms a person's natural conscience.

I do get a small inkling of the need a Jewish person might have to wrap themselves in the ideology of Zionism but that is the best I can claim for myself. All ideologies exact their toll on those who chose to shoulder them and I sympathise with that.

However I will continue to speak out when those ideologies take their toll on others.

Welcome again to OLO.

Yes csteele, the questions a person does not answer (but perhaps careful reading might reveal answers to more than you think) can be as revealing as those they choose to, so too the points in an argument they choose not to respond to...

The simple fact is that Hamas is not a Shia dominated militia/terrrorist organisation, despite being funded by Iran and equipped by Hizbollah. Now, given the current turmoil in Shia-Sunni relations, this suggests a degree of pragmatism not normally associated with the middle east (at least not associated with the public faces of those in the area). Nonetheless, they are caught between two fires, that of Israel and more importantly, that of Egypt which is otherwise well protected against Shi'ite encroachment by Israel itself, and which would predictably react with extreme disfavour to a Shi'ite militia on it's doorstep. For those who enjoy reading between lines, I suggest this as a good read:

http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/default.aspx?xyz=U6Qq7k%2bcOd87MDI46m9rUxJEpMO%2bi1s7I5GRFLz%2bsAsjqhIDGuA4UtYxeDEB04dFZtW%2f1NGjO6RENcQ8o0OrOeJOr6noPqDe0%2fqwAt2xDtwHlb34tNwFWT3zjJH%2f%2bhICejOZPz2%2bvSs%3d

It is from Hamas' own website and the language used in describing the current ceasefire and the importance of maintaining the same is revealing to say the least (NB I suggest you crank up your firewall, block javascript, run noscript, etc.). Even more noteworthy is the apparent rapport with Egypt who organised/brokered the ceasefire.

Such a shift in allegiances is overdue, if only because of the extent of the hostility between Al Qaeda & Hizbollah in Iraq.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3296432,00.html

Whatever else they may be, Hamas are still Arab and will toe the party line, the mullahs will see to that.

Csteele,

Not that it matters in the least, but I am neither Christian nor Jew. I am an Australian born of Australian parents with no religious beliefs whatsoever.

You might call our discussion “histrionic” if you like, although I tried to present Ahmedinejhad in his own words, which far better fit that description. So too, do the soft left, of which you may or may not be a part. They are characterized by an excessive sensitivity to the actions of the West whilst maintaining a blasé, or biased view of the rest of the world. It is this black armband view of history which I find decidedly histrionic.

You say >>” when I hear that 7000 Taliban have been killed so far this year I can’t help but feel for them .”

From your understanding of the conflict you should know that a great deal of the damage done to the Taliban has occurred when they were attacking outposts of the ISAF or ANA/ANP. E.g. See Britain’s experiences in Helmland 2006. So no, I don’t feel sorry in the least for those people. They have bought into the fight after being given every opportunity to go home and rejoin their farms or businesses.

If the Taliban had not made a pact with Al Qaeda (being ideological allies) then they would not have found themselves in the situation they are in. Sudan realized the danger of supporting Al Qaeda and expelled them from the country. Yet the Taliban refused to give up AlQaeda even after the consequences were made clear. How can you lament the loss of the Taliban anyway?

You say >>” why is it unreasonable for Iran to support Hamas or Hezbollah? “

1. These organizations are not looking for peace, they are looking for victory, which means the expungement of the Israeli state, and most likely the Israeli Jews as well.

2. The US goal of spreading democracy has far greater value than the Islamic republics spread of fundamentalist Islam. This should be obvious to all except the moral and cultural relativists of the soft-left.

TBC,

Cont,

3. The US support to Israel has kept the SINGLE bastion of democracy in the ME alive, whilst the enemies of democracy were seeking to destroy it.

As HaganahBet notes the Seahawks are the biplanes of WW2, basically useless as attacking weapons. Militarily they do not change the situation at all. Further, Australia has close links to the Indonesian military.

You say >>” If you keep a people in a state where they feel they have nothing left to lose then isn’t it obvious they will never be in a position of not being able to afford breaching the peace?”

This is not an objective statement at all.

It may be that people feel that they have nothing to lose. Certainly HaganahBet’s point, about the disgraceful death cult which much of Palestine has embraced, is of vital importance in understanding this. But to blame Israel for this situation is not in the least objective.

You seem to want to put the cart before the horse. You say Israel occupied Palestine therefore the Palestinians attack Israel. But this is obviously wrong. The Arab armies attacked Israel immediately upon its independence and twice since. For its own security from attack, Israel occupies Palestine/West Bank.

Palestinians have been offered their own state as far back as 1948 and on more than one occasion since. They refused to take the opportunities given. Further, the constant attacks on Israel have left that country in a position where, in order to defend their own people, they must fight back.

You forget that this is a war zone, and no-one should expect to see unimpeachable fairness and equality in No Man’s Land. When the Palestinians renounce violence I believe they will find a willing partner in peace, in Israel. The deals with Jordan and Egypt are evidence of the validity of this view. But you can’t expect that Israel will extend the “rights” to Palestinians, which westerners have come to expect, whilst the Palestinians are trying to kill them.

When Israel’s security and future can be assured, Israel can assure the same for Palestine.

Thanks Paul, but the aircraft csteele was referring to were A-4 Skyhawks, late 50's designed ground attack aircraft. Australia had them, but offloaded them to NZ when they were deemed obselete (Israel lost many of theirs to SAM's, they were simply too vulnerable).

As to who is to blame for the lack of opportunity and/or hope in the Palestinian areas, Israel was built in part using funds raised around the world and those contributed by the International Jewish Community. This money was used to build schools, hospitals, universities, industry and farms. Consequently Israel is now viewed as a First World Nation (not a bad effort considering it was very third world in 1948). In contrast, the Palestinians have engaged in a deliberate effort not to build schools, hospitals, universities, industry and farms. Consequently, and not very suprisingly, there are limited educational facilities, very few jobs and an embarrasing lack of opportunity.

The absence of these things is blamed directly or indirectly upon Israel, despite the fact that the Palestinians co-religionanists have massive resources of money, despite the fact that massive amounts of aid and supplies have been contributed to the Palestinian people and despite the fact that they have squandered every opportunity in order to pursue their continuous jihad. The simple fact is, that by building the infrastructure instead of using every cent to engage in warfare, the Palestinians could well be in a position comparable to that of Israeli's.

The excuse used is that the Palestinians could not be expected to do so, because they are in refugee camps, guess what, the people who settled Israel and fought her wars, came from places that were just as bad and some were incalculably worse. The other approach is to suggest that the Palestinian people are somehow lesser humans, with lesser intelligence, lesser abilities and lesser ambition & commitment. I don't believe that, I regard those excuses as mere crutches to make people feel better about not doing anything.

Maybe it is time to look at what is holding them back?

Haganahbet,

I was speaking metaphorically in regards to the A4s. What I meant is that they are comparable in modern fast jet evolution to biplanes during the second world war. Obsolete, in other words. I wasn't suggesting they actually were biplanes.

Csteele >> “I'm not passing judgement just trying to understand how that love deforms a person's natural conscience.”

What?? Your not passing judgement but there’s something wrong with Haganabets conscience. Is that your attempt at not passing judgement.

It is supremely arrogant to suggest that only a person with a deformed conscience could support Israel. Not only is it offensive, it also infers a superior conscience in the respondent, which is self aggrandising. Israel may not have an unblemished record, but it compares very well against the rest of the world, especially in that region. How can you in all conscience support a group who are using their youngsters as human bombs, oppress their own people and celebrate a cult of death.

Csteele>>”Do you condone your secret services training and equipping Tamil Tigers? If so why do you seem happy to engage in the same types of links for Iran?”

There is a crucial difference here. Iran is the creator and nurturer of Hezbollah and provides large amounts of funding to Hamas as well. Iran is a terrorist sponsor.

Csteele>> “However I will continue to speak out when those ideologies take their toll on others.”

Unless those others are Muslim extremists, in which case their actions are somebody else’s fault?

PauL,

I thought we might have left well enough alone on this thread but anyway here goes.

Whenever I’m at smoko on a building site and the discussion turns to the Middle East the most common assessment of the situation is that “they are all bloody nicked in the head” and they would be including Israelis in that assessment.

You view is obviously a little more sophisticated but there is a sense of you really wanting to see the world in terms of black and white. Good guys, bad guys. Our previous prime minister was very adept at painting the world in such a fashion.

Given a choice between the two, and as unsophisticated as it may be, I feel the ‘tradies’ probably have a better handle on the issue than yourself.

If I were to tell any of them that I had been chatting online to a chap who used as his moniker the name of an organisation who had been condemned in the past because of its terrorist activities, that had deliberately targeted civilians, and that one operation had targeted a hotel killing 91 people, they would tell me to leave the ‘sicko’ alone and not have anything else to do with him.

Now I don’t think Haganah bet is a sicko but I do think he is afflicted by a love of Israel that has had a deforming effect on his conscience.

While I sort of get the reasons for the way he thinks I’m finding it a lot harder to see the same for you.

Haganah bet doesn’t bat an eye when I referred to Mossad’s supply and training of the Tamil Tigers in Israel and blithely states they were possibly doing the same for the Sri Lankan Army at the exactly the same time. I can’t help but see their actions as incredibly distasteful but Haganah bet may well feel the exercise provided capital vital for Israel’s economy or it fulfilled a vital part of its foreign policy objectives and so justifies it that way.

Cont

Cont

And he might even have a little pride in the chutzpah shown by Mossad.

You however see Iran providing “large amounts of funding” to Hamas as making them a “terrorist sponsor”. The obvious conclusion is that if a country supplies both sides of a conflict (even if one of them is a declared terrorist organisation) to make a buck then it is okay but if it supplies just one then they are terrorist supporters.

Haganah bet has reasons for having the attitudes he has which is why I am not tripping over myself to judge him, you on the other hand …

Ultimately to be even handed and give our consciences any validity we have to condemn actions for what they are, regardless of the entity perpetrating them. Haganah Bet is possibly not in a position to do that but what about you?

However for understanding we have to be prepared to step in another’s shoes. I wonder how profoundly I would be altered by torture. At one stage the Israelis were torturing 80% of those it took into captivity. Thankfully Israeli courts have substantially modified this practice. That it continues so routinely in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia supposedly under far more western influence than others in the region should be an anathema to us all. One can only guess at how the world would look if Qutb and Zawahiri were not so brutalised in prison.

My apologies for talking about you while you are ‘still in the room’ Haganah Bet. It would seem I can’t refrain from further scaling the heights of rudeness. Just on the schools issue I’m wondering if you would care to comment on the piece by the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Mairead Maguire on the closure of schools in Hebron? http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87919

I feel it is going to take a long while to have many Australians prepared to reinvest the time and possibly the emotional energy looking properly at the nuances of the conflict in Palestine. Perhaps being prepared to acknowledge it is fruitless looking for good and bad guys is a start.

Lol, Paul's still talking aobut the evils of Iran while ignoring the real reality: US and Israel fund Fatah in the near past, which wasn't elected by the Palestinians and which are trying to set up a different government. That's treason and funding terror. THere is so much more crap than that but I can't be bothered for it.

We do need to get a few things straightened out about the A-4 Skyhawks.

For the record.

Israel sold 14 to Indonesia in 1979 and the rest a few years later taking the total to 32. In that year, although the design was coming to the end of its time, the A-4 was still being delivered new to the United States Marine Corp. The USMC only retired the planes in 1998 but the US Navy kept them flying until 2003.

“A-4s still served well in the 1982 Falklands War where they achieved success against the Royal Navy.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-4_Skyhawk

So PaulL they were neither “obsolete” nor “basically useless as attacking weapons”

The most dangerous aspect from Australia’s point of view was that they were capable of refuelling each other in mid air thus putting Australian cities within reach of air strikes. This was at a time when the Australia military considered its northern neighbour its biggest strategic threat. The A4 is capable of delivering nuclear payloads.

“In the early 1980s, the Air Force, needing modern strike aircraft, organized Operation Alpha to clandestinely acquire ex-Israeli Air Force A-4 Skyhawks. Air Force personnel were sent in secret by different routes and eventually Indonesian received 32 aircraft.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_Air_Force#Rebirth_of_the_Indonesian_Air_Force_.281970-1980.29

Why do you think they had to operate ‘clandestinely’? Could it be because they were fearful of being vetoed by the U.S. as happened later when “In 1983, the United States vetoed delivery by Israel of 24 A-4H for the Argentine Navy as the A-4Q replacement which were finally retired in 1988.” If Australia had been aware of the impending sale it may well have put pressure on the US to can the sale.

Do you accept that the sale was against Australia’s best interest?

Do you understand that as an Australian I am quite uneasy that this occurred?

Is it acceptable to ask those who confess divided loyalties to give their position on the sale?

I accept Haganah Bet’s non-answer but I don’t resile from asking in the first place. My curiosity lay in how he might have resolved these things intellectually.

Csteele,

>> “You view is obviously a little more sophisticated but there is a sense of you really wanting to see the world in terms of black and white. Good guys, bad guys.”

This is ridiculous, I’ve quite clearly pointed out that I don’t believe Israel to be faultless. If you go back over my posts you will see that. What I am suggesting is that on balance Israel deserves support from the democratic western world. Not the scorn and open hostility which the soft-left heaps upon it, whilst lauding (or flat out ignoring) the actions of the Palestinians.

>> "I feel the ‘tradies’ probably have a better handle on the issue than yourself.”

This is not just unsophisticated, it is ignorant and stupid. Where did you leave your brain today?

>> “While I sort of get the reasons for the way he thinks I’m finding it a lot harder to see the same for you.”

That’s the sort of generalised rubbish I expect from some of the thicker respondents among us. If you have a specific criticism of something I have posted, do so.

BTW, I can’t find any references from reputable sources regarding Israel’s involvement in Sri Lanka. And the book itself has been highly criticised for factual errors, So find a better source.

>>” You see Iran providing ... funding to Hamas as making them a “terrorist sponsor”. The obvious conclusion is that if a country supplies both sides of a conflict ... to make a buck then it is okay ..."

This is patently ridiculous. If, and this is a very big IF, Israel supplied training or weapons, it would have been a cash sale. Israel has no interest in who rules Sri Lanka and would not have been FUNDING them.

Iran FUNDS, trains and arms Hezbollah and Hamas because they are instruments of Iran’s foreign policy. Iran supports these groups because they carry out operations that Iran cannot. Hamas and Hezbollah are working with Iran towards the same goal. They are ideological partners, notwithstanding Hamas’s Sunni base.

TBC,

CONT,

>> “At one stage the Israelis were torturing 80% of those it took into captivity. Thankfully Israeli courts have substantially modified this practice”

You can’t just allege things like that; you have to provide some evidence. I find it very hard to accept the truth of that statement. It also depends upon your definition of torture. If solitary confinement is considered torture then the statement is ridiculous. Show me the evidence.

On the other hand see how captured Israelis are treated. Two reserve IDF soldiers, were lynched by a Palestinian mob at the police building in Ramallah. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2527/press104.htm

As for the Indonesian Air Force, you will note that during the 70’s and early 80’s the Indonesians flew British Aerospace Hawks and Australian Sabres. So I wonder how it is you think it was against OUR interests for Israel to sell the Skyhawks to Indonesia in 1979. Further, in 1982 the Indonesians purchased US F5e to replace the Sabres. Later still in 1986, Indonesia purchased US F-16’s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_Air_Force#Rebirth_of_the_Indonesian_Air_Force_.281970-1980.29

In the Falklands, the successes of the Skyhawk were due to the 20 to 1 numerical superiority of the Argentinean Air Force in that theatre. Whenever a Harrier got within range of a SkyHawk they shot it down.

They were next to useless when faced with the Mirage-III and later the F/A-18's with which the RAAF were equipped.

>> “Why do you think they had to operate ‘clandestinely’? Could it be because they were fearful of being vetoed by the U.S.”

I think they had to be clandestine because the Indonesians didn’t want their Muslim public finding out they were buying Israeli jets. Alternatively it could have been because the US, providing a significant portion of Israel’s defence budget, felt it had the right to decide when and to whom Israel sold its military hardware. Certainly not because it was a threat to Australia or the US strategic interests.

Steel,

The real reality?? ?? ?? SO WHAT if Israel gave money to Fatah?? ?? Please tell me how it is at all relevant to anything?? ??

Paul, what would you say if Iran funded an alternative government in Australia and supplied them with 'equipment' to defend themselves?

Steel,

Are you saying you support Hamas and so should the rest of the world?

Paul, that's a loaded question, but to put it simply Hamas is democratically elected in illegally occupied Palestine under occupation and collective punishment arrangement, so yes.

I can do the same to you: Do you support illegal, clandestine activity and support treason and terrorism by supporting the Fatah arrangement?

Steel,

>> “Paul, that's a loaded question”

You clearly don’t understand irony at all do you?. If you did you wouldn’t have asked me the previous loaded/stupid question “what would you say if Iran funded an alternative government in Australia and supplied them with 'equipment' to defend themselves?”

Or this question loaded up with absurd/hysterical assumptions,

>> “Do you support illegal, clandestine activity and support treason and terrorism by supporting the Fatah arrangement?”

If you are asking me do I have a problem subverting Hamas I say, Not at all. If you are asking do I have a problem with Israel providing funding to Fatah to achieve the same objective, Again, Not at all.

Hamas have no legitimacy as a government as they have committed in their charter to the genocide of the Israeli people. And this isn’t the sort of genocide that the grievance mongers of the left accuse the Australian gov’t of in the past (in regards to Aborigines). In the charter, Hamas talk about the actual wiping out of the Jews in the future and the destruction of the state of Israel. http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

You should read the Charter of this group you support. Or have you read it but don’t see anything wrong with it?

Fatah are the only group actually interested in peace in Palestine. They are the best chance of achieving a negotiated outcome. I have no problem with Israel supporting them at all. So in what way is supporting Fatah, supporting terrorism? I don’t know, maybe you could explain that? I mean if the Israelis are OK with it, since they are the ones who have been Fatah targets in the past, who are you to criticise?

Hamas won less than half of the popular vote (44.45%) in 2006 so I don’t feel too bad about subverting the will of the people, mainly because it just isn’t true. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_legislative_election,_2006
http://www.fairvote.org/media/pep/Palestine.pdf

Treason?? I don’t think so, and anyway who cares? I would have supported any German opposition group against the Nazis. Which is exactly how I view Hamas and this predicament.

PaulL > "Treason?? I don’t think so, and anyway who cares?"

I think that about sums up your foreign policy philosophy and bias. Not much more need be said.

Except that Fatah are the unelected ones and are terrorists after they tried a coup against Hamas. Do you believe in democracy or not? And if you do it is irrelevent in your case since you support all these transgressions of sovereignty for allies which you keep denouncing in Iran. It's double standards and inconsistent/biased.

Okay Paul now you are getting silly.

The A4s proved to be devastating to the British shipping in the Falklands war and highly accurate when delivering payloads on to targets. I never proposed that they were a danger to our airforce but rather to Australian cities and other ground targets.

We seem to be engaging in a game of ping pong, ‘So you have a fact well heres my fact right back at cha!’ It can be diverting and even educational on one level but I was more interested in examining why we are playing the game rather than score (20-2 my way if your interested).

My source for the 80% torture rate was the Compass program last week on the ABC “In Our Name”. I have looked for a transcript on their site but it is not available. I will do some more digging.

It is an interesting moral stance you take on the Tamil Tiger issue. For Israel to be supplying both sides out of ‘venal self interest’ would appear to be more acceptable than Iran supporting a democratically elected Hamas because of their situation and the situation of those in Gaza.

Regarding Ostrovsky, Gordon Thomas relates in his excellent book Gideon’s Spies that the then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Samir asked Robert Maxwell “to mobilize his powerful media resources to destroy Ostrovsky’s credibility. Maxwell pointed out that before employing him, Mossad would surely have checked his background.”

“Nevertheless, Ostrosky became the object of a smear campaign in the Maxwell media, including the Tel Aviv tabloid Maariv, which Maxwell had bought. He was attacked as a fantasist, a liar, and, unlike Maxwell, not a true friend of Israel.”

“Having studied Ostrovsky’s books, senior members of the Israeli intelligence community knew much of what he claimed was true.”

I’m not sure if the effort is worth it PaulL because you have already firewalled yourself with the well worn phrase (that we are all guilty of overusing) “and even if it is true…”.

Hopefully though you will at least pause to examine who is telling my source is not reputable.

Csteele,.

>> “The A4s proved to be devastating to the British shipping in the Falklands war and highly accurate when delivering payloads on to targets. "

You have entirely neglected the fact that many obsolete aircraft are capable of great damage if they are unopposed. As I have already mentioned, the British were outnumbered 20 to 1 in the air, during the Falklands. When the A4’s got through they did actually do some damage, but in no sense were these jets a threat to the balance of power in OUR region. During the period in which the A-4 were fielded by the Indonesian Air Force they were always completely outclassed by the jets of the RAAF. And Indonesia didn’t, and still doesn’t, have nukes, so the aircraft posed no great threat at all.

Further, you also neglected the fact that WE (Australia) armed the Indonesian air force, as did the US during the 70’s and 80’s. So please do tell why Israel shouldn’t sell jets to Indonesia. If we are happy enough to supply them with jets, I can’t see what the problem is.

>> “For Israel to be supplying both sides out of ‘venal self interest’ would appear to be more acceptable than Iran supporting a democratically elected Hamas because of their situation and the situation of those in Gaza.”

You are confusing Haganahbet and myself. I never suggested anything in regards to the Sri Lankan military. I don’t even know if it’s true. I suspect not. There is certainly plenty of absolute bullsh!t out there. Same goes for the Tamil Tigers, all we’ve got is the word of one disgruntled ex-Israeli. Find a reputable source and we can talk about it.

>> ““Having studied Ostrovsky’s books, senior members of the Israeli intelligence community knew much of what he claimed was true.”

That doesn’t confirm or deny anything at all. That’s a wishy washy attempt to shore up the reputation of someone who’s name is in question. Which parts were true?

TBC,

CONT

Interesting the way the Author words it as well. He’s not actually saying senior members agreed it was true, he’s saying in his opinion he thinks they knew it was true. There’s a very big difference. It is not that the “senior members of Israeli intelligence” are in agreement with the claims, in it is only Gordon Thomas who is in agreement. And of what? We aren’t sure.

We know that Iran, on the other hand, supports Hezbollah, who are not democratically elected at all, in fact who recently carried out a minor coup in Lebanon. Iran basically formed Hezbollah and it has been their instrument ever since. They provide them with weapons, training and money to carry out their propaganda campaign. It’s a similar situation for Hamas, who only received their 44% of the vote two years ago. Iran was supplying them well before that. In fact is eminently likely that the funding that Iran gave to Hamas helped them over the line in the 2006 election.

“Democratically elected”, and “Hamas” do not belong in the same sentence. If I accused you of being a Nazi you would be offended, yet you seem happy to be supporting Hamas who have a similar racist philosophy and an agenda of genocide. Have a read of the Hamas charter and then try and tell me they have a legitimate right to be treated as any other sovereign government on the planet. They do not and it is an absolute joke that you would even suggest that they should. When you’ve actually read the Hamas charter, get back to me and we can talk.

Here are some of the highlights from the Hamas Charter, although there are plenty of other ugly passages.

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.

TBC,

CONT,

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

You seem to be trying to make a case for moral equivalency even when it should be quite clear to anyone with a brain it does not exist. Iran is a brutal theocracy, which represses its people to ensure the survival of its Islamic republic. Their treatment of women and religious minorities is appalling and can in no real sense, be compared to Israel’s treatment of its Arab-Muslim citizens. Hamas is hardly any better, although we will need to wait until they attain full power before they begin to implement their agenda.

These are truly barbaric regimes, yet you keep pretending that Israel is just as bad if it makes you feel better.
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/december/iran_executions_191204.shtml
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2007/may2007/bad_hejabi_2507.shtml

Oh and by the way, 20 to 2? In my favour maybe. Otherwise as the man says “ You’re Dreamin”

PaulL you say >> “We know that Iran, on the other hand, supports Hezbollah, who are not democratically elected at all”

But from Wikipedia

“After the 2005 elections, Hezbollah held 14 seats (up from eight previously in 2000) in the 128-member Lebanese Parliament. The "resistance" bloc centered in South Lebanon won a total of 23 seat of which Hezbollah is a part. It also participated for the first time in the Lebanese government of July 2005. Hezbollah has two ministers in the government, and a third is Hezbollah-endorsed. It is primarily active in the Bekaa Valley, the southern suburbs of Beirut, and southern Lebanon.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hezbollah#Lebanese_election_:_2005

>>““Democratically elected”, and “Hamas” do not belong in the same sentence.”.

You keep banging on about them not being elected but they were so get over it. You may not like what they stand for and much of it neither do I but they are proving to be far less corrupt than Mr Arafat’s lot and are doing enough welcomed things for the Palestinian people that they have elected them. People are prepared to adopt fundamentalist rule when the alternative is worse.

For your information I read the Hamas charter the first time you posted it and yes it is certainly verbose and distasteful but could you clarify, why is calling for the fall of the State of Israel a genocidal agenda?

Cont

Cont

Personally I loathe religious fundamentalism, as I stated earlier I find Iran’s treatment of its minorities as deplorable and I’m more than happy to acknowledge its treatment of women is lousy. While there are positive signs, especially in education, the Iranians still have a long way to go to rectify the inequality suffered by over half their population.

>> “yet you seem happy to be supporting Hamas”

Please show me where I have said I support Hamas? Don’t get confused by my lack of support for Israeli actions as showing support for Hamas.

As to who is deserving of my support I would say neither at the moment. I hope I recognise the positives and negatives of both sides, their histories and their aspirations.

Like Haganah Bet I intend leaving this up to my conscience and I suppose it is the Aussie in me that really hates a bully. Part of my problem with Israel is that I expected more from them especially over the West Bank Settlements after the Oslo Accords.

If I were a Palestinian I certainly wouldn’t be settling for a country that looked like this;
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/cf02d057b04d356385256ddb006dc02f/0fdeb2117237384e852572f30047059f!OpenDocument

As to the score with my ‘power’ and ‘follow through’ compared to your ‘spin’ you had better take another look.

Csteele,

Hezbollah do not have anywhere enough seats to form a government. So instead what they did was launch a military coup which forced the Lebanese government to concede a whole raft of Hezbollah demands. They are not democrats at all.
http://www.babelgum.com/121631/reuters-hezbollah-stand-off-beirut-10-may.htm
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/985647.html

Same goes for Hamas, They won only 3% more of the popular vote than Fatah. If you had any idea how Hamas have been behaving in the Gaza strip you would know that they have a lot less support now than they once did.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601487_pf.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/16/israel

You ask what’s wrong with Hamas’ Charter? Why is calling for the fall of the State of Israel a genocidal agenda?

Yet how can ask such a question when Hamas make clear their intentions.

Quote “"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

Quote "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

Quote “Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. IT, OR ANY PART OF IT, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN UP. "

This isn’t calling for the democratization of Israel-Palestine. This is saying ‘we will destroy them’'obliterate them'; ‘it is our god given destiny’. Just look at how Hamas dealt with Fatah, their own people for god’s sake. BTW, in case you missed it, when they speak of Palestine they mean Israel as well.

For you to even suggest that there is nothing wrong with threatening to overthrow a democratic state shows how far removed from reality you have become.

TBC

CONT,

As for your map, no one is offering that state to Palestine. Israel currently occupies the West Bank to control security and prevent terrorist attacks. If Hamas break the ceasefire, then in all likelihood they will retake the Gaza strip as well. I hope the ceasefire holds and that isn’t necessary, but when you look at what Hamas believe in there can be little real hope.

In any case, if you have a look at the deals offered by various Israeli leaders, for example at Camp David in 2000 Arafat was offered 100% of the Gaza strip and 94% of the West Bank as defined by the green line, you would see that is not the reality of any future Palestinian state offered by Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit#Territory

You forget that Israel only has this land because Arab neighbours invaded the country three times in 60 years, threatening Israel’s existence every time. Israel behind the green line has SO LITTLE strategic depth that Israel, if it wanted to survive, was forced to take the fight to the enemy. They just couldn’t afford to wait for someone to attack them. Since Jordan and Egypyt have made peace with Israel, land captured has been returned. I strongly believe that when/if the Palestinians decide to stop fighting, they will get their land back as well.

So, you’re follow through on the A4’s was non existent (no case to make). More of a swing and miss. You’re consistent on your line and length regarding your distaste for Israel’s actions, but when it comes to the words and actions of the terrorists you bring a different ball to the crease. When it comes to the Hamas charter you’ve been stumped. Time for me to declare, I think.