[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

O.T. War in the middle East...
Author Thread
colorfl1
Posts: 20781
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/6/2004
Member: #731
Canada
7/23/2006  5:45 AM
http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060731&s=ross073106

IN CRISIS COMES OPPORTUNITY.
Roll Back
by Dennis Ross
Post date: 07.21.06
Issue date: 07.31.06

Conspiracy is like oxygen in the Middle East. Everyone breathes it. And it's a mode of thought suited to understanding Hezbollah's attacks on Israel. The attacks, after all, represented a sudden shift in the group's thinking. In the six years following Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, the Shia militants didn't cross the blue line--the recognized international border separating Israel from Lebanon. When they launched attacks, they did so in disputed areas like the Sheba farms. Hezbollah seemed to realize that it could only go so far before provoking international opprobrium. Then, last week, Hezbollah changed its posture. It did so in a way certain to bring pain and suffering to Lebanon. This fact is itself interesting. Hezbollah, until now, has branded itself as a protector of the Lebanese people, not the representatives of a foreign agenda.

That self-image is no longer tenable. Many Arab (and non-Arab) observers see an Iranian hand guiding Hezbollah. Isn't it interesting, they ask, that Hezbollah's attacks coincided with the deadline the European Union set for Iranians to respond to its proposed nuclear deal? What better way to show that Iran can make life difficult for those who pressure it than to create a broad crisis in the region?

If you buy this reading of events, you must accept a certain irony. It is fashionable in some quarters to say that U.S. identification with Israel produces hostility against us in the Islamic world. But, in actuality, Israel may be paying a price for the U.S.-led effort to pressure Iran to give up its nuclear aspirations.

Those who view the Israeli offensive in Lebanon as counterproductive to U.S. foreign policy miss an emerging reality: Iran is waging a struggle to achieve regional dominance that threatens the United States and all its friends in the Middle East. The good news is that Hezbollah has unmasked Iran's intentions, which even Arab leaders now appear to recognize. As such, with the right U.S. steps, the current crisis may be turned into an opportunity.



How has Hezbollah exposed Iranian intentions? If Israel were still in Lebanon, perhaps Hezbollah could claim it was resisting Israeli occupation. But Israel ended that occupation, and the Iranians stepped up the supply of katyushas and surface-to-surface rockets--approximately 13,000, according to the Israelis. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Iran saw value in provoking an indirect conflict with Israel at a time of its choosing. In this, Iran is strangely mimicking its old nemesis, Saddam Hussein, who responded to the onset of the Gulf war--a war designed to expel Iraq from Kuwait--by launching missiles against Israel. Much like Saddam before them, the Iranians believe they can mobilize the Arab world against the United States by playing on the sense of grievance that is so deeply embedded among many against Israel.

The last thing that Iran wants is for that grievance to disappear. No wonder that, during my time as the American negotiator, we were constantly aware of Iranian pressure on Hamas and Islamic Jihad to initiate acts of terrorism in Israel. And that was when we had a peace process. We have not had one since 2001, but, at moments of promise--if only for quiet--it is Iran that pushes the hardest to make sure the quiet does not last. Only last week, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak asserted that he had arranged a deal for the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, but "other parties" undercut the deal. Shalit's release would have helped end the siege of Gaza--and much Palestinian suffering--but that wouldn't serve Iran's interests.

I don't mean to excuse Syria. In the past, they suggested that only low-level Hamas functionaries reside in their country. But, last week, Khaled Meshal, the real leader of Hamas, held a press conference in a Damascus hotel, announcing that he was the man to talk to about Shalit's release. No reason to keep Hamas hidden; no reason to be fearful; no reason to think that Syria would pay a price for Hamas's actions.

In the end, this conflict is not about Israel. True, Israel may be a foil, but Iran has bigger fish to fry. Hezbollah and Hamas are tools in the Iranian game of self-promotion, furthering an Islamist agenda, and undoing Western influence in the area. The Syrians, for their part, seem to believe that Iran is on a roll, and better to be playing along with it than with others, and they clearly see little price for doing so.

Today, Israel and the United States are on the same side facing the same threat. But they are not the only ones under threat. Every non-Islamist regime in the area is ultimately a target. Iran seeks to exploit anger in the area against the United States and Israel for the occupations of Iraqis and Palestinians. To be sure, they don't create the sense of grievance, but they are determined to fuel it. Only this time, with Hezbollah, they may have miscalculated. Hezbollah does not command an instinctive following throughout a largely Sunni Arab world.

When Hezbollah was fighting Israeli "occupation," it was untouchable. But the general Arab narrative has been that the violence, meaning terrorism, is driven by occupation: no occupation, no violence. Hamas has already cast doubt on this narrative by launching attacks from Gaza after the Israeli withdrawal, but it is hard for Arab regimes to challenge Hamas's legitimacy. Hezbollah, however, is another story. Saudi Arabia has taken the lead in denying that Hezbollah's act represented "resistance"--hollowed in Arab psychology--and declared it "reckless." Then, over the weekend, at the Arab League, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al Faisal--hardly a paragon of unscripted language--called Hezbollah's actions "unexpected, inappropriate, and irresponsible." He told his counterparts, "These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we cannot simply accept them." The foreign minister's remarks were then endorsed by Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and the Palestinian Authority. (The Palestinian Authority represented Mahmoud Abbas, not the Hamas-led cabinet.) In Lebanon, you could hear similar noises. Walid Jumblatt and other parliamentarians asked what gave a party (Hezbollah) the right to commit the country to war, with all its attendant costs.

As Israel carries on its campaign to damage Hezbollah and hold the Lebanese government accountable, it needs to be mindful of this potentially strategic development among the Arabs. Neither the Arab world nor the international community will give Israel a blank check for military action. Israel needs to walk a fine line: to inflict a devastating blow against Hezbollah's infrastructure without so substantially damaging Lebanese infrastructure and killing Lebanese civilians that it diverts attention from Hezbollah and onto itself. This is easier to say than to do, especially when Hezbollah rockets are hidden in the basements of apartment buildings and continue to kill Israeli civilians. But, ultimately, as I discovered in helping to broker the 1993 and 1996 understandings that ended Israeli-Hezbollah battles, Israel cannot stop the katyushas.

This time, however, Israel may have some silent partners, at least in Lebanon. It is not only Israel that may demand the Lebanese army assume positions along the border, something that the Lebanese government was required to do, according to U.N. Security Council Resolution 425. The Arab world may join in making this possible, determined to prevent Hezbollah from being able to repeat this scenario in six months' time.



Israel will demand this as an outcome, since it will not accept the preexisting status quo vis-à-vis Hezbollah or Hamas. Israel is now trying to reestablish its deterrent. Withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza were interpreted as signs of Israeli weakness, and a new Israeli government is now acting to prove that, if you attack Israel, you pay a terrible price.

The United States has an interest in seeing that deterrent reestablished. It is necessary if there is to be relative calm between Arabs and Israelis. It is necessary if, at some point, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is to pursue his desire to fix Israel's borders. (The lesson about the withdrawals is now clear: They can't be strictly unilateral. Obligations must flow in two directions. Israel can declare its readiness to leave most of the West Bank, but, if Palestinians want Israeli withdrawal, they must prove they will assume security responsibilities.) Reestablishing the Israeli deterrent is also necessary as part of the struggle with Iran and its proxies. They have provoked these twin conflicts, and they must not be seen as gaining from them. This is part of a larger struggle, and Islamists must begin to lose their swagger; they must be discredited and their more secular opponents must begin to gain. We want models of success on the non-Islamist side, and it may be that Hezbollah's action, so clearly serving a non-Lebanese agenda, is a wake-up call for a large part of the Arab world.

Perhaps, it will also be a wake-up call for the Bush administration. Outside of Iraq, we sit on the sidelines. We inspire no fear in Syria or Iran today; Syria need not be a proxy for the Iranians. But our warnings mean nothing to them because there is never a consequence. It seems remarkable to say it, but several years into the war in Iraq, most in the area expect very little of us, or worse, dismiss our statements.

We need to become a factor again. It is time for us to take a leading role in ending this crisis, recognizing who must not gain and understanding that, with much of the Arab world lined up on the right side, we have something important to work with. Statecraft is about identifying when a crisis can be turned into an opportunity. Remaining on the sidelines is likely to turn one more opportunity into a lost cause.
Dennis Ross is counselor and Ziegler distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and author of The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace.


FYI:President Clinton awarded Ross the Presidential medal for "Distinguished Federal Civilian Service" and Secretaries Baker and Albright presented him with the State Department’s highest award.
AUTOADVERT
Rich
Posts: 27410
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 12/30/2003
Member: #511
USA
7/23/2006  10:48 AM
Posted by Rich:

As much as I hate Fox News, they have two of the best expert commentators on the Middle East: Marc Ginsberg and Dennis Ross.

Anyway, both Ginsberg and Tom Friedman, who was on with Tim Russert today, suggested (separately) that the most strategic action we can take here, as distasteful as it may be, is to approach Syria to try to make a deal, which, if reached, would cut off Hezbollah's pipeline with Iran, and truncate Iran's influence in the Middle East.

I think it's an idea worth considering.

It appears that the Adminstration may finally be considering this strategy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/washington/23diplo.html?hp&ex=1153713600&en=830c9036b765b06b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

July 23, 2006
U.S. Plan Seeks to Wedge Syria From Iran
By HELENE COOPER and DAVID E. SANGER
WASHINGTON, July 22 — As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice heads to Israel on Sunday, Bush administration officials say they recognize Syria is central to any plans to resolve the crisis in the Middle East, and they are seeking ways to peel Syria away from its alliance of convenience with Iran.

In interviews, senior administration officials said they had no plans right now to resume direct talks with the Syrian government. President Bush recalled his ambassador to Syria, Margaret Scobey, after the assassination of Rafik Hariri, a former Lebanese prime minister, in February 2005. Since then, America’s contacts with Damascus have been few, and the administration has imposed an array of sanctions on Syria’s government and banks, and frozen the assets of Syrian officials implicated in Mr. Hariri’s killing.

But officials said this week that they were at the beginning stages of a plan to encourage Saudi Arabia and Egypt to make the case to the Syrians that they must turn against Hezbollah. With the crisis at such a pivotal stage, officials who are involved in the delicate negotiations to end it agreed to speak about their expectations only if they were not quoted by name.

“We think that the Syrians will listen to their Arab neighbors on this rather than us,’’ a senior official said, “so it’s all a question of how well that can be orchestrated.’’

There are several substantial hurdles to success. The effort risks seeming to encourage Syria to reclaim some of the influence on Lebanon that it lost after its troops were forced to withdraw last year. It is not clear how forcefully Arab countries would push a cause seen to benefit the United States and Israel. Many Middle Eastern analysts are skeptical that a lasting settlement can be achieved without direct talks between Syria and the United States.

The effort begins Sunday afternoon in the Oval Office, where President Bush is to meet the Saudi foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, and the chief of the Saudi national security council, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Prince Bandar was the Saudi ambassador to Washington until late last year and often speaks of his deep connections to the Bush family and to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Ms. Rice is delaying her departure to the Middle East until after the meeting, which she is also expected to attend, along with Mr. Cheney and Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser. The session was requested by the Saudis, American officials said.

The expected outcome of the session is unclear. “We don’t know how patient the Saudis will be with the Israeli military action,’’ said a senior official said. “They want to see Hezbollah wiped out, and they’d like to set back the Iranians.”

But in the Arab world, the official added, “they can’t been seen to be doing that too enthusiastically.’’

Several of Mr. Bush’s top aides said the plan was for Mr. Bush and other senior officials to press both Saudi Arabia and Egypt to prod Syria into giving up its links with Hezbollah, and with Iran. The administration, aside from its differences with Iran over nuclear programs and with Syria over its role in Lebanon, has also objected to both nations’ behavior toward their common neighbor, Iraq.

“They have to make the point to them that if things go bad in the Mideast, the Iranians are not going to be a reliable lifeline,’’ one of the administration officials said.

Another said, “There is a presumption that the Syrians have more at stake here than the Iranians, and they are more exposed.”

The American officials are calculating that pressure from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan may help to get Syria on board.

But so far, there appears to be little discussion of offering American incentives to the Syrians to abandon Hezbollah, or even to stop arming it. The Bush administration has been deeply reluctant to make such offers, whether it is negotiating with Damascus or with the governments of Iran or North Korea.

Nor did President Bush sound any conciliatory notes in his radio address on Saturday. “For many years, Syria has been a primary sponsor of Hezbollah and it has helped provide Hezbollah with shipments of Iranian-made weapons,’’ he said. “Iran’s regime has also repeatedly defied the international community with its ambition for nuclear weapons and aid to terrorist groups. Their actions threaten the entire Middle East and stand in the way of resolving the current crisis and bringing lasting peace to this troubled region.”

The State Department lists Syria as a country that sends money to terrorist organizations. Syria’s ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, has spent a lot of time on television in recent days, but he is often described as one of the loneliest ambassadors in Washington.

In the months after Sept. 11, Syria provided important assistance in the campaign against Al Qaeda. But relations soured as American officials complained that Syria did little to crack down on associates of Saddam Hussein who funneled money to the insurgency in Iraq through Syrian banks, or to stop the flow of insurgents across its border to Iraq. The United States imposed sanctions on Syria in 2004, and took further measures after Syrian officials were accused of involvement in Mr. Hariri’s assassination.

The idea is to try to drive a wedge between Syria and Iran, which have recently been drawn closer together by standoffs with Washington. Syria and Iran have been formally allied since the Iran-Iraq war began in 1980, but historically they were suspicious of each other.

“Historically and strategically, they are on opposing sides — the Arabs and the Persians,” Daniel Ayalon, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, said in an interview on Thursday. Now, he added, “the only Arab country to ally with Iran is Syria,” a position that has angered Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Syria, like most of the Arab world, is largely Sunni. Iran and Iraq are largely Shiite.

A Western diplomat said Arab leaders had had trouble getting President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to come to the telephone when they called to express concern about Hezbollah’s actions.

In 1996, when Israel and Hezbollah were fighting each other and bombs rained down on civilian populations, Secretary of State Warren Christopher spent 10 days shuttling between Damascus, Beirut and Jerusalem before brokering a cease-fire and an agreement by Israel and Hezbollah to leave civilians out of the fighting.

Ms. Rice has said she has no intention of duplicating Mr. Christopher’s approach. “I could have gotten on a plane and rushed over and started shuttling and it wouldn’t have been clear what I was shuttling to do,” she said Friday. “I have no interest in diplomacy for the sake of returning Lebanon and Israel to the status quo ante.”

Rather, the administration’s declared aim is to carry out United Nations Resolution 1559, which calls for the disarming of Hezbollah and the deployment of the Lebanese Army to southern Lebanon. Syria, which was forced to withdraw its troops from Lebanon last year, may well balk at efforts to enforce it.

But while analysts say it is possible for the Bush administration and Israel to work out a solution without including Syria in the diplomatic wrangling, it would be difficult. Some Bush administration officials, particularly at the State Department, are pushing to find a way to start talking to Syria again.

Mr. Bush on Saturday telephoned the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, from his ranch in Crawford, Tex., to discuss the widening crisis in Lebanon, and pledged the United States would assist the Turkish government as it battled the Kurdish Workers’ Party, the violent separatist movement. Turkey has been mentioned as a potential leader of the proposed United Nations plan to deploy an international force to the region to help cool the violence.

simrud
Posts: 23392
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/13/2003
Member: #474
USA
7/23/2006  11:42 AM
To maybe put some real perspective on how credible Europe and UN in general is when it coms to Israel, you should consider the fact that the Spanish prime iminster appeared with a Hizbollah scarf draped over his neck to bash Israel w/out even trying to present a fare picture.

But than again, Spain is the country in which a Facist dictator, Franko, died in power, and which has not lifted the Alhambra untill well into the late 20the century, I beleive the 70's. For those of you who do not know what Alhambra is, its the law that denied Spanish Jews right to remain Jewish in the country. They either had to convert or bounce the heck out. If they did nether they were sloughtered. Essentially Jews were not allowed to be in Spain until the 70's.

So when Spain's prime minster supports the enemy of the Jews, why is it that I'm not at all suprised?
A glimmer of hope maybe?!?
PresIke
Posts: 27671
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/26/2001
Member: #33
USA
7/23/2006  11:47 AM
Posted by colorfl1:

PresIke; it was wrong of yout challenge my integrity...


('');UN Secretary General Kofi Annan himself has said that it "sometimes seems as if the United Nations serves all the world's peoples but one: the Jews."

... I rest my case, as far as the UN is concerned.

Colorfl1, While I always appreciate dialogue on such a subject, the use of self-righteous rhetoric and overly simplistic explanations to this problem does little to resolve it. How does this one quote answer a far more complex question regarding the U.N.'s role and history in this case?

Is there "Anti-Semitism" in the world? Absolutely, and I would say it has increased in some areas, but much of it was not created in some kind of bubble (meaning everyone on all sides has their hands soaked in blood). Your refusal to acknowledge that the very U.N. that you claim to be against Jews, which is dominated by Western powers and their interests, created the state of Israel.

Regardless of what the majority of nations in the U.N. want, the reality is that they have little power to implement any action. The U.N. has failed in trying to resolve the problem in that region, but so have many other powerful and influential nations on both sides.

[Edited by - PresIke on 07-23-2006 11:48 AM]
Forum Po Po and #33 for a reason...
PresIke
Posts: 27671
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/26/2001
Member: #33
USA
7/23/2006  11:54 AM
Posted by colorfl1:

Lets not blame the the west...

I hate to do this, but this statement could very well "close the case" (to borrow your own words) regarding your rationalization for everything wrong the West has done to contribute to problems in that area of the world. Where are you getting your history from regarding that region here? Wikipedia (a site already proven to be unreliable), articles off The Internet? (which is FILLED with misinformation) and some articles written by known proponents of the use of violence to resolve conflict and Israel's position (i.e. Thomas Friedman)? Are Arabs at fault too? Of course, but your continued attempt to turn this into a one sided affair is, arguably, disingenuous and misinformed.
Forum Po Po and #33 for a reason...
colorfl1
Posts: 20781
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/6/2004
Member: #731
Canada
7/23/2006  12:33 PM
Posted by PresIke:
Posted by colorfl1:

PresIke; it was wrong of yout challenge my integrity...


('');UN Secretary General Kofi Annan himself has said that it "sometimes seems as if the United Nations serves all the world's peoples but one: the Jews."

... I rest my case, as far as the UN is concerned.

How does this one quote answer a far more complex question regarding the U.N.'s role and history in this case?

Is there "Anti-Semitism" in the world? Absolutely, and I would say it has increased in some areas, but much of it was not created in some kind of bubble (meaning everyone on all sides has their hands soaked in blood). Your refusal to acknowledge that the very U.N. that you claim to be against Jews, which is dominated by Western powers and their interests, created the state of Israel.

Regardless of what the majority of nations in the U.N. want, the reality is that they have little power to implement any action. The U.N. has failed in trying to resolve the problem in that region, but so have many other powerful and influential nations on both sides.

[Edited by - PresIke on 07-23-2006 11:48 AM]

As I mentioned twice before, we can agree to disagree on the potential of the UN to be a fair mediator when a Jewish state is concerned...

You can't point at the UN's role in the creation of Israel as proof that they are impartial... that was a blip in history when the world was reacting to the holocaust aftermath...

I cannot understand how you can seriously consider the UN impartial... how long did it take the UN to do something about the genacide in Durfur??? that was absurd... I even had to petition my own government to do something about the innocent Sudanese who were being raped and murdered by Arab militias... do you really think that the Arab block had no role in delaying the UN from mobilizing an end to the crises???



From a 2003 report:

The alliance of dictators against democracies
Annan could also have mentioned the executions and heavy sentences passed on dissidents in
Cuba in mid-session, or the commission’s silence on violations in China and Tibet, Iran,
Saudi Arabia, Nepal, Algeria and many other countries. He did point out that “the human
rights crisis in Iraq did not begin with this war.” In this he was essentially agreeing the
comment of the high commissioner, Sergio Vieira de Mello who had criticised the
commission for having been unable to debate “a scandalous situation” for 25 years.
These observations by the UN’s highest officials highlight in their own way the slippery slope
the commission is heading down. The commission has become a forum in which governments
defend their record rather than examine them. After rejecting the system for a long time,
repressive regimes have understood that the best way to protect themselves against any
examination is to take part in it. So they participate more and more actively in the
commission’s work and combine efforts to better undermine it from the inside. Rwanda’s
Hutu regime, for example, was preparing the Tutsi genocide in 1994 at the same time as it got
itself elected to the commission and to the UN security council. When the Mugabe regime in
Zimbabwe was riding roughshod over the most fundamental rights in 2002, it not only
managed to avoid a vote on a resolution about this, but it also succeeded in getting elected to
the commission for 2003 thanks to the connivance of other dictatorial countries. And in the
wake of chairing the commission in 2003, Col. Gaddafi’s Libya now expects to join the
security council


http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:Cbwst2EckX8J:www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/Report_ONU_gb.pdf+iran+appointed+to+and+un%27s+human+rights&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=33&client=safari



I do not maintain that Israel has no blood on its hands... but I challange you to find me a nation that is trying to survive while surrounded by enemies trying to destroy them that is not pulled into a lot of the awfulness that military conflict brings...

My views may seem strong because I am confronting a very extreem kind of hostility towards Israel by certain parties on this board.

All in all, I do not believe the UN deserves a real debate here... anyone who follows how the UN opperates knows the obvious truth...

what more is there to say when the head of the UN readily admits;
""sometimes seems as if the United Nations serves all the world's peoples but one: the Jews."

But you have my utmost resepect for your hopeful idealism, condor and search for a progressive solution to this complex crises.
colorfl1
Posts: 20781
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/6/2004
Member: #731
Canada
7/23/2006  12:41 PM
Posted by PresIke:
Posted by colorfl1:

Lets not blame the the west...

Articles written by known proponents of the use of violence to resolve conflict and Israel's position (i.e. Thomas Friedman)?...

since when is Thomas Friedman considered a conservitive appologist??? He is one of the world most respected writers on the Middle East...

are you really a moderate on this issue...
Killa4luv
Posts: 27768
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
7/23/2006  12:48 PM
Posted by colorfl1:

ground rules for fair debate... I believe this will clarify many of Killas previous staements...

- Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
It is a fact that the creation of israel was a racist endeavor. One 'race' of people displacing another 'race' of people to create their state is by definition a racist endeavor. Invoking the bible, the torah, or god, does not change the fundamental racist nature of such an act.
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.


- Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionist
I have done none of this. Instead of making blanket claims of anti-semiticism against me, why don't you try to prove where I did those thigns?

Nalod
Posts: 70776
Alba Posts: 155
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
7/23/2006  1:04 PM
Posted by Killa4luv:
Posted by colorfl1:

ground rules for fair debate... I believe this will clarify many of Killas previous staements...

- Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
It is a fact that the creation of israel was a racist endeavor. One 'race' of people displacing another 'race' of people to create their state is by definition a racist endeavor. Invoking the bible, the torah, or god, does not change the fundamental racist nature of such an act.
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.


- Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionist
I have done none of this. Instead of making blanket claims of anti-semiticism against me, why don't you try to prove where I did those thigns?

The Jewish state of Israel did not "kick out" a race of people. There a many Palistinians still living inside the borders and have many have prospered. If hate dictates, then it don't work for you.

"Israelites" were kicked out and enslaved long before.

Killa, its getting week man, real week.

Logic will not pervail, just admit your position. That I can respect.
colorfl1
Posts: 20781
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/6/2004
Member: #731
Canada
7/23/2006  1:11 PM
Posted by Killa4luv:

I have done none of this. Instead of making blanket claims of anti-semiticism against me...

I do not think you are racist, I do believe that some of your statements are exessively unfair and harsh and that you do not realize that the implicit double stadard you apply to Israel makes them hateful and racist..

I have got to go for now, but no doubt, I will pull up some of your earlier remarks, and show how they fall within the aforementioned EUMC guidelines.. chow 4 now.
PresIke
Posts: 27671
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/26/2001
Member: #33
USA
7/23/2006  1:13 PM
Posted by colorfl1:
Posted by PresIke:
Posted by colorfl1:

PresIke; it was wrong of yout challenge my integrity...


('');UN Secretary General Kofi Annan himself has said that it "sometimes seems as if the United Nations serves all the world's peoples but one: the Jews."

... I rest my case, as far as the UN is concerned.

How does this one quote answer a far more complex question regarding the U.N.'s role and history in this case?

Is there "Anti-Semitism" in the world? Absolutely, and I would say it has increased in some areas, but much of it was not created in some kind of bubble (meaning everyone on all sides has their hands soaked in blood). Your refusal to acknowledge that the very U.N. that you claim to be against Jews, which is dominated by Western powers and their interests, created the state of Israel.

Regardless of what the majority of nations in the U.N. want, the reality is that they have little power to implement any action. The U.N. has failed in trying to resolve the problem in that region, but so have many other powerful and influential nations on both sides.

[Edited by - PresIke on 07-23-2006 11:48 AM]

As I mentioned twice before, we can agree to disagree on the potential of the UN to be a fair mediator when a Jewish state is concerned...

You can't point at the UN's role in the creation of Israel as proof that they are impartial... that was a blip in history when the world was reacting to the holocaust aftermath...

I cannot understand how you can seriously consider the UN impartial... how long did it take the UN to do something about the genacide in Durfur??? that was absurd... I even had to petition my own government to do something about the innocent Sudanese who were being raped and murdered by Arab militias... do you really think that the Arab block had no role in delaying the UN from mobilizing an end to the crises???



From a 2003 report:

The alliance of dictators against democracies
Annan could also have mentioned the executions and heavy sentences passed on dissidents in
Cuba in mid-session, or the commission’s silence on violations in China and Tibet, Iran,
Saudi Arabia, Nepal, Algeria and many other countries. He did point out that “the human
rights crisis in Iraq did not begin with this war.” In this he was essentially agreeing the
comment of the high commissioner, Sergio Vieira de Mello who had criticised the
commission for having been unable to debate “a scandalous situation” for 25 years.
These observations by the UN’s highest officials highlight in their own way the slippery slope
the commission is heading down. The commission has become a forum in which governments
defend their record rather than examine them. After rejecting the system for a long time,
repressive regimes have understood that the best way to protect themselves against any
examination is to take part in it. So they participate more and more actively in the
commission’s work and combine efforts to better undermine it from the inside. Rwanda’s
Hutu regime, for example, was preparing the Tutsi genocide in 1994 at the same time as it got
itself elected to the commission and to the UN security council. When the Mugabe regime in
Zimbabwe was riding roughshod over the most fundamental rights in 2002, it not only
managed to avoid a vote on a resolution about this, but it also succeeded in getting elected to
the commission for 2003 thanks to the connivance of other dictatorial countries. And in the
wake of chairing the commission in 2003, Col. Gaddafi’s Libya now expects to join the
security council


http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:Cbwst2EckX8J:www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/Report_ONU_gb.pdf+iran+appointed+to+and+un%27s+human+rights&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=33&client=safari



I do not maintain that Israel has no blood on its hands... but I challange you to find me a nation that is trying to survive while surrounded by enemies trying to destroy them that is not pulled into a lot of the awfulness that military conflict brings...

My views may seem strong because I am confronting a very extreem kind of hostility towards Israel by certain parties on this board.

All in all, I do not believe the UN deserves a real debate here... anyone who follows how the UN opperates knows the obvious truth...

what more is there to say when the head of the UN readily admits;
""sometimes seems as if the United Nations serves all the world's peoples but one: the Jews."

But you have my utmost resepect for your hopeful idealism, condor and search for a progressive solution to this complex crises.

I in no way meant to suggest that the U.N. is impartial. In fact, I do believe that several times I indicated that the U.N. is dominated by the Permanent Members of the Security Council, and that it is by far most often exercised by the U.S. since the 1970s (for a grand total of 13 times, including 11 regarding Israel, btw). As for Darfur, I have also signed petitions and sent letters to my representatives regarding the genocide in that region. The same problem occurred in Rwanda years ago, and it was not the members of the General Assembly who would not do anything to stop it, it was Permanent Members of the Security Council like the U.S. (Under Bill Clinton), UK, France, etc. who refused to do anything to intervene.

The only way one can understand how one can claim to know the UN and then miss such an important part of its use of power as the Permanent Members veto and their other ability to create influence/policy is if one is already predisposed to a particular point of view on the subject. I mean, in the case of Rwanda it wasn't a veto by anyone on the Security Council that prevented any real intervention by the UN, but use of other power like pulling/restricting funding, of which the U.S. was the primary culprit.

As I stated in a previous post, you continually point the finger at "Arab states" and conveniently ignore the same kind of behavior used by the U.S. and other Western powers in the UN -- which occurred in the case of Rwanda, Darfur, Chile, Panama, East Timor, etc. One has to assume, as I also stated earlier, that only due to a view of the US & Israel that is certain that they are always acting like "the good guys" would lead one to such a position. Of course, Arab states use their power where they find it useful. So does the U.S. and IN NO WAY AM I SUGGESTING THAT THIS IS ALWAYS ACCEPTABLE ON BOTH SIDES. The fact that Arab states may misuse their power (like the US & Israel as well) does not automatically justify the use of force to kill innocent people. Basically, that's your argument here.
Forum Po Po and #33 for a reason...
PresIke
Posts: 27671
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/26/2001
Member: #33
USA
7/23/2006  1:22 PM
Posted by colorfl1:
Posted by PresIke:
Posted by colorfl1:

Lets not blame the the west...

Articles written by known proponents of the use of violence to resolve conflict and Israel's position (i.e. Thomas Friedman)?...

since when is Thomas Friedman considered a conservitive appologist??? He is one of the world most respected writers on the Middle East...

are you really a moderate on this issue...

I like Friedman on certain issues, (education, and the use of economic development to turn countries around) but I find him to be generally pro-war when it comes to Mid-East policy. He was for the Iraq War which says to me a lot about his naivete regarding the use of military force to change governments and people.
Forum Po Po and #33 for a reason...
PresIke
Posts: 27671
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/26/2001
Member: #33
USA
7/23/2006  1:26 PM
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2001-09/05wise.htm

Sept 5 2001

Reflections on Zionism From a Dissident Jew

By Tim Wise

So it’s official. The U.S. has withdrawn from the World Conference on Racism, being held in Durban, South Africa. And though the cynical and historically observant might suspect that this decision was merely in keeping with our longstanding unwillingness to deal with the legacy of racism on a global scale, the official reason is more circumscribed. Namely, the mid-conference pullout was intended to register displeasure at various delegates who are pushing resolutions condemning Israeli treatment of Palestinians, and Zionism itself: the ideology of Jewish nationalism that led to the founding of Israel in 1948. As the conference speeds towards a no doubt controversial conclusion, perhaps it would be worthwhile to ask just what all the fuss is about?

Although one can argue with the claim made by some that Zionism and racism are synonymous--especially given the amorphous definition of "race" which makes such a position forever and always a matter of semantics--it is difficult to deny that Zionism, in practice if not theory, amounts to ethnic chauvinism, colonial ethnocentrism, and national oppression.

For saying this, I can expect to be called everything but a child of God by many in the Jewish community. "Self-hating" will be the term of choice for most, I suspect: the typical Pavlovian response to one who is Jewish, as I am, and yet dares to criticize Israel or the ideology underlying its national existence.

"Anti-Semite" will be the other label offered me, despite the fact that Zionism has led to the oppression of Semitic peoples--namely the mostly Semitic Palestinians--and is also rooted in a deep antipathy even for Jews. Though Zionism proclaims itself a movement of a strong and proud people, in fact it is an ideology that has been brimming with self-hatred from the beginning. Indeed, early Zionists believed, as a key premise of the movement, that Jews were responsible for the oppression we had faced over the years, and that such oppression was inevitable and impossible to overcome, thus, the need for our own country.

Having never read the words of Theodore Herzl--the founder of modern Zionism--or other Zionist leaders, most will find this claim hard to believe. But before attacking me, perhaps they should ask who it was that said anti-Semitism, "is an understandable reaction to Jewish defects," or that, "each country can only absorb a limited number of Jews, if she doesn’t want disorders in her stomach. Germany has already too many Jews."

While one might be inclined to attribute either or both statements to Adolph Hitler, as they are surely worthy of his venomous pen, they are actually comments made by Herzl and Chaim Weizmann, eventual president of Israel, and--at the time he made the second statement--head of the World Zionist Organization. So in the pantheon of self-hating Jews, it appears criticism, for Zionists, should perhaps begin at home.

Going back to my days in Hebrew school, I never understood the dialysis-machine-like bond that most of my peers felt for Israel. On the one hand, we were told God had given that land to our people, as part of His covenant with Abraham. This we knew because Scripture told us so. But this never carried much weight with me. After all, many Christians--with whom I had more than a passing acquaintance growing up in the South--were all-too-willing to point out that the Scriptures also said (in their opinions) that I was going to hell, Abraham notwithstanding.

As such, accepting Zionism because of what God did or didn’t say seemed dicey from the get-go. What’s more, this was the same God who ostensibly told the ancient Hebrews never to wear clothes woven with two different fabrics, and who insisted we burn the entrails of animals we consume on an alter to create a pleasing smell. Having been known to sport a wrinkle-free poly-cotton blend, and having not the fortitude to disembowel my supper and incinerate its lower intestines, I had long since resolved to withhold judgment on what God did and didn’t want, until such time as the Almighty decided to whisper said desires in my ear personally. The Rabbi’s word wasn’t going to cut it.

On the other hand, we were told we needed a homeland so as to prevent another Holocaust. Only a strong, independent Jewish state could provide the kind of unity and protection required of a people who had suffered so much, and had lost six million souls to the Nazi terror.

Yet this too seemed suspect to me. After all, one could argue that getting all the Jews together in one place--especially a piece of real estate as small as Palestine--would be a Jew-hater’s dream come true. It would make finishing the job Hitler started that much easier. Better, it seemed then and still does, to have vibrant Jewish communities throughout the world, than to put all our dreidels in one basket, by pulling up stakes and heading to a place where others already lived, hoping they wouldn’t mind too terribly if we kicked them out of their homes.

In the final analysis, accepting Israel as a Jewish state for Biblical reasons made no more sense to me than to accept a self-identified Christian or Islamic nation: two configurations that understandably raise fears of theocracy in the heart of any Jew. And to in-gather the Jews to Israel for the sake of safety made no sense whatsoever. The only logic to Zionism then, seemed to be the "logic" of raw power: that of the settler, or colonizer. We wanted the land, and getting it would provide an ally for European and American foreign and economic policy. So with pressure applied and force unleashed, it became ours.

Nearly 800,000 Palestinians would be displaced so as to allow for the creation of Israel: around 600,000 of whom, according to internal documents of the Israeli Defense Force, were expelled forcibly from their homes. At the time, these Palestinians, most of whose families had been living on the land for centuries, constituted two-thirds of the population and owned 90% of the land. Though some Zionists claim Palestine was a largely uninhabited wilderness prior to Jewish arrival, early settlers were far more honest. As Ahad Ha’am acknowledged in 1891:

"We...are used to believing that Israel is almost totally desolate. But...this is not the case. Throughout the country it is difficult to find fields that are not sowed."

Indeed, the large presence of Palestinians led many Zionists to openly advocate their removal. The head of the Jewish Agency’s colonization department stated: "there is no room for both peoples together in this country. There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries, to transfer all of them: not one village, not one tribe, should be left."

Herzl himself conceded that Zionism was "something colonial," indicating again that we were not discovering or founding anything. We were taking it, and for reasons we would never accept from others. As Shimon Peres--seen as one of the most peace-loving Israeli leaders in memory--said in 1985: "The Bible is the decisive document in determining the fate of our land." Such is the stuff of fanaticism, and we would say as much were a fundamentalist Christian to make the same statement about the fate of the U.S., or anywhere else for that matter.

That most Jews have never examined the founding principles of this ideology to which they cleave is unfortunate. For if they were to do so, they might be shocked at how anti-Jewish Zionism really is. Time and again, Zionists have even collaborated with open Jew-haters for the sake of political power.

Consider Herzl: a man who believed Jews were to blame for anti-Semitism, and thus, only by fleeing for Palestine could we be safe. In The Jewish State, he wrote:

"Every nation in whose midst Jews live is, either covertly or openly, anti-Semitic...its immediate cause is our excessive production of mediocre intellects, who cannot find an outlet downwards or upwards. When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat. When we rise, there also rises our terrible power of the purse."

He went on to say, "The Jews are carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America." Were a non-Jew to suggest that Jews were to blame for anti-Semitism, our community would be rightly outraged. But the same words from the father of Zionism pass without comment.

Worse still, early in Hitler’s reign the Zionist Federation of Germany wrote the new Chancellor, noting their willingness to "adapt our community to these new structures" (namely, the Nuremberg Laws that limited Jewish freedom), as they "give the Jewish minority...its own cultural life, its own national life."

Far from resisting Nazi genocide, some Zionists collaborated with it. When the British devised a plan to allow thousands of German Jewish children to enter the U.K. and be saved from the Holocaust, David Ben-Gurion, who would become Israel’s first Prime Minister balked, explaining:

"If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transporting them to (Israel) then I would opt for the second alternative."

Later, Israeli Zionists would again make alliances with anti-Jewish extremists. In the 1970’s, Israel hosted South African Prime Minister John Vorster, and cultivated economic and military ties with the apartheid state, even though Vorster had been locked up as a Nazi collaborator during World War II. And Israel supplied military aid to the Galtieri regime in Argentina, even while the Generals were known to harbor ex-Nazis in the country, and had targeted Argentine Jews for torture and death.

Indeed, the argument that Zionism is racism finds some support in statements of Zionists themselves, many of whom have long concurred with the Hitlerian doctrine that Judaism is a racial identity as much as a religious and cultural one. In 1934, German Zionist Joachim Prinz, who would later head the American Jewish Congress, noted:

"We want assimilation to be replaced by a new law: the declaration of belonging to the Jewish nation and Jewish race. A state built upon the principle of the purity of nation and race can only be honored and respected by a Jew who declares his belonging to his own kind."

Years later, David Ben-Gurion acknowledged that Israeli leader Menachem Begin could be branded racist, but that doing so would require one to "put on trial the entire Zionist movement, which is founded on the principle of a purely Jewish entity in Palestine."

Laws granting special privileges to Jewish immigrants from anywhere in the world, over Palestinians whose families had been on the land for generations, and measures that set aside most land for exclusive Jewish ownership and use, are but two examples of discriminatory legislation underlying the Zionist experiment. As the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination makes clear, racial discrimination is:

"any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national and ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

Given this internationally recognized definition, we ought not be surprised that at a World Conference on Racism, some might suggest that the policies of our people in the land of Palestine had earned a place on the agenda. As such, we should take this opportunity to begin an honest dialogue, not only with Palestinians, but also with ourselves. Neither the chauvinism so integral to Zionism, nor the ironic self-hatred that has gone along with it are becoming of a strong and vital people. Just as a dialysis machine is no substitute for a healthy and functioning kidney, neither is Zionism an adequate substitute for a healthy and vibrant Judaism. Surely it is not for this ignoble end, that six million died.

Tim Wise is an antiracist activist, writer and lecturer. He can be reached at tjwise@mindspring.com
Forum Po Po and #33 for a reason...
PresIke
Posts: 27671
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/26/2001
Member: #33
USA
7/23/2006  1:27 PM
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-01/20wise.cfm

January 20, 2003

Fraud Fit For A King: Israel, Zionism, And The Misuse Of Mlk

By Tim Wise

Rarely am I considered insufficiently cynical. As someone who does anti-racism work for a living, and thus hears all manner of excuse-making by those who wish desperately to avoid being considered racist, not much surprises me. I expect people to lie about race; to tell me how many black friends they have; to swear they haven’t a racist bone in their bodies. And every January, with the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday just around the corner, I have come to expect someone to misuse the good doctor’s words so as to push an agenda he would not likely have supported. As such, I long ago resigned myself to the annual gaggle of fools who deign to use King’s “content of their character” line from the 1963 March on Washington so as to attack affirmative action, ostensibly because King preferred simple “color-blindness.” That King actually supported the efforts that we now call affirmative action--and even billions in reparations for slavery and segregation--as I’ve documented in a previous column, matters not to these folks. They’ve never read King’s work, and they’ve only paid attention to one news clip from one speech, so what more can we expect from such precious simpletons as these? And yet, even with my cynic’s credentials established, the one thing I never expected anyone to do would be to just make up a quote from King; a quote that he simply never said, and claim that it came from a letter that he never wrote, and was published in a collection of his essays that never existed. Frankly, this level of deception is something special. The hoax of which I speak is one currently making the rounds on the Internet, which claims to prove King’s steadfast support for Zionism. Indeed, it does more than that.

In the item, entitled “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend,” King proclaims that criticism of Zionism is tantamount to anti-Semitism, and likens those who criticize Jewish nationalism as manifested in Israel, to those who would seek to trample the rights of blacks. Heady stuff indeed, and 100% bull****, as any amateur fact checker could ascertain were they so inclined. But of course, the kinds of folks who push an ideology that required the expulsion of three-quarters-of-a-million Palestinians from their lands, and then lied about it, claiming there had been no such persons to begin with (as with Golda Meir’s infamous quip), can’t be expected to place a very high premium on truth. I learned this the hard way recently, when the Des Moines Jewish Federation succeeded in getting me yanked from the city’s MLK day events: two speeches I had been scheduled to give on behalf of the National Conference of Community and Justice (NCCJ).

Because of my criticisms of Israel--and because I as a Jew am on record opposing Zionism philosophically--the Des Moines shtetl decided I was unfit to speak at an MLK event. After sending the supposed King quote around, and threatening to pull out all monies from the Jewish community for future NCCJ events, I was dropped. The attack of course was based on a distortion of my own beliefs as well. Federation principal Mark Finkelstein claimed I had shown a disregard for the well-being of Jews, despite the fact that my argument has long been that Zionism in practice has made world Jewry less safe than ever. But it was his duplicity on King’s views that was most disturbing. Though Finkelstein only recited one line from King’s supposed “letter” on Zionism, he lifted it from the larger letter, which appears to have originated with Rabbi Marc Schneier, who quotes from it in his 1999 book, “Shared Dreams: Martin Luther King Jr. and the Jewish Community.” Therein, one finds such over-the-top rhetoric as this:

“I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.” The letter also was filled with grammatical errors that any halfway literate reader of King’s work should have known disqualified him from being its author, to wit: “Anti-Zionist is inherently anti Semitic, and ever will be so.” The treatise, it is claimed, was published on page 76 of the August, 1967 edition of Saturday Review, and supposedly can also be read in the collection of King’s work entitled, This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. That the claimants never mention the publisher of this collection should have been a clear tip-off that it might not be genuine, and indeed it isn’t. The book doesn’t exist. As for Saturday Review, there were four issues in August of 1967. Two of the four editions contained a page 76. One of the pages 76 contains classified ads and the other contained a review of the Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s album. No King letter anywhere.

Yet its lack of authenticity hasn’t prevented it from having a long shelf-life. Not only does it pop up in the Schneier book, but sections of it were read by the Anti-Defamation League’s Michael Salberg in testimony before a House Subcommittee in July of 2001, and all manner of pro-Israel groups (from traditional Zionists to right-wing Likudites, to Christians who support ingathering Jews to Israel so as to prompt Jesus’ return), have used the piece on their websites.

In truth, King appears never to have made any public comment about Zionism per se; and the only known statement he ever made on the topic, made privately to a handful of people, is a far cry from what he is purported to have said in the so-called “Letter to an Anti-Zionist friend.” In 1968, according to Seymour Martin Lipset, King was in Boston and attended a dinner in Cambridge along with Lipset himself and a number of black students. After the dinner, a young man apparently made a fairly harsh remark attacking Zionists as people, to which King responded: “Don’t talk like that. When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking Anti-Semitism.” Assuming this quote to be genuine, it is still far from the ideological endorsement of Zionism as theory or practice that was evidenced in the phony letter.

After all, to respond to a harsh statement about individuals who are Zionists with the warning that such language is usually a cover for anti-Jewish bias is understandable. More than that, the comment was no doubt true for most, especially in 1968. It is a statement of opinion as to what people are thinking when they say a certain thing. It is not a statement as to the inherent validity or perfidy of a worldview or its effects.

Likewise, consider the following analogous dualism: first, that “opposition to welfare programs is forever racism,” and secondly, that “when people criticize welfare recipients, they mean blacks. This is racism.”

Whereas the latter statement may be true--and studies would tend to suggest that it is--the former is a matter of ideological conviction, largely untestable, and thus more tendentious than its counterpart. In any event, as with the King quotes--both fabricated and genuine--the truth of the latter says nothing about the truth or falsity of the former.

So yes, King was quick to admonish one person who expressed hostility to Zionists as people. But he did not claim that opposition to Zionism was inherently anti-Semitic. And for those who criticize Zionism today and who like me are Jewish, to believe that we mean to attack Jews, as Jews, when we speak out against Israel and Zionism is absurd.

As for King’s public position on Israel, it was quite limited and hardly formed a cornerstone of his worldview. In a meeting with Jewish leaders a few weeks before his death, King noted that peace for Israelis and Arabs were both important concerns. According to King, “peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, i

[Edited by - PresIke on 07-23-2006 1:35 PM]
Forum Po Po and #33 for a reason...
Killa4luv
Posts: 27768
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
7/23/2006  1:30 PM
Posted by martin:
Posted by Killa4luv:
Posted by Nalod:

Killa, you can argue semantics but what we are talking about is taking sides.


At some point you gotta take sides. If you anti Israel, just be with it. You might be a minority in that, but its you point. If your gonna try to convince us otherwise is a waste of time.

Nalod, I don't think you have to encourage me to take sides here. I came on here proclaiming Israel is a facist state. I stand by that. I provide proof of noncompliance with UN resolutions, racist Zionist quotes from Israeli prime ministers, and sound logic. All I get back is 'take sides'?

you proved Israel is a facist state but you also proved that every other country that engages in war is also a facist state, so you ain't saying much.

My question still holds, who isn't a facist state that enages in war and is held up against the Geneva convention?
Martin this is a question that could be someone's dissertation. The breadth of the claim you are making is so broad, how do I attempt to answer this?

The original question was, when has one country invaded another and not blown up their infrastructure and targetted civilians in violation of the geneva convention and other intnl human rights treaties? And the logic is, if all invading powers do in fact violate those provisions, than they are in fact all guilty. Yes, I agree with that completely.

But I think a clearer response would be that after WWII it is difficult to find a legitmate invasion of one country by another. I am certainly having trouble thinking of even one example where 1 country had the legitmate right to invade another after WWII. Perhaps you can point to one example and we can discuss that. But, if we can assume that no country since WWII has legitmatlely invaded another, than we can say that yes, Israel is no different than countries who have invaded others, and they are all reprehensible in terms of their invasions and subsequent human rights violations. However, I can't be held accountable to determine if every invasion has bombed the invaded country's infrastructure. If we can agree that the invasions themselves were illegitmate to begin with, then what flows after those invasions are all essentially illegal acts, and the bombing of infrastructure (ie targetting civilians) is just a more egregious follow up act.
PresIke
Posts: 27671
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/26/2001
Member: #33
USA
7/23/2006  1:46 PM
The latest article from one of the most well respected journalists out there, who colorfl1 you should know, is also one of the few big writers in the mainstream press to bring up the genocide in Darfur on a consistent basis.

July 23, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Spanish Lessons for Israel
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
In 1982, many friends of Israel vigorously supported its invasion of Lebanon, arguing that it was only assuring its own security.

In retrospect, though, that assault undermined the long-term security of Israel. The invasion spawned Hezbollah, whose perceived success in driving Israel out of Lebanon encouraged Hamas and other Palestinian groups to adopt more violent tactics.

Today again, Israel believes that it is improving its long-term security by attacking Lebanon. And once again, I believe, that will prove counterproductive.

Israel is likely to kill enough Lebanese to outrage the world, increase anti-Israeli and anti-American attitudes, nurture a new generation of anti-Israeli guerrillas, and help hard-liners throughout the region and beyond. (Sudan’s cynical rulers, for example, will manipulate Arab outrage to gain cover to continue their genocide in Darfur.) But Israel is unlikely to kill more terrorists than it creates.

More broadly, one reason this bombardment — like the invasion in 1982 — is against Israel’s own long-term interest has to do with the way terrorism is likely to change over the next couple of decades.

In the past, terror attacks spilled blood and spread fear, but they did not challenge the survival of Israel itself. At some point, though, militant groups will recruit teams of scientists and give them a couple of years and a $300,000 research budget, and the result will be attacks with nerve gas, anthrax, or “dirty bombs” that render areas uninhabitable for years.

All this suggests that the only way for Israel to achieve security is to reach a final peace agreement, involving the establishment of a Palestinian state (because states can be deterred more easily than independent groups like Hamas). Such an agreement is not feasible now, but it might be five or 15 years from now. Israel’s self-interest lies in doing everything it can to make such a deal more likely — not in using force in ways that strengthen militants and make an agreement less likely.

It’s certainly true that if America were raided by a terror group next door, we would respond just as Israel has. When Pancho Villa attacked a New Mexico town in 1916, we sent troops into Mexico. But that expedition was a failure (just as our invasion of Iraq has been, at least so far).

On the other hand, there are two democracies that endured constant and brutal terrorism and eventually defeated it. Neither Spain nor Britain was in a situation quite like Israel’s (Palestinian terrorists have been more brutal in attacking civilians), but they still offer useful lessons. And both the Northern Ireland and Basque problems were often considered insoluble a couple of decades ago, perhaps even more than those in the Middle East today.

Spain could have responded to terror attacks by sending troops into the Basque country, or by bombing the sanctuaries that ETA guerrillas used just across the border in France. (France was blasé about being used as a terrorist base.) Instead, Spain gave autonomy to the Basque country and restrained itself through gritted teeth, over the objections of those who thought this was appeasement.

Likewise, Britain endured constant bombings by the I.R.A., which enjoyed support in both Ireland and the U.S. and obtained weapons and Semtex plastic explosive from Libya.

Yet Margaret Thatcher didn’t bomb Dublin (or Boston), nor even the offices of the I.R.A.’s political wing in Northern Ireland. When she saw that Britain’s harsh tactics were strengthening support for the I.R.A., the Iron Lady moderated her approach and negotiated the landmark Anglo-Irish agreement of 1985. At the time, that agreement was widely denounced as rewarding terrorists and showing weakness.

Frankly, neither British nor Spanish restraint was a huge or immediate success. Spain had hoped that democracy would end Basque terrorism; instead, it increased. And Mrs. Thatcher acknowledges in her memoirs that her results were “disappointing.”

Yet in retrospect, the softer approach gave London and Madrid the moral high ground and slowly — far too slowly — isolated terrorists and made a negotiated outcome more feasible. That’s why Britain and Spain are today peaceful, against all odds.

That admirable restraint should be the model for Israel, with the aim of making a comprehensive peace agreement more likely — in 2010 or 2020 if not in 2007. The record of Spain and Britain suggests that restraint and conciliation can seem maddeningly ineffective — but they are still the last, best hope for peace.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
Forum Po Po and #33 for a reason...
PresIke
Posts: 27671
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/26/2001
Member: #33
USA
7/23/2006  1:47 PM
And his article from the other day:

July 18, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Feeding the Enemy
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
One of the broader tragedies in the Middle East is “the boomerang syndrome.”

Impatient Arabs backed violence and thus put Ariel Sharon and now Ehud Olmert into power, while utterly discrediting Israeli doves. Some Arabs seethed at their daily discomforts, and so they backed provocations that are now vastly multiplying the suffering in Gaza and Lebanon alike.

I’m afraid that impatient Israelis may now be falling into the same trap. Israelis, outraged by attacks and kidnappings, have escalated the conflict by launching an assault on Lebanon that may make life in Israel far more dangerous for many years to come.

It’s easy to sympathize with Israeli outrage, particularly since the attacks on it follow its withdrawals first from Lebanon and then from Gaza. But the winners in this conflict, in the medium to long term, are likely to be hard-liners throughout the Islamic world.

The Iranian and Syrian regimes are illegitimate, incompetent and unpopular, but they may be able to exploit anger at the television images from Lebanon into a longer lease on life for themselves. Pakistani extremists will be strengthened in their calls for jihad. In Sudan, President Omar Hassan al-Bashir will rally popular anger to resist U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur. In Iraq, sympathy for Lebanese Shiites may strengthen Iraq’s own extremist Shiite militias.

Meanwhile, it’s not clear what Israel can achieve militarily in Lebanon. The 12,000 missiles controlled by Hezbollah are not kept in arsenals, but in unmarked homes and garages, so it’s uncertain that Israel will be able to destroy very many. If Israel continues with a limited air war for a couple of weeks, it will produce enough television footage of bleeding Lebanese to anger the world, but not enough to achieve any substantial shift in power on the ground.

Until this month, Hezbollah had been on the defensive in Lebanon. It was under pressure to disarm and was resented as a pawn of Syria and Iran. Al Qaeda had even tried to assassinate its leader, Hassan Nasrallah.

But now Sheik Nasrallah, one of the canniest politicians in the region, has kidnapped not only Israeli soldiers but the Middle East conflict. He may well emerge with more credibility than ever among Sunnis as well as Shiites.

A rule of thumb in the Middle East is that anyone who makes confident predictions is too dogmatic to be worth listening to. Maybe I’m wrong and Israel will achieve its short-term security goals, for it’s conceivable that the warfare will galvanize the U.N. Security Council — and Lebanon itself — to disarm Hezbollah. But there’s also the longer term to worry about, and the fury at Israel will be much harder to dismantle than Katyusha rockets.

I hitchhiked through Lebanon and the region while a student in 1982, shortly after the Israeli invasion. Though Syria had recently massacred some 10,000 to 20,000 of its people in Hama — the center of town was rubble — most Arabs weren’t exercised about Syrians killing Syrians, they were enraged by Israelis killing Arabs. That may not be fair, but that’s reality: Sheik Nasrallah’s power today arises in part from Israeli bombing back in 1982.

Likewise, the sheik’s radical successor in 2030 will be empowered in part because of Israeli bombings in 2006.

“It is simple to join emotionally in George Bush’s culture war against the axis of evil,” editorialized Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, “but it must be remembered that, at the end of the day, it is the citizens of Israel and not the Americans who have to continue living in the Middle East. Therefore, we have to think of ways that will make it possible for us to coexist, even with those we do not enjoy being with.”

Plenty of experience shows that Israel can’t deter private terror networks, but that it can deter states. Syria, for example, despises Israel but doesn’t launch rockets or kidnap soldiers. So Israel might benefit from firmer states in Lebanon and Gaza that actually control their territories. Instead, the latest Israeli offensives foster anarchy to both the north and the south, potentially nurturing militant groups that are not subject to classical deterrence.

If Israel is ever to achieve real security, we have a pretty good idea how it will be achieved: the kind of two-state solution reached in the private Geneva accord of 2003 between Arab and Israeli peaceniks. The fighting in Lebanon pushes that possibility even farther away — and in that sense, each bombing mission harms Israel’s future as well as Lebanon’s.



Home
World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Automobiles Back to Top
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
Forum Po Po and #33 for a reason...
colorfl1
Posts: 20781
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/6/2004
Member: #731
Canada
7/23/2006  1:48 PM
You are not reading my posts... killing of innocents is a horrible evil...

the problem with saying that "Of course, Arab states use their power where they find it useful. So does the U.S..."


I draw the distiction between parties that try to avoid civilian casualties and parties that intentionally attach civilians... this was all covered...

we cannot agree because in your relativistic weltschang... there is no difference between Israel, the US and other democracies and some of the most corrupt despots and regimes... your statements put Iran and the US on similar footing...
I cannot in good conscience condone that kind of rhetoric... again, I respect your perspective and convictions... but you have lost all credability in trying to pass yourself of as a moderate in this debate... when faced with a world in peril, I for one trust the conscience of the US before that of Iran, Libia, Russia, China, France, Spain, Italy, China etc...

In the history of the world's civilizations, the US has the unique stature of an exporter of freedom and democracy.. (the US is not a panecea, but it is a democracy comprised of mostly well meaning people and leaders who really do want to do the right thing... that does not mean that they do not often have to choose between the lesser of two evils... but I for one cannot put the US in the same moral compass as countries like Russia, China, France etc.

I guess, I have the ability to admire the uniqueness of the US from afar...
colorfl1
Posts: 20781
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/6/2004
Member: #731
Canada
7/23/2006  1:55 PM
Posted by PresIke:

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-01/20wise.cfm

January 20, 2003

Fraud Fit For A King: Israel, Zionism, And The Misuse Of Mlk

By Tim Wise

Reread my post. I already mentioned a hoax, but the quote I posted is varified!

These are not the writtings of a moderate voice, I do not think you are aiding your cause...
simrud
Posts: 23392
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/13/2003
Member: #474
USA
7/23/2006  1:58 PM
I can provide you with plenty of examples of post-WWII wars involved systematic bombing of infrastructure targerts by both sides. First the Korean war comes to mind, where both sides blastes away at Southern and Northern Korean targets that would be considered infrastructure.

Vietnam for US and Afghanistan for Soviet Union involved massive destruction of infrastucture targets by both US and Soviets and their adversareis.

Any African war invovled the same thing. Where was UN when millions were dying in Biafra as the muslim Nigerain government first sponsored a genocide all across the country against Christian Ibo and Ibebes, and than when they ran to their homeland and declared independence from the state that massacred them, the muslim government, backed btw by every country but Israel who supported the Biafran rebels, proceeded to massarce an untold number of Ibos and Ibebes and their other Christain allies.

The US invasion of Panama comes to mind.

I invite you bring up any war that happened after WWII and examine it, and you'll see that both sides attacked eath others infrastructure. That is what happens in war. That is why war is a terrible thing. That is why Hizbollah should be disamred, and it was, according to the agreement and a UN resolutoin, this one particular war would not be happenining.

And for the last time, Jews have just as much claim to the land Israel it not more. It was our land before Romans moved us from their by force, and encouraged others to settle in the freed up area. That was a common Roman practice against natoins that refused to submit to Roman rule on multiple ocasions. But ofcorse, you only care about history if its 50 years old an no more.
A glimmer of hope maybe?!?
O.T. War in the middle East...

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy