“Elliot Abrams’ Uncivil War,” by Conflicts Forum

Conflicts Forum's editor, Paul Woodward, who also manages the excellent "War in Context" just sent me CF's excellent report of the Abrams' plan for promoting civil war in Palestine. It ties in with Syria Comment's tea-reading exercise in which we argued the Bush administration would finance and arm surrogates to fight their wars in the region. Evidently, MEPI money is being funneled toward this democracy promotion project. Perhaps this helps explain why the MEPI Syria report was leaked to Adam Zagorin of Time magazine.

Elliot Abrams’ uncivil war

Is the Bush administration violating the law in an effort to provoke a Palestinian civil war?

Deputy National Security Advisor, Elliott Abrams — who Newsweek recently described as “the last neocon standing” — has had it about for some months now that the U.S. is not only not interested in dealing with Hamas, it is working to ensure its failure. In the immediate aftermath of the Hamas elections, last January, Abrams greeted a group of Palestinian businessmen in his White House office with talk of a “hard coup” against the newly-elected Hamas government — the violent overthrow of their leadership with arms supplied by the United States. While the businessmen were shocked, Abrams was adamant — the U.S. had to support Fatah with guns, ammunition and training, so that they could fight Hamas for control of the Palestinian government.

Rice Welch AbramsWhile those closest to him now concede the Abrams’ words were issued in a moment of frustration, the “hard coup” talk was hardly just talk. Over the last twelve months, the United States has supplied guns, ammunition and training to Palestinian Fatah activists to take on Hamas in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank. A large number of Fatah activists have been trained and “graduated” from two camps — one in Ramallah and one in Jericho. The supplies of rifles and ammunition, which started as a mere trickle, has now become a torrent (Haaretz reports the U.S. has designated an astounding $86.4 million for Abu Mazen’s security detail), and while the program has gone largely without notice in the American press, it is openly talked about and commented on in the Arab media — and in Israel. Thousands of rifles and bullets have been poring into Gaza and the West Bank from Egypt and Jordan, the administration’s designated allies in the program.

At first, it was thought, the resupply effort (initiated under the guise of “assist[ing] the Palestinian Authority presidency in fulfilling PA commitments under the road map to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism and establish law and order in the West Bank and Gaza,” according to a U.S. government document) would strengthen the security forces under the command of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Officials thought that the additional weapons would easily cow Hamas operatives, who would meekly surrender the offices they had only recently so dearly won. That has not only not happened, but the program is under attack throughout the Arab world — particularly among America’s closest allies.

While both Egypt and Jordan have shipped arms to Abu Mazen under the Abrams program (Egypt recently sent 1,900 rifles into Gaza and the West Bank, nearly matching the 3000 rifles sent by the Jordanians), neither Jordan’s King Abdullah nor Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak believe the program will work — and both are now maneuvering to find a way out of it. “Who can blame them?” an administration official told us recently. “While Mubarak has no love for Hamas, they do not want to be seen as bringing them down. The same can be said for Jordan.” A Pentagon official was even more adamant, cataloguing official Washington’s nearly open disdain for Abrams’ program. “This is not going to work and everyone knows it won’t work. It is too clever. We’re just not very good at this. This is typical Abrams stuff.” This official went on to note that “it is unlikely that either Jordan or Egypt will place their future in the hands of the White House. Who the hell outside of Washington wants to see a civil war among Palestinians? Do we really think that the Jordanians think that’s a good idea. The minute it gets underway, Abdullah is finished. Hell, fifty percent of his country is Palestinian.”

Senior U.S. Army officers and high level civilian Pentagon officials have been the most outspoken internal administration critics of the program, which was unknown to them until mid-August, near the end of Israel’s war against Hezbollah. When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld learned about it he was enraged, and scheduled a meeting with President Bush in an attempt to convince him the program would backfire. Rumsfeld was concerned that the anti-Hamas program would radicalise Muslim groups among American allies and eventually endanger U.S. troops fighting Sunni extremists in Iraq. According to our reports, Rumsfeld was told by Bush that he should keep his focus on Iraq, and that “the Palestinian brief” was in the hands of the Secretary of State. After this confrontation, Rumsfeld decided there was not much he could do.

The Abrams program was initially conceived in February of 2006 by a group of White House officials who wanted to shape a coherent and tough response to the Hamas electoral victory of January. These officials, we are told, were led by Abrams, but included national security advisors working in the Office of the Vice President, including prominent neo-conservatives David Wurmser and John Hannah. The policy was approved by Condoleezza Rice. The President then, we are told, signed off on the program in a CIA “finding” and designated that its implementation be put under the control of Langley. But the program ran into problems almost from the beginning. “The CIA didn’t like it and didn’t think it would work,” we were told in October. “The Pentagon hated it, the US embassy in Israel hated it, and even the Israelis hated it.” A prominent American military official serving in Israel called the program “stupid” and “counter-productive.” The program went forward despite these criticisms, however, though responsibility for its implementation was slowly put in the hands of anti-terrorism officials working closely with the State Department. The CIA “wriggled out of” retaining responsibility for implementing the Abrams plan, we have been told. Since at least August, Rice, Abrams and U.S. envoy David Welch have been its primary advocates and the program has been subsumed as a “part of the State Department’s Middle East initiative.” U.S. government officials refused to comment on a report that the program is now a part of the State Department’s “Middle East Partnership Initiative,” established to promote democracy in the region. If it is, diverting appropriated funds from the program for the purchase of weapons may be a violation of Congressional intent — and U.S. law.

The recipients of U.S. largesse have been Palestinian President Abu Mazen and Mohammad Dahlan, a controversial and charismatic Palestinian political leader from Gaza. The U.S. has also relied on advice from Mohammad Rashid, a well-known Kurdish/Palestinian financier with offices in Cairo. Even in Israel, the alliance of the U.S. with these two figures is greeted with almost open derision. While Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has hesitantly supported the program, many of his key advisors have made it clear that they want to have nothing to do with starting a Palestinian civil war. They also doubt whether Hamas can be weakened. These officials point out that, since the beginning of the program, Hamas has actually gained in strength, in part because its leaders are considered competent, transparent, uncorrupt and unwilling to compromise their ideals — just the kinds of democratically elected leaders that the Bush Administration would want to support anywhere else in the Middle East.

Of course, in public, Secretary Rice appears contrite and concerned with “the growing lawlessness” among Palestinians, while failing to mention that such lawlessness is exactly what the Abrams plan was designed to create. “You can’t build security forces overnight to deal with the kind of lawlessness that is there in Gaza which largely derives from an inability to govern,” she said during a recent trip to Israel. “Their [the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority] inability to govern, of course, comes from their unwillingness to meet international standards.” Even Middle East experts and State Department officials close to Rice consider her comments about Palestinian violence dangerous, and have warned her that if the details of the U.S. program become public her reputation could be stained. In fact, Pentagon officials concede, Hamas’s inability to provide security to its own people and the clashes that have recently erupted have been seeded by the Abrams plan. Israeli officials know this, and have begun to rebel. In Israel, at least, Rice’s view that Hamas can be unseated is now regularly, and sometimes publicly, dismissed.

According to a December 25 article in the Israeli daily Haaretz, senior Israeli intelligence officials have told Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that not only can Hamas not be replaced, but that its rival, Fatah, is disintegrating. Any hope for the success of an American program aimed at replacing Hamas, these officials argued, will fail. These Israeli intelligence officials also dismissed Palestinian President Abu Mazen’s call for elections to replace Hamas — saying that such elections would all but destroy Fatah. As Haaretz reported: “Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin told the cabinet Sunday [December 24] that should elections be held in the Palestinian Authority, Fatah’s chances of winning would be close to zero. Diskin said during Sunday’s weekly cabinet meeting that the Fatah faction is in bad shape, and therefore Israel should expect Hamas to register a sweeping victory.”

Apparently Jordan’s King Abdullah agrees. On the day this article appeared, December 25, Abdullah kept Palestinian President Abu Mazen waiting for six hours to see him in Amman. Eventually, Abdullah told Abu Mazen that he should go home — and only come to see him again when accompanied by Hamas leader and Palestinian Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh. Most recently, Saudi officials have welcomed Haniyeh to Saudi Arabia for talks, having apparently made public their own views on the American program to replace Hamas. And so it is: one year after the election of Hamas, and one year after Elliot Abrams determined that sowing the seeds of civil war among a people already under occupation would somehow advance America’s program for democracy in the Middle East, respect for America’s democratic ideals has all but collapsed — and not just in Iraq.

Comments (79)

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

51. Akbar Palace said:

Ehsani2 said:

“Next time you post, try to avoid the mention of “exporting terrorism”.”


I think it would be easier if you write what you want and I do the same. This isn’t Syria Habibi.

Looks like the bees are busy in Lebanon…


Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 9th, 2007, 5:13 pm


52. Atassi said:

Syrian opposition’s Kilo to go on trial Jan 23

9 January 2007
Agence France Presse
Copyright Agence France-Presse, 2007 All reproduction and presentation rights reserved.

DAMASCUS, Jan 9, 2007 (AFP) –

Leading opposition figure and writer Michel Kilo is to go on trial on January 23 before a criminal court in the Syrian capital, defence lawyer Khalil Maatuk said Tuesday.

Kilo and communist activist Mahmud Issa both lost appeals in December for charges against them to be dropped for allegedly publishing false information and provoking dissent.

Issa will go on trial the same day, along with two other activists, Khalil Hussein and Suleiman al-Shummar, who are on the run, Maatuk said.

Kilo and Issa were arrested in May along with eight others for signing a petition calling for Syrian recognition of Lebanon’s independence.

They were accused of provoking religious and racial dissent, insulting official institutions, trying to “weaken national sentiment,” damaging the image of the state and exposing Syria to the danger of aggression, the National Organisation for Human Rights in Syria said.

Issa is also charged with inciting a foreign country to attack Syria, it said.

The trial of lawyer Anwar Bunni, who was arrested with Kilo and Issa, opened in October and is due to resume on January 21. The other seven arrested last May were released.

“In 2006 the net closed in” on the opposition, Bunni told AFP by telephone from his prison near Damascus, referring to a crackdown after a brief period of political openness.

“There was a wave of arrests, travel bans, Internet sites blocked, and torture (in prisons) continued,” said Bunni, who has spent almost the past eight months behind bars.

He called for the release of political prisoners and the scrapping of emergency laws in force since 1963, and urged the UN human rights commission and Security Council to press for human rights in Syria to be respected.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 9th, 2007, 5:52 pm


53. t_desco said:

MI chief: Al-Qaida militants sent to Lebanon to attack UNIFIL

Dozens to hundreds of Al-Qaida militants have arrived in Lebanon from Iraq and Pakistan in order to carry out terrorist attacks on UNIFIL forces and other western elements in Lebanon, Military Intelligence chief Major General Amos Yadlin said on Tuesday.

According to Yadlin, the organization ordered its militants to disperse in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt in order to carry out attacks there.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 9th, 2007, 8:23 pm


54. Alex said:

very interesting and refreshing:

Prime Minister: Unilateralism policy has been a failure

By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently expressed his disappointment with the results of Israel’s two unilateral withdrawals, saying that the violence that broke out in both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip in recent months convinced him that there is no point in any future unilateral moves of this kind.

In an interview with the Chinese news agency Xinhua prior to his departure Monday for a three-day visit to China, the prime minister said that he believes in the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. In order to achieve this, he added, Israel will have to withdraw from a large part of the territories that it controls today, and “we are ready to do this.”

“A year ago, I believed that we would be able to do this unilaterally,” the prime minister said, referring to a withdrawal from the West Bank. “However, it should be said that our experience in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip is not encouraging. We pulled out of Lebanon unilaterally, and see what happened. We pulled out of the Gaza Strip completely, to the international border, and every day they are firing Qassam rockets at Israelis.”

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 9th, 2007, 8:56 pm


55. 3antar said:

Akbar Palace said:
“Be careful what you wish for. Looks like the hard-left in the US congress isn’t going to stand for Islamofascist nuclear states either…”

as usual, you rush into labelling people and build your argument on lack of understanding. i guess this puts your mind at ease. here:


Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 9th, 2007, 9:23 pm


56. ugarit said:

It’s so funny that Akbar thinks that Kerry represents the far-left. Kerry would be considered centrist even in Israel. Ah but I forgot that we’re in the USA where the knowledge base of the average person is quite atrocious.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 9th, 2007, 10:53 pm


57. Akbar Palace said:


Who are your favorite centrist and/or leftist politicians in Syria?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 9th, 2007, 11:30 pm


58. majedkhaldoun said:

Isreal is the cause of all evil in the world

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 10th, 2007, 12:37 am


60. Akbar Palace said:

majedkhaldoun said,

“Isreal is the cause of all evil in the world”

Evidently, majedkhaldoun is a student of Al-Queda and Ahmadinejad (did I miss anyone).


Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 10th, 2007, 5:15 am


61. Alex said:


Calling everyone you do not like “a terrorist” is not much better than “Israel is the cause of all evil in the world”

Anyway, I will not get into that, I wanted to continue with yesterday’s topic (Iran): So from your answer earlier, do I assume that you are not too concerned that Iran will go for a mutual suicide with Israel (by actually using hte bomb)but will instead only rely its new status to be able to act very confident (or arrogant).

So there is no real nuclear danger on Israel, is there?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 10th, 2007, 5:21 am


62. Alex said:

Here is something insteresting:


But of course the Americans and the french refused .. they belive it is not good to name suspects or suspect countries … except in the case of Syria where it was OK to name it 1 minute after Hariri was killed.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 10th, 2007, 5:22 am


63. MSK said:

Dear IDAF,

You titled your post (& the link) “Finally, Syria has decided to let in the Palestinians refugees from Iraq”, but the article you linked doesn’t state or talk about that at all.

The article is about the establishment of a camp for Palestinians from Iraq who are already in Damascus.

There is nothing in the article that suggests that those stranded at Tanaf (Iraqi-Syrian border) have been allowed into the country.


I agree with you about the general hospitality of Syrian citizens, but have a few comments about your rather …. let’s say “interesting” version of history:

– Iraqi Christians do not choose Iraq ’cause, well, there’s a Civil War there & Jordan has, after taking in huge numbers of refugees, been closed. Most Iraqi Christians actually leave for the West.

– Could you please elaborate on your claim that “even Jews chose Damascus and Aleppo as their most preferred refuge in the region (centuries before the creation of Israel)”? When was that? And why would they seek refuge – from whom and/or where? There were many more Jews in Baghdad and Cairo (not to speak of Constantinople or cities in Persia) than in Damascus/Aleppo.

– Armenians did not “flee to Syria”. They were deported en masse in 1915/16 from their places of habitation in what is now eastern Turkey southward, towards the Syrian desert where they were supposed to have been put in camps. Most of those who survived that process (in which about 800,000 to 1.5 million died) actually ended up in what is now Lebanon or abroad, not in what is now Syria. Feel free to talk to the Armenians in Aleppo about that.

– Circassians (in Arabic “Sharkas”) were settled by Sultan Abd al-Hamid in what is now Syria & Jordan along the railroad tracks in some kind of guardian settlements, so they would protect the railroad against attacks. There was little choice those Circassians had. Nor were the original inhabitants asked whether they wanted to be “hospitable”. Of course, most of those areas were sparsely settled anyway.

– Chechens: Same story as for Circassian. They are from the same region (Caucasus region, that saw many of its Muslim inhabitants migrate into the Ottoman Empire after the Russian conquest & subsequent put-down of local rebellions).

– Turkish Kurds: When did Kurds from Turkey migrate to Syria? Or are you talking about Kurds from Qamishle who moved to Damascus? Those didn’t get “taken in by Syrians” but instead already lived in the area for millenia.

– Iraqi Kurds either fall under the same category as other post-2003 Iraqi refugees OR were given an abode by the Syrian regime during the pre-2003 era in the context of the Assad-Saddam enmity.

Dear Josh,

I recommend that you put up a list of basic readings for all those interested in the history of Syria and the region. Many of the comments & debates here are based on half-information, semi-truths, and a very simple & ideologically tweaked “knowledge” of history.



Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 10th, 2007, 10:16 am


64. Akbar Palace said:

“So from your answer earlier, do I assume that you are not too concerned that Iran will go for a mutual suicide with Israel (by actually using hte bomb)but will instead only rely its new status to be able to act very confident (or arrogant).”

Alex –

I am VERY concerned “that Iran will go for a mutual suicide with Israel”. But I cannot predict what will actually happen.

There are a number of countries that have nuclear capability. And most of those countries that have this capability have stable, responsible government, except for 2 or 3:

North Korea, Iran, and possibly Pakistan and/or Russia.

Iran’s statements and actions could be a bluff, or it may not be. Ahmadinejad is an anti-semite who is leading a theocratic Islamic state to “wipe Israel off the map”. Of course, he is not be the first tyrant to have such a national policy, so I suppose because we Jews have learned enough from history to take these tyrants seriously. He will be watched rather closely, unfortunately.

Believe it or not, there is a very real nuclear danger on Israel. Isolating Iran is not just an exercise for fun and games. Just ask the Saudis.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 10th, 2007, 12:09 pm


65. t_desco said:

CIA gets the go-ahead to take on Hizbollah

The Central Intelligence Agency has been authorised to take covert action against Hizbollah as part of a secret plan by President George W. Bush to help the Lebanese government prevent the spread of Iranian influence. Senators and congressmen have been briefed on the classified “non-lethal presidential finding” that allows the CIA to provide financial and logistical support to the prime minister, Fouad Siniora.

The finding was signed by Mr Bush before Christmas after discussions between his aides and Saudi Arabian officials. Details of its existence, known only to a small circle of White House officials, intelligence officials and members of Congress, have been passed to The Daily Telegraph.

It authorises the CIA and other US intelligence agencies to fund anti-Hizbollah groups in Lebanon and pay for activists who support the Siniora government. The secrecy of the finding means that US involvement in the activities is officially deniable.

Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, the former Saudi Arabian ambassador to Washington, is understood to have been closely involved in the decision to prop up Mr Siniora’s administration and the Israeli government, which views Iran as its chief enemy, has also been supportive.
Daily Telegraph

Bandar is rumored to become the next Saudi FM:

“Saudis who have intimate knowledge of the discussions regarding the possible reshuffle said Al Faisal, who has had health problems, might be replaced by Crown Prince Sultan’s son Prince Bandar, a former ambassador to Washington and current secretary of the National Security Council.”

Neo-cons are still calling the shots. Jim Lobe on deputy national security adviser J D Crouch II:

The superhawk behind the surge
Asia Times

Russia, US differ on states impeding Lebanon probe

Russia wants the U.N. Security Council to find out which nations are not cooperating fully with an investigation into political murders in Lebanon, Moscow’s U.N. ambassador said on Tuesday.

But France and the United States, among other Western council members, disagree with putting such a request to Serge Brammertz … .

Whom are they protecting?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 10th, 2007, 12:18 pm


66. ugarit said:

Akbar attempts a digresion: “Who are your favorite centrist and/or leftist politicians in Syria?”

Nice try. Still can’t justify why Kerry is the “far-left”. Pathetic.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 10th, 2007, 12:41 pm


67. MSK said:

Dear all,

just for the record & in order to avoid further misconceptions:

In Iran, the President (right now: Mahmud Ahmadinejad) is NEITHER the head of state NOR the commander-in-chief of the Iranian military or even the Revolutionary Guards. That position is held by the Supreme Leader (right now: Ayatollah Ali Kamenei).


Ahmadinejad can say whatever he wants about foreign policy, but he doesn’t actually have any power to IMPLEMENT it on his own.

And, btw, he is not a tyrant by any stretch of the definition.

AP, I seriously suggest that you at least read the relevant Wiki articles about an issue before making sweeping statements.

On the other hand, playing the role of a troll here means you wouldn’t have to.

I am, AGAIN, asking you why exactly you’re here. And no, “for the same reason as you are” isn’t an answer.


Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 10th, 2007, 1:21 pm


68. 3antar said:

Dear Josh,
MSK said: “I recommend that you put up a list of basic readings for all those interested in the history of Syria and the region. Many of the comments & debates here are based on half-information, semi-truths, and a very simple & ideologically tweaked “knowledge” of history.”

i totally agree … and second the suggestion of list of basic readings. with a short description of each book and its authors background. you owe us this much , god damn it!! only joking.

I would also suggest a list of word definitions. Some honourable members seem to mis-use terms throwing them about randomly without giving the meaning a thought or whether they fits the context. such as , the meaning of “Far Left”, “semitic” and “Islamofascism” and the like. 😉

better yet, how about a quiz everyone has to fill out before participating.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 10th, 2007, 1:48 pm


69. majedkhaldoun said:

since Isreal was founded, the palastinean became refugee,many of them were killed,several wars erupted in the middle east,recently Isreal destroyed part of Beirut killing over thousand lebanese, killing children,IsreaLI PEOPLE(JEWS) PUSH president BUSH TO INVADE iRAQ under false pretexts,they turned out to be fabricated by jews,,the jews terrorist like Akbar palace are the worse terorist in the world,Akbar is terrorist,he is similar to Alqaeda and worse,he and his likes are the cause of evil in the world, Akabar ignore the facts,or twist them, and make false statement,he is projecting his terrorist personality on others,this is how wicked and evil he is.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 10th, 2007, 2:51 pm


70. John Kilian said:

majedkhaldoun said: (January 10th, 2007, 12:37 am / #)

Isreal is the cause of all evil in the world
— end of quote —

I would ask the author to consider who is treated better, an Arab in Israel or a Jew in any Arab country? For all the talk of wanting Israel wiped off the map, there are a lot of Palestinians crying to gain entry into Israel to get work. You can make the case about the Palestinian refugees and military incursions and occupations harming its neighbors, but the real cause of misery for these people is what they do, or fail to do with their opportunities. The leaders with a positive vision for their people have long since settled into peaceful coexistence with Israel. Leaders that care not for the real needs of their people rally support for their failed states by scapegoating the Jewish State.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 10th, 2007, 4:27 pm


71. 3antar said:

John Kilian,
answer to ur question.
“I would ask the author to consider who is treated better, an Arab in Israel or a Jew in any Arab country?”
answer here is a Jew in an Arab country.
Fundamentally speaking, people from the middle east dont have any beef with Jews. The friction arises concerning Israelis or zionists. while Arabs in Israel are mistreated in a blatantly apartheid manner.

“there are a lot of Palestinians crying to gain entry into Israel to get work.”
true, the answer lies in the question. Palestinians need to work and since their territory is strangled and suffocated economically to the point of starvation, they have to “cry to gain entry” in order to eat and drink. thanks to the sanctions imposed by the zionist regime which precedes the election of Hamas. in fact Hamas is the result of policy imposed and further radicalism will awaits further state terrorism.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 10th, 2007, 4:50 pm


72. Akbar Palace said:

MSK & 3ANTAR whine:

“I recommend that you put up a list of basic readings for all those interested in the history of Syria and the region.”

What for? We already know Jews are treated better in the Arab world than Israeli Arabs. And we already know that whatever Ahmadinejad declares, it carries no governmental weight. And we already know Isreal [sic] is “the cause of all evil in the world”.

John Kilian,

Your post above is right on. Obviously, you haven’t been reading enough about Syria and the Middle East.


You and your forum buddies have a lot to learn. You’re lucky I’m here to educate you.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 10th, 2007, 5:24 pm


73. Akbar Palace said:

MSK’s Lesson #1 – Who has more political rights? Iranian Jews or Israeli Muslims?



Please review the material and we’ll quiz you tomorrow…

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 10th, 2007, 5:31 pm


74. ausamaa said:

AKBAR PALCE, what? Is posting on Syria Comment a full time job for you? Your are a Zionist and most of the other participants are staunch anti-Zionists. Same as anyone who thiks that a state built by steal and fire on stolen land to advance the a interests of SINGLE religious group/race is something that is totaly absured. That much must be clear to you. A state whose only option if it wants to survive is to “kiss the hands of the Arabs” and to “try to convince them” that it represents no danger to them and that it would be a peacefull nieghbour and a true contributor, or else it -i.e. if it fails as is apparently happening- it is doomed to go down in history books as another South Africa, Arab Andulsia, or an Ottoman Empire. Israel won in 1967, came almost even in 1973, lost badly in 2000, lost again in Gaza in 2005, and its whole threat and illusion of detternce became a joke during the last summer war in Lebanon? Are you waiting for the Knockout before you zionists wake up to the realities of life. Do you really believe that 5 million profeteers can win against a determined 300 million Arabs and a billion more than a billion Muslim, not to mention the other billions who consider Israel as “mistake in human history”?

Wake up and smell the roses man…

So why are you wasting your time on such a crowd. or do you Enjoy reading your own comments like someone who enjoys looking at himself in the mirror. Is it the attention that you get here that that keeps you going or what?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 10th, 2007, 5:58 pm


75. Ford Prefect said:

Well said, buddy! Leave him/her alone, they usually all go away after a while. They have been at it since 1076. One day, they will wake up and smell the roses. Meanwhile, all they have been smelling is what they deserve to smell.
Good Bless Syria.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 10th, 2007, 6:17 pm


76. Alex said:


I think you exaggerated in eliminating the moved-to-syria-by-choice possibilities .. especially for Armenians (and other Christians who escaped the killing in Turkey), and for Turkish kurds.

For example .. compare the number of Kurds n Hassakai and Qamishli in 1945 to their numbers and percentages today … Qamishly and Hassakai had Kurdish minorities at the time .. now Qamishly is 80-90% Kurdish. And most of these new ones came from Turkey .. escaped to Syria by choice.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 10th, 2007, 7:17 pm


77. John Kilian said:

3antar said: (January 10th, 2007, 4:50 pm / #)
Palestinians need to work and since their territory is strangled and suffocated economically to the point of starvation (endquote)
The occupied territories are considered hostile territory. Arabs in Israel proper enjoy much better circumstances. I am not sure all of the restrictions in the West Bank are justified by legitimate security needs on the part of Israel.

3antar said: (January 10th, 2007, 4:50 pm / #)
Hamas is the result of policy imposed and further radicalism will awaits further state terrorism.(endquote)
The rise of Hamas can be attributed greatly to the desperate circumstances in Palestine. Fatah also earned a reputation for corruption, and this has contributed greatly to the lack of economic development there. In any event, Hamas’s strategy of armed conflict does nothing to alleviate these desperate circumstances. Israel would seem to have an interest in relieving these pressures, and may now regret not having better supported the PA before last year’s elections. Israel’s actions have worked to undermine Fatah and have delivered Hamas an electoral advantage. As we are also seeing in Iraq, the democratic process is no panacea for a society grappling with grave economic challenges.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 10th, 2007, 8:34 pm


78. simohurtta said:

You can make the case about the Palestinian refugees and military incursions and occupations harming its neighbors, but the real cause of misery for these people is what they do, or fail to do with their opportunities.

It is rather astonishing to say like this about people under occupation. Do the people in Bethlehem really control their life surrounded by a 10 meter wall or the people in the slave camp called Gaza? Accusing the people and not the occupation, unbelievable.

One could say why to blame Germans of what happened in Auschwitz-Birkenau etc. The real cause of misery for Jews is what they did, or failed to do with their opportunities. Why did they not move? Certainly you John Killian as I would say that it is not proper to say like that. It is not right to accuse the victim. The occupation is done by Israelis not by Palestinians.

The interesting question is what would Israelis have done if Palestinians would not have resisted? Would Israeli Jews not have annex land and build settlements in West Bank, Gaza and Golan and let Palestinians develop their “economy in peace”? Not even you Kilian believe it would have happened.

Leaders that care not for the real needs of their people rally support for their failed states by scapegoating the Jewish State.

Scapegoating the Jewish state? Are you serious man? Why in UN the votes are all others against Israel, USA and some Pacific island states? The Palestinians and others must be masters of scapegoating. 🙂

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 10th, 2007, 9:02 pm


79. John Kilian said:


Some of the acts of the occupation have needlessly destroyed the infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza. The US has not done enough to address the concern of the Palestinians that the Israeli occupation is a step in the process towards the destruction of the Palestinians. This lack of consideration for the basic human concern for personal security feeds the desperation and lends itself to violent outcomes. I am not here to carry water for the US administration’s failure to address the needs of the Palestinians.

I am thinking more of Syria when I am talking about failed states. The Palestinians in the occupied territories certainly have grievances with Israel, but their leaders, especially Yasser Arafat in the past and Hamas today, have not been willing to meet Israel’s legitimate security needs, and this intransigence has hurt the Palestinians.

I am not saying the building of settlements in the West Bank are justified. At some point, though, peace will require both parties to look beyond the boundaries of the past and accept the new reality on the ground. Israel could become a powerful economic engine for the Palestinians, but only if a peaceful settlement is arrived at.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

January 11th, 2007, 2:55 pm


Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

Post a comment