Meyrav Wurmser “Neocons Expected Israel to Attack Syria”

Neocons: We expected Israel to attack Syria
Ynet, 16 Dec. 2006
by Yitzhak Benhorin
(Thanks to Joe M.)

They are a unified group of American intellectuals, who held key positions in Bush administration and were blamed for getting US into Iraq. Most of them are Jews, so they are obviously accused of risking America in favor of Israel. Israeli Meyrav Wurmser claims that if situation is bad, Israelis are also to blame

WASHINGTON – It hasn't been a good year for neocons, that group of conservative American intellectuals pulling some strings of US policy, particularly during the George W. Bush administration.

The strongest indictment against them is the war in Iraq, a quagmire in which the US is currently stuck up to its neck. And as Bush's days in the White House grow numbered, they are leaving one by one.

Among the few remaining neocons is David Wurmser, an advisor for Vice President Dick Cheney on Middle  Eastern affairs. Wurmser is a Middle East expert, just like his wife, Israeli Meyrav Wurmser, a researcher at the conservative Hudson Institute.

Meyrav Wurmser was also one of the co-founders of MEMRI, which tracks Arab leaders and translating their political statements from Arabic to English.

Despite the fact that many neocons are no longer part of the government, it turns out they're still one big happy family, who make sure to remain in touch.

Many are Jews, who share a love for Israel . Some of the accusations against the government regarding the war in Iraq is that it was undertaken primarily for Israel's sake and that the attack on Iraq was actually an Israeli objective.

In an interview with Ynet, Dr. Meyrav Wurmser refutes the accusations and criticism.

"Since I'm an Israeli in the gang, you wouldn't believe what's been written about me," she said. "That I'm proof of the covert neoconservative connection with Israel and the Mossad."

What are you trying to achieve?

"We believe in a strong and active American foreign policy. America is a good force in the world, a nation that believes in freedom. We believe in exporting American ideas of freedom and democracy, to promote greater stability."

Did you, in practice, bring about the war in Iraq?

"We expressed ideas, but the policy in Iraq was taken out of neocon hands very quickly. The idea was that America has a war on terror and that the only actual place for coping with it is in the Middle East and that a fundamental change would come through a change in leadership. We had to start somewhere.

"The objective was to change the face of the Middle East. But it was impossible to create a mini-democracy amidst a sea of dictatorships looking to destroy this poor democracy, and thus, where do insurgents in Iraq come from? From Iran and Syria ."

Should they have been conquered?

"No. There was a need for massive political action, of threats and pressure on these governments, financial pressure, for example. The sanctions on Syria were nothing. There was a period of time when the Syrians were afraid that they were next. It would have been possible to use this momentum in a smarter way. There's no need to go in militarily."

Everyone feels beaten after last 5 years

At their prime, the neocons held the reigns of American decision making. In the Pentagon, there were Deputy Defense Minister Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith, and Harold Rhode, a senior Pentagon advisor on Islam.

In the vice president's office were Louis Libby and John Hannah. Richard Perle headed the committee advising to the Pentagon. In the White House were Deputy National Security Adviser for Global Democracy Strategy Elliott Abrams and Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, who later became the US ambassador to the UN.

Iraq. Today it's already a disaster

According to Wurmser's description, the group is comprised of academics, most of them lacking operational experience, who became part of the Bush administration but failed to get their ideas through bureaucracy.

"These are intellectuals who came with great ideas, in which I still believe, but did not find a way to promote their beliefs in the complexities of bureaucracy," she says.

Your people held senior positions in the Pentagon. Didn’t Deputy Defense Minister Paul Wolfowitz and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith implement your theories?

"The final decisions were no in their hands. In the Pentagon, the decisions were in the hands of the military, and the political leadership had a lot of clashes with the military leadership."

Did the military leadership ask for more soldiers in Iraq?

"Rumsfeld prevented that. He was a failure. The State Department opposed the neocons' stances. Also John Bolton, who is also part of the family, and was no. 4 at the State Department under Colin Powell, was incapable of passing decisions…

"Powell curbed our ideas and they did not pass. There was a lot of frustration over the years in the administration because we didn’t feel we were succeeding.

"Now Bolton left (the UN – Y.B.) and there are others who are about to leave. This administration is in its twilight days. Everyone is now looking for work, looking to make money… We all feel beaten after the past five years… We miss the peace and quiet and writing books…

"When you enter the administration you have to keep your mouth shut. Now many will resume their writing… Now, from the outside, they will be able to convey all the criticism they kept inside."

In the meantime you left the US inside Iraq?

"We did not bring the US into Iraq in such a way. Our biggest war which we lost was the idea that before entering Iraq we must train an exile Iraqi government and an Iraqi military force, and hand over the rule to them immediately after the occupation and leave Iraq. That was our idea and it was not accepted."

Your man was Ahmed Chalabi, who was later suspected of spying for Iran?

"That is true, but we didn’t want him as a dictator but as a person in a government that will act democratically… We must help the current democratic government. The borders with Iran and Syria should have been blocked immediately when we entered Iraq. Now it's already a disaster."

Why didn’t you attack Syria?

Many of Wurmser's friends believe the disaster is not only in Iraq, but in the entire region. They are also very frustrated over the way in which Israel embarked on the war against Hizbullah this summer, and on the way it returned from it.

"Hizbullah defeated Israel in the war. This is the first war Israel lost," Dr. Wurmser declares.

IDF in Lebanon

Is this a popular stance in the administration, that Israel lost the war?

"Yes, there is no doubt. It's not something one can argue about it. There is a lot of anger at Israel."

What caused the anger?

"I know this will annoy many of your readers… But the anger is over the fact that Israel did not fight against the Syrians. Instead of Israel fighting against Hizbullah, many parts of the American administration believe that Israel should have fought against the real enemy, which is Syria and not Hizbullah."

Did the administration expect Israel to attack Syria?

"They hoped Israel would do it. You cannot come to another country and order it to launch a war, but there was hope, and more than hope, that Israel would do the right thing. It would have served both the American and Israeli interests.

"The neocons are responsible for the fact that Israel got a lot of time and space… They believed that Israel should be allowed to win. A great part of it was the thought that Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hizbullah. It was obvious that it is impossible to fight directly against Iran, but the thought was that its strategic and important ally should be hit."

"It is difficult for Iran to export its Shiite revolution without joining Syria, which is the last nationalistic Arab country. If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow for Iran, that it would have weakened it and changes the strategic map in the Middle East.

"The final outcome is that Israel did not do it. It fought the wrong war and lost. Instead of a strategic war that would serve Israel's objectives, as well as the US objectives in Iraq. If Syria had been defeated, the rebellion in Iraq would have ended."

Wurmser says that what most frustrates her is hearing people close to decision makers in Israel asking her if the US would have let Israel attack Syria.

"No one would have stopped you. It was an American interest. They would have applauded you. Think why you received so much time and space to operate. Rice was in the region and Israel embarrassed her with Qana, and still Israel got more time. Why aren't they reading the map correctly in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem?"

Comments (96)


1. Mike said:

Wow, I’m finding myself somehow surprised by the delusion that this neocon and presumably others like her are controlled by. Imagine if Israel did attack Syria, unprovoked: then Iran, bound by its defense treaty with Syria, would likely have joined Syria in attacking Israel, as would Hezbollah. Does this neocon lady acknowledge this fact, that the most capable guerilla movement (though they are much more than that, and represent a large number of poor Lebanese Shiites in government) as well as two nations, one of which has tons of missiles and a pretty capable source of Revolutionary Guards, would have attacked Israel if Israel invaded Syria? Or is she acknowledging this, but assuming that sheer Israeli power would be able to overcome at least two nations and one guerilla movement?

Either way, this seems not just arrogant on her part but incredibly unrealistic.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 6:23 am

 

2. Shab al-Sham said:

“where do insurgents in Iraq come from? From Iran and Syria.”

Um. Yeah.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 7:57 am

 

3. Alex said:

The Neocons’ strategy in the Middle East makes absolutely no sense except if we assume that the United states (and Israel) are infinitely powerful.

Their strategy was totally contingent on the assumption that America is unstoppable (politically, militarily, and economically).

Ironically, it is thanks to Hizballah, Syria, and Iran … we will hopefully be back to more balanced and more harmonious world order. Just imagine what would have happened next if those “Freedom loving” Neocons succeeded unopposed in the Middle East. Can you imagine the power madness?

But the neocons are not dead … they are making the necessary contacts with Hillary and the others. They will morph into new forms.

We’ll see them again.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 8:14 am

 

4. George Ajjan said:

Alex is correct. Do not be fooled into thinking that this lot is disappointed to see the likes of Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer on the rise.

The American Conservative (one of the fierciest foes of the neocons), covers the neocons past and future in the latest issue with an article entitled “They Only Look Dead”.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 9:58 am

 

5. Ford Prefect said:

In a broader context, however, the neocons have won one of their undeclared objectives: the region must be busy with regular, constant, low level sectarian violence in such a way to prevent the emergence of any viable power in the region that could challenge the West. While the article is projecting the neocons as a bunch on intellectuals lacking “operational” experience, let us not forget that they are no dummies either. There was calculated objective to release the Iraqi army from its duty early on during the conflict in such a way that violence will continue for years to come – eventually dragging Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia into it. Current Iraq is not quagmire as far as the neocons are concerned; this is all part of a well-planned devious line of thinking. They have, unfortunately, succeeded.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 12:17 pm

 

6. Akbar Palace said:

Mike squeaks:

“Imagine if Israel did attack Syria, unprovoked”

Imagine if Israel did attack Syria, PROVOKED?

And Syria’s arming of Hezbollah with tens of thousands of Katyusha missiles that are fired at Israeli population centers is “PROVOKED” in my dictionary.

“Does this neocon lady…”

This “neocon lady” (BTW- the term “neocon” represents the majority of conservative America from Newt Gingrich to Sean Hannity to the late Jeane Kilpatrick to George W. Bush) will be proved correct when the thugs of the ME are finally a thing of the past.

Islamic Fundamentalist sympathizer Alex bellows:

“Ironically, it is thanks to Hizballah, Syria, and Iran … we will hopefully be back to more balanced and more harmonious world order. Just imagine what would have happened next if those “Freedom loving” Neocons succeeded unopposed in the Middle East. Can you imagine the power madness?

We’ll see them again.”

Terror supporting nations like the ones you’ve mentioned will be defeated. Clinging to terrorism instead of feeding your children doesn’t last very long.

Another terrorist sympathizer exclaims:

“Alex is correct. Do not be fooled into thinking that this lot is disappointed to see the likes of Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer on the rise.

The American Conservative (one of the fierciest foes of the neocons), covers the neocons past and future in the latest issue with an article entitled “They Only Look Dead”.”

That’s right. America is pro-Israel for obvious reasons. Meyrav Wurmser didn’t blow up the World Trade Center towers. She didn’t hi-jack 4 commercial airliners, blow up the Pentagon or kill 3000 Americans.

BTW – Before you start crying about those “peace loving” Palestinians, tell us which Palestinian terror organization is at fault with the current crises there: al-Fatah or Hamas? At this point, the Palestinians don’t even deserve a state.

Ford Prefect makes a good point:

“In a broader context, however, the neocons have won one their undeclared objectives”

That’s right. Of course the “neocons” (conservatives) would have preferred the Iraqis to protect themselves better and faster (and they will eventually).

When a foundation is bad, sometimes it pays to destroy the whole building and rebuild it from the ground up.

The democrats are still supporters of Israel and will come to Israel’s defense. They’re just a little mentally handicapped.

In any case, freedom, democracy and peace are coming. Are the Islamofascists and their supporters ready?

BTW – Some Famous, non-jewish “neo-cons” for your files;)

“He has been classified by some on the left as a neoconservative.[6]”

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

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 12:48 pm

 

7. Mike said:

Akbar, I don’t think I disagree so regularly and so strongly with anyone as much as you. I don’t know if you are a bad gimmick or what.

“Mike squeaks:

“Imagine if Israel did attack Syria, unprovoked”

Imagine if Israel did attack Syria, PROVOKED?

And Syria’s arming of Hezbollah with tens of thousands of Katyusha missiles that are fired at Israeli population centers is “PROVOKED” in my dictionary.”

This is basic asymmetric warfare. Syria is responding to having a basically undefined border, which is thanks to Israel holding onto the Golan Heights. This does not, to my mind, constitute a provocation so much as a response to the complete inertia for the past few decades on the Golan issue. Not saying it’s justified, but “arming Hezbollah with missiles” would not justify Israel declaring war on Syria. Anyway, from what we know, most of the logistical backing seems to come from Iran. And anyway, I find it irrelevant to some extent who funds Hezbollah, as they are seen by many in the Middle East as legitimately standing up to Israeli aggression, and defending their Shia population. Just curious, Akbar, but where are you from? You’ve really done a good job of soaking up the neoconservative rhetoric (and you’re wrong, there is a difference between the neoconservatives and conservatives in this country)?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 1:05 pm

 

8. Dubai Jazz said:

There is an unbridled creature in this forum, he should be harnessed and tucked back into its kennel, otherwise everybody is going to suffer a hydrophobia.
I am refering to this who call himself “Akbar Palace”

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 1:07 pm

 

9. Akbar Palace said:

“There is an unbridled creature in this forum, he should be harnessed and tucked back into its kennel, otherwise everybody is going to suffer a hydrophobia.”

Dubai Jazz,

Funny, I feel exactly the same way about terrorists and their supporters.

Mike squeaks again,

“This is basic asymmetric warfare.”

Awww! Syria lost the Golan because she wanted to shell Israeli communities prior to ’67 and then wanted to crush Israel in ’73. And she didn’t succeed. Ohhhh tooooo bad!

We can only hope and pray your terrorist friends will become symmetric one day. Perhaps our fearless terror supporting leaders like Nasrallah and Assad will blow themselves up at an Israeli market and finally defeat the Zionists! (LOL)

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 1:47 pm

 

10. Innocent_Criminal said:

Actually guys I thought about it already but I came to the conclusion that it’s better to keep Akbar barking. Because the more he speaks the more his arguments rip into shreds. He is doing commentators with a different view a favor. So as long as he doesn’t cross certain lines we might have to tolerate his annoying outbursts.

As for the post, I think many of the points expressed are “media conscience”. So she might be deflecting some of the blame away to other administration officials for the failure of the Iraq strategy.

My feeling on the Neocon thinking has been reinforced by Meyrav Wurmser comments. They are either:

1. Inherently “sinister” and hostile towards Arabs with no consideration for peace, democracy or American image and strategic interest in the region. Where the political edge can only be gained through force instead of cooperation.

or

2. Extremely retarded

or

3. both

And God help us if Clinton wins. She is not her husband. Not that there are “better” options on the horizon anyways.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 1:47 pm

 

11. t_desco said:

Thanks for all the kind words and the encouragement. I am perfectly happy with posting in the comments section here and to contribute to our interesting discussions, but I agree that it would be useful to gather and summarize the information in one place. I am thinking about the best way to do that.

Why is the White House so vehemently against talking to Syria and Iran? As unbelievable as it may seem (particularly after the lost elections), is Cheney still thinking about bombing Iran?

Seymour Hersh said so in his article, THE NEXT ACT, published last month.

He correctly predicted that “the conciliatory gesture (of replacing Rumsfeld with Gates; t_d) would not be accompanied by a significant change in policy”.

Steve Clemons reports that the resignation of Saudi Ambassador Prince Turki al-Faisal may have something to do with a possible move against Iran:

“Sources also confirm that Ambassador Turki’s decision to resign not only had to do with his refusal to tolerate the unprofessionalism of Bandar and Massoud — but with the signals that Bandar and Massoud have sent to Cheney, David Addington and others on Cheney’s national security staff that Saudi Arabia would “acquiesce to, accept, and not interfere with” American military action against Iran.

While reports of how far Bandar has gone in supporting Cheney’s desire for military action vary, insiders report that Bandar has “essentially assured” the Vice President that Saudi Arabia could be moved to accept and possibly support American military action against Iran. Another source has reported to me that Bandar himself strongly supports Cheney’s views of a military response to Iran.”

Prince Bandar and Some Saudis Cheerleading for a Bombing Campaign Against Iran?
TPM Café

Clemons also reports that Flynt Leverett was prevented from publishing an op-ed critical of the Bush administration’s Iran policy:

Flynt Leverett Blasts White House National Security Council Censorship of Former White House Officials Critical of Bush Policies
TPM Café

General Clark said on the Diane Rehm Show that the Bush administration was moving in the direction of war with Iran:

“There’s no advantage to anybody in moving toward a war with Iran. We’re not going to occupy Iran. It’s too large. We’re not going to change its culture. It’s too diverse. We’re not going to democratize it. It is not going to be, after a war, converted to a Western-style Democracy. So, therefore why are we moving in this direction?
WesPAC

(my emphasis)

He had earlier commented that “sometime in the spring is more likely the target window” for a possible attack on Iran. (See also this chilling prediction from November.)

Incidentally, Haaretz reported that the ” likelihood” of a conflagration involving Syria and Hizbullah, “with backing from Iran”, was “peaking in the spring-summer months of 2007″:

IDF preparing for another conflict by next summer
Haaretz, November 07, 2006

More recently, right-wing MK Yuval Steinitz declared that “he believes the United States will not settle for sanctions and diplomatic moves, and will eventually attack Iran”.

Steinitz estimates: US will attack Iran
Ynetnews

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 2:16 pm

 

12. Mike said:

I definitely feel that Akbar has crossed this line multiple times in this thread, as he is calling me a terrorist sympathizer. I really don’t appreciate that and don’t think it contributes anything meaningful to this debate. Personally, I would think it’s appropriate to delete comments if they’re just used to spew vitriol and make ad-hominem attacks. Certainly Mr. Landis didn’t create this blog in order for people to level accusations of being terrorist sympathizers, just as he didn’t create this blog (I assume) in order for people on the other side to blindly label pro-Israeli commentators “Zionist scum”.

I certainly sympathize with what you’re saying Innocent Criminal, but in this case and many others I do not see that Akbar is contributing anything remotely meaningful or intelligent to the debate, or if he is it’s skewed by the labels and ad hominem attacks.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 2:22 pm

 

13. John Kilian said:

Akbar,

you said “the term “neocon” represents the majority of conservative America from Newt Gingrich to …” Well, I was watching Newt Gingrich yesterday on national TV savagely critique the President and in particular Paul Bremer for what he called a “failure” in Iraq. He might not be counted as a neocon today. As far as neocons wishing for insolvient states across the region, that certainly is not Gingrich’s approach. He spoke of the need to create an Iraqi solution including the existing sheiks in creating a secure and stable country.

I think we need a new term for conservatives who backed the toppling of Saddam but part ways with the administration shortly thereafter. Maybe post-modern-cons (PMCs)?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 2:40 pm

 

14. Ehsani2 said:

AKBAR PALACE is our good old friend JAM.

I believe that everyone is entitled to express his/her opinion. Calling names and accusing people is of course unnecessary. Akbar/JAM knows fully well that he is going to provoke a strong reaction by his comments. So long as we are all civil, he certainly has the right to follow a totally different script than the mainstream.

My only issue with Akbar/JAM is his Sean Hannity comment. Surely, he could not possibly be a fan or a listener to such light-weight commentary

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 3:04 pm

 

15. John Kilian said:

Ehsani2,
Sean Hannity is indeed a light-weight, especially when placed adjacent to Newt Gingrich. The former Republican Speaker’s attacks on the President (i.e. “Stubborness is not a policy”) on ‘Meet the Press’ suggest erosion for support of current foreign policy extends to every corner of the political map in the US. It suggests that the neocons can not even rely on the conservative Christians who view support of Israel as a religious obligation.
It is shocking to see how far the President has fallen in terms of support for his policy in Iraq. This was like watching Brutus stab Caesar.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 3:47 pm

 

16. Atassi said:

If you love Lebanon, set it free Dealing with Hezbollah
Robert Grenier
18 December 2006
International Herald Tribune
English
© 2006 International Herald Tribune.
Once more, Lebanon is in political crisis. This time, we are told, it pits “Syrian- and Iranian-backed” Shiite parties (Hezbollah and Amal) and the Christian faction led by Michel Aoun against the “Western-backed” Christian, Sunni and Druze groups that support the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

These very descriptions – citing one external backer or another as a mark of political identification – illustrate the fundamental problem Lebanon must overcome. Call it the Lebanese Disease: The Lebanese constantly look to outsiders to gain an advantage over their rivals.

Naturally, any advantages thus gained are short-lived, for both the Lebanese and their foreign backers. In the end, the only result is greater suffering and instability in Lebanon and the entire Middle East.

Only the Lebanese can cure themselves of this disease, but a bit of enlightened self-interest on the part of the “Western backers” – primarily the United States and France – would greatly help. The best hope for U.S. interests in the Middle East is not to isolate and minimize Hezbollah, but to further integrate it politically, socially and militarily into the Lebanese state.

Let’s dial back half a year, to the start of this latest crisis. The immediate reaction of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel to the cross-border attack by Hezbollah on Israeli troops was his most honest. This was not, he said, an act of terrorism – it was an act of war. And, issues of proportionality aside, it was quite justifiable to hold the Lebanese government to account.

The honesty of that initial reaction, however, was quickly replaced by the old formula to which Israel has resorted since 1978. Israel did not intend to attack Lebanon, its spokesmen insisted, but was just trying to help the Lebanese by attacking Iran-controlled Hezbollah. Now let’s try to view this from the perspective of a Lebanese nationalist. To acquiesce to the American-Israeli formula for Lebanon would be to accept that one’s nation should be entirely supine before a neighbor. Thus it should not be surprising that many Lebanese, including Siniora, at least temporarily put aside their mistrust and embraced Hezbollah as the sole available means of resistance. This, along with Hezbollah’s successful resistance, has permanently changed the political calculus of the nation. For one thing, it is harder today to suggest to Lebanese nationalists that Hezbollah is simply a mindless proxy for the Iranians. Throughout the Middle East, religious extremism and Arab nationalism are becoming identical, with the former becoming the only effective means of pursuing the latter. Likewise, Hezbollah’s support of the Syrian presence in Lebanon should be seen less as obeisance to a neighbor than as the cynical price the group must pay to ensure its logistical link with Iran.

As Hezbollah becomes more enmeshed in Lebanese politics, however, domestic political considerations will become increasingly influential in its calculations – a tendency that should be encouraged. The hardship caused to average Lebanese by its recklessness meant that the group’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, had some explaining to do. He quickly admitted that the raid had been a mistake. And his desire for a cease-fire, gained through the external political engagement of Siniora, put the prime minister in a relatively strong position to demand Hezbollah’s cooperation in demonstrating that it was being brought under at least the partial control of the state.

On the other hand, the demonstration of Hezbollah’s ability to resist Israeli forces gave many Lebanese nationalists, even Sunnis, a new desire to preserve the radical group in the service of all Lebanon.

Given a more farsighted leadership, these two factors could have given the Lebanese an impetus to forge a new political compact for the country. It has long been obvious that the Shiites are under- represented in Lebanon’s complicated power-sharing arrangements. In return for a greater measure of political representation for Shiites, Siniora could have insisted that Hezbollah’s militia be brought under some sort of state control.

This sort of overarching agreement would not have been easy to reach, and it would be naive to suppose that somehow the Hezbollah leadership would allow itself to be totally stripped of control of its militia overnight. But its involvement in Lebanese politics since the summer has already brought discernible changes in Hezbollah’s attitudes and behavior. Its leaders understand that if they want to influence the policies of the state, they will have to accommodate the interests of other religious groups and political factions. This change of attitude would, over time, undoubtedly have a moderating effect. Which brings us back to the barricades now dividing the center of Beirut. All sides are indulging themselves in an orgy of historical recrimination. Not only would a civil war be a disaster for all Lebanese, but among the ever-present foreign backers, the United States would lose most.

Tacitly encouraging civil war is seldom wise, and particularly when the side with which one is affiliated cannot win. It should be obvious that American – and Israeli – interests are best served by a unified Lebanese state that has clear control over its people and its territory. How could Washington help this happen? Well, for one thing, Americans should give up talk of greatly enlarging the multinational force in southern Lebanon, and convince the Europeans to do likewise. Second is to end the proxy battles between foreign powers. Last month the White House issued an official statement citing “attempts by Syria, Iran, and their allies within Lebanon to foment instability and violence” and insisting the United States would “continue its efforts with allied nations and democratic forces in Lebanon to resist these efforts.” In other words, the United States is still trying to rile Lebanese sentiment as a wedge against U.S. enemies in the region.

A far more genuine U.S. commitment would focus on helping the parties to come up with a reasonable formula to redress the under- representation of Shiites in the power structure while getting greater government control over Hezbollah’s war-making capacity.

Make no mistake: Hezbollah is no friend to America. But Washington will never achieve its objectives in the Middle East unless it puts emotions aside and deals realistically with facts on the ground. Like it or not, Hezbollah is one of those facts. A less- than-pliable but strong government in Lebanon would be far preferable to no real government at all, which is what we have now.

***

Robert Grenier, a former director of the CIA’s counterintelligence center, is a security consultant.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 4:12 pm

 

17. DUBAI JAZZ said:

I apologize to Dr. Landis and everyone else for my harsh comment above, but this Akbar guy has stepped over the line.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 4:13 pm

 
 

19. majedkhaldoun said:

If you see my previous comments during the war ,I said I was surprised not seeing Isreal and syria were not involved in war,I did not think that Syria should provoke Isreal ,Isreal did not need provoking, USA will support Isreal,even when Isreal is obviously wrong and evil,however Isreal does not want to see change in regime in Syria,Hafez Assad promised Kissinger,in 1973 that it will the last war between Syria and Isreal,it was verbal promise,Isreal happy with Assad regime,Isreal will do anything to prevent Syria from being FRIEND to america,we all remmember in 1955 how the isreali intelligence foiled Munier Ajlani attempted coup by pushing general Afif Bizri to expose Ajlani,(Afif mother was a jew,and spy to Isreal)after the isreali intelligence,having spies on the CIA,learened about Ajlani plan,any goverment in Syria that is pro america, will pose great danger to Isreal.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 4:45 pm

 

20. Ehsani2 said:

JERUSALEM, Dec18, 2006 (Xinhua via COMTEX) — Syria is arming the Hezbollah
guerillas at rapid pace and trying to topple the Lebanese government, head of
Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency said on Monday.

In his briefing of the Knesset (Parliament) Defense and Foreign Affairs
Committee on Monday, Mossad Chief Meir Dagan said there is no indication that
Syria is moving toward peace, according to a local newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth
report.

Dagan said that Syria is now arming itself and Hezbollah at a rapid pace, trying
to topple Siniora’s government, and undermining American presence in Iraq.

About the situation in Lebanon after the war in last summer, Dagan said that
Hezbollah hasn’t been disarmed and keeps its presence in the southern Lebanon,
in coordination with the Lebanese army.

“Hezbollah is unabatedly being armed with missiles, some of which they have
installed north of the Litani. Hezbollah is using all its strength to nullify
Resolution 1701,” Dagan added.

Referring to the Iran issue, Dagan said that Tehran is approaching nuclear
capability. “They have technical problems that they have yet to solve, but no
international pressure is being applied against them at the moment,” Dagan was
quoted as saying.

Dagan also warned of the growing power of al-Qaida, who indicated Israel as a
main target. According to him, “If Iraq crumbles, al-Qaida’s influence on the
moderate regimes will increase.”

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 4:56 pm

 

21. Alex said:

T-Desco,

Thanks again for the info on the Saudi Ambassador.

I think in some way the Bush Administration will have to decide between pleasing its Saudi friends, and engaging Syria. It seems from Farouk Shara’s comments last week that Syria is convinced that Saudi Arabia is actively lobbying against them.

How bad will it have to get for America in the Middle East before Washington can say No to Prince Bandar?

And it is also interesting to monitor the mirrored tactics in both Lebanon and Palestine. When Syria’s freinds in Lebanon ask for early elections hoping to replace the failed Pro-American government, America’s friends in Palestine (Mr. Abbas) went for the same option hoping to remove Syria’s friends, the failing Hamas government.

Who will “succeed”? who will end up in a mini-civil war? … or will they both be left as undecided to be used as pressure tactics by both the Syrians and the Americans and Saudis?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 5:19 pm

 

22. Ford Prefect said:

Before I loose track after reading all good writings from this blog, I want to mention few points in response to Akbar Palace:

1. My original posting here is related to claiming that the neocons objective is to keep the area busy with controlled, low-level violence as to prevent any real power (with the exception of Israel) from emerging.

2. Not all of Israel supporters are necessarily bad. I am one of them: I am a Syrian, born and raised in Syria, and I do support the rights of the Jewish people to exist side-by-side with other inhabitants of the land in a democratic, no-racist society. Many Muslims, Arabs, Syrians, and Israelis support this notion – read Ha’aretz and you will find many of them. So if the Dems support this kind of Israel and Israelis, what is so wrong with that? No one supports racism, bigotry, and needless wars except some fascist neocons.

3. The neocons have no love to Israel. If Israel tomorrow extends its peaceful hand to its neighbors, renounce violence, and reduce its army and arsenal to basic defense, it will be an immediate enemy of the neocons. All the neocons want is to project American hegemony over the world and preempt the emergency of any challenging new world order. They could care less about the plight of the Jewish people. After all, all Jews and fine and not near close to famine.

4. Please refrain from the use of the word “terrorism” and “terrorist” to describe foes of the neocons. These words are not so “in” now! Didn’t anyone notice that the neocons have crashed and fizzled in Iraq?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 5:53 pm

 

23. MSK said:

Dear all,

can someone please explain why people here keep calling the Siniora gov’t “pro-American”? What exactly makes them “pro-American”?

Also, could you PLEASE stop posting full articles here in the comment section? And PARTICULARLY those that have already been FEATURED IN A POST!

While I can understand that some here can’t get over the fact that Robert Grenier, the former director of the CIA’s counterintelligence center, wrote such a good article, since Josh already excerpted & linked to it in a real-life post, there is absolutely NO NEED to post a fully copy of it in (1) the last comment section (Ivanka – aren’t you actually reading the posts but just write whatever you feel like in the comment section?) and then (2) AGAIN in this comment section (Mr. Atassi – what I said to Ivanka goes for you, too).

It’s already bothersome enough to deal with Mr. or Ms. “I got the biggest … palace … there is” and the fact that comments can’t be nested, like on LiveJournal, and that people keep presenting their own just-read-must-tell-everyone stuff.

Btw, “terrorist sympathizers”? YAAAAAWN …

And if you don’t know what a neocon is, I suggest looking it up on Wikipedia. Hint: Newt Gingrich ain’t one.

As for neocons having won “undeclared objectives” – contrary to popular belief or any “mu’ammarah kabiira” fantasies, the neocons are among those rare political animals that actually do declare their objectives, and rather loudly. They do mean what they say & don’t feel like being hush-hush about it.

–MSK

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 6:04 pm

 

24. Innocent_Criminal said:

You know what’s strange. How come Akbar Palace and Ford Perfect express relatively different views but share the same exact IP address??? hmm!!! ;)

MSK – Newt Gingrich might not be a neocon. But he is even a stronger “friend” of israel http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtml

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 6:25 pm

 

25. Atassi said:

MSK,
Thank you for your good points. Well taken :-)

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 7:28 pm

 

26. Ehsani2 said:

During a press conference with Blair, Ehud Olmert said today that Israel wanted to make peace with all Arab countries, INCLUDING SYRIA.

Is this a major new departure from the official line that has been followed by the Israeli Prime Minister?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 7:31 pm

 

27. Alex said:

Ehsani, this is not a departure, it is too theoretical, not specific enough.

But Olmert is under a lot of pressure to talk to Syria. Here is today’s Haaretz editorial for example:

Dont Turn Syria Away

MSK, you are right in finding the “pro American” label I and others used to describe the Seniora government, to be an over simplification. But that’s the way things are these days … when the Americans started to make everything Black and white, Good and Evil, when the Million demonstrators in Beirut are described as “pro Syrian” even though they include large numbers of Aoun supporters who do not like Syria much, then we all do the same mistake …

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 7:43 pm

 

28. Akbar Palace said:

Responding to the masses:

Innocent Criminal recommends:

“Actually guys I thought about it already but I came to the conclusion that it’s better to keep Akbar barking.”

Yes, I recommend you continue analyzing the benefits of Assad and his support of terror, and I’ll pretend you didn’t say anything

T_Desco comments:

“Why is the White House so vehemently against talking to Syria and Iran? As unbelievable as it may seem (particularly after the lost elections), is Cheney still thinking about bombing Iran? Seymour Hersh…”

Because talking to nations that support terror begets more terror. Or did you not learn from Oslo?

Seymour Hersh is another liberal-oriented media hound. Making millions of dollars informing us that people die in war and that defending oneself is “illegal”. He should get a Nobel Prize.

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

Mike complains:

“I definitely feel that Akbar has crossed this line multiple times in this thread, as he is calling me a terrorist sympathizer.”

Sorry, I call’em the way I se’em. If you don’t think Israel was “provoked” by the Syrian government allowing tens of thousands of Katyushas into the hands of a terrorist organization, than you’re a “terrorist sympathizer”.

The cat’s out of the bag habibi.

John Kilian responds:

“He spoke of the need to create an Iraqi solution including the existing sheiks in creating a secure and stable country.
I think we need a new term for conservatives who backed the toppling of Saddam but part ways with the administration shortly thereafter. Maybe post-modern-cons (PMCs)?”
John,
“Neocons” (and yes, this term will cause confusion for another 1000 years) want an Iraqi solution too. Did the US Administration and those who wanted the war (the US congress voted for it at the time if you remember) not plan well for it? Yes. But those who were for the war want it to succeed still. Whether that will happen under Bush or the next president, we all want the same thing.
Feel free to make any term you wish.
Eshani2 makes an educated guess:
“AKBAR PALACE is our good old friend JAM.”
‘Fraid not!
“I believe that everyone is entitled to express his/her opinion…Akbar/JAM knows fully well that he is going to provoke a strong reaction by his comments.”
Thanks. I know I’m way in the minority here, but if you’re interested in the opinion of someone who represents the views of more than just a few Joos in the US government, you’ll listen and ask questions.
“My only issue with Akbar/JAM is his Sean Hannity comment. Surely, he could not possibly be a fan or a listener to such light-weight commentary.”
Not that Sean Hannity is a Rhodes Scholar, he has a tremendous following in the US and he’s got good common sense. He knows the difference between a “terrorist” and a “freedom fighter”.
John Kilian adds:
“The former Republican Speaker’s attacks on the President (i.e. “Stubborness is not a policy”) on ‘Meet the Press’ suggest erosion for support of current foreign policy extends to every corner of the political map in the US. It suggests that the neocons can not even rely on the conservative Christians who view support of Israel as a religious obligation.”
As long as “conservative christians” remain conservative Christians, they’ll be pro-Israel.
Sorry. Is someone going to convert them to a new religion?
Here’s a quote I found from Newt (who isn’t a Joo).
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-07-18-gingrich-mideast-conflict_x.htm
Dubai-Jazz states:
“this Akbar guy has stepped over the line”
C’mon, can’t an simple-minded American Joo express his feelings or is that not halal?
Majedkhaldoun said:
“…I did not think that Syria should provoke Isreal…”
You’re much too late sir.
Alex observes:
“And it is also interesting to monitor the mirrored tactics in both Lebanon and Palestine. When Syria’s freinds in Lebanon ask for early elections hoping to replace the failed Pro-American government, America’s friends in Palestine (Mr. Abbas) went for the same option hoping to remove Syria’s friends, the failing Hamas government.”
I may be wrong, but the current Lebanese government is intact as long as another cabinet member doesn’t get ASSASSINATED.
As far as the PA is concerned President Abbas can call elections whenever he wants.
If I’m wrong, please let me know.
Ford Prefect responds:
“…the neocons objective is to keep the area busy with controlled, low-level violence…”
Certainly, the US could have conducted regime change and then left. And judging from the results, perhaps that’s what the US will do the next time a Middle East thug destabilizes the ME.
But the “neocons” and the administration preferred to create a real democracy. The US, Britain, and other coalition allies understood the importance of creating a constitution and a government by and of the people. Believe me, they didn’t have to do it.
“Not all of Israel supporters are necessarily bad.”
Yes, and not all Palestinian supporters are necessarily bad. Some even recognize Israel’s right to exist unlike Hamas, Hezbollah, The Islamic Republic of Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, (did I miss anyone?).
“The neocons have no love to Israel.”
Right, and Hezbollah has no love for the Palestinians. Huh?
“If Israel tomorrow extends its peaceful hand to its neighbors…”

And it hasn’t?

“… renounce violence…”

AKA “…renounce the right to self-defense…”

“…the neocons want is to project American hegemony over the world and preempt the emergency of any challenging new world order.”

Right. Conversely, the Iranians want a “World without Zionism”. I guess the US wants a world without falling skyscrapers.

“They could care less about the plight of the Jewish people.”

No, only Hamas, Hezbollah, and Ahmadinejad care. (see why my posts are so necessary here)

MSK asks:

“…why people here keep calling the Siniora gov’t “pro-American”?”

Yes, because their first priority is not to get into a conflict with Israel.

“Btw, “terrorist sympathizers”? YAAAAAWN …
And if you don’t know what a neocon is, I suggest looking it up on Wikipedia. Hint: Newt Gingrich ain’t one.”
Newt Gingrich is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Please don’t confuse Jooish with Neocon;)
http://www.aei.org/scholars/filter.all/scholar_byname.asp
“the neocons are among those rare political animals that actually do declare their objectives, and rather loudly. They do mean what they say & don’t feel like being hush-hush about it.”
MSK –
They’re just as LOUD and BOISTEROUS as those jihadists and Islamists who the Iranians and Syrians are supporting.
I guess the big difference is the US congress voted for regime change in Iraq before it was actually carried out. And UNSC 1441 was the key (Syria voted for it too;)
Innocent Criminal says”
“You know what’s strange. How come Akbar Palace and Ford Perfect express relatively different views but share the same exact IP address??? hmm!!! ”
How do I check for IP addresses???;)

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 7:53 pm

 

29. Mike said:

Akbar, I am no terrorist sympathizer, and it’s simply not true that talking to terrorists begets more terror. Terrorism quite often has a historical root, and the only way to reduce it is to reduce the humiliation and anger of those who partake in terrorist acts by looking at what their historical grievances are and trying to solve them. I’m not saying we should give in to all the demands of terrorists or not protect ourselves from them, but that we should try to analyze why they partake in the acts they do.

The problem with neoconservatives and with your analysis, Akbar, is that to you, all the conflicts in the Middle East are seen through an ideological lens that simplifies all the problems and reduces them all to “terrorism”. This lens stops you from having any problem with the Israeli occupation of Palestinian and Syrian land, as well as their extremely aggressive policies in the Middle East. This is why you are contributing nothing substantive to this debate whatsoever and just wasting the space of people who have more understanding: because the conflicts in the Middle East are purely one-sided for you.

By the way, I’m a Jew and my parents lived in Jerusalem and in a kibbutz for several years. They experienced rocket attacks on their kibbutz. So please do NOT ever call me a terrorist sympathizer again. I am deeply committed to a just resolution of conflicts on all sides, and to resuming the process for peace in the Middle East.

In fact, you might not realize it explicitly, but you have a lot more sympathy for the hard-line terrorists than I do, if only because you’ve decided that peace is not in Israel’s interests, and Israel and the US should not strive to make peace with those who you vilify. Both you and terrorists are deeply against any resumption of the peace process, and so you have a lot more in common than you think. Maybe you should consult your conscience and intellect for five seconds before you post next time.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 8:07 pm

 

30. Mike said:

Why are you so blatantly inaccurate in your post, Akbar?

“Right. Conversely, the Iranians want a “World without Zionism”. I guess the US wants a world without falling skyscrapers.”

The Iranians and Ahmadinejad in particular have called for the destruction of the Zionist regime. They have not called for the wholescale destruction of the Israeli state, but rather for an end to what they see as a regime that oppresses Palestinians and Syrians and others in the Middle East. I do not support this idea, but how in the hell is it different from the US explicitly stating that it supports regime change in Iran and Iraq and Syria and other places- especially given the fact that the US has followed up on these threats, unlike Iran?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 8:12 pm

 

31. majedkhaldoun said:

crazy talk,and wise listen

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 8:31 pm

 

32. Ehsani2 said:

Akbar Palace seems to be relishing the attention. One has to be amused by his rapid fire response to every commentator on this forum. His responses are akin to a non-stop CD that is the flip side to
“America is bad and the Jews are responsible for all our ills” version. His is:
“Islamofacists should all be wiped out from the face of the earth before democracy can spread like wiledfire in the region”.
He is clearly listening too much to his Sean Hannity-has-a-tremendous-following nonesense. The man is an idiot and for Akbar not to realize this is a joke. I take it that as soon as Hannity is done, Akbar turns his attention to the brilliantly idiotic Dr. Savage next?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 8:39 pm

 

33. John H. McCloskey said:

Why on earth shouldn’t Telavivistanis love their Telavivistan quite as heartily as Czechs love their Bohemia?

The only problem is one of excess, the loving of Telavivistan in a way that no mere Czech would ever venture to demand that foreigners “must” love Bohemia.

“Bohemia The Model”?

That’s an insolent and overreaching joke that almost every Czech chauvanist wouldn’t venture upon, unless perhaps she was addressing some renegade Slovak.

Ah, but “Telavivistan the Model”!

That’s quite enirely different of course!

The trouble is that one can’t altogether dismiss the Telavivistani Difference insofar as WE originally helped make that difference. The United Nations and Uncle Sam never voted that there should be a Bohemia and a Czech chauvinism, whereas . . . .

One feels tempted to “take refuge with God”, but that’s silly. How shall Father Zeus advise Dr. Frankenstein about the perils of creationism?

To defend the Tel Aviv statelet within its internationally recognized and voted-upon limits is incumbent upon us, but only that and nothing more. Anything more would be only by grace and favour.

I quite see how the more ambitious Telavivistani chauvinzers would much prefer to be a nature-based Bohemia rather than a precariously UN-vote-based “Zionist entity,” but that’s their problem, not ours. Our problem is simply to stay our own course and insist upon what we originally voted for with “the international community” about “Palestine” and Telavivistan.

Easy to vote for this or that, but, ah! to stick with what we voted for afterwards and make quite sure that it actually happens, Uncle Sam, there’s the rub!

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 9:37 pm

 

34. t_desco said:

The original Stern article in which Mehlis attacks Brammertz is now online:

Verschleppt im Libanon
Stern

The content has already been reported. One interesting detail: Mehlis confirms that he wanted to arrest Ghazali and that this is the reason why he insisted on interrogating him in Beirut.

Another interesting detail: Oliver Schröm, the journalist who wrote the article, also happens to be… the author of the semi-official biography of Gerhard Lehmann!

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 9:49 pm

 

35. MSK said:

Dear T_Desco,

COUGH*Createyourownwebsite*COUGH.

Mille, mille grazie!

–MSK

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 18th, 2006, 11:09 pm

 

36. Anonymous said:

وكالات:
النظام الحاكم في سورية ارسل الي اركان الدولة العبرية قبل عدة ايام وثيقة رسمية بواسطة مبعوث اوروبي رفيع المستوي، لم تكشف عن اسمه، جاء فيها ان سورية علي استعداد للبدء فورا في مفاوضات سلام مع اسرائيل بصورة سرية للغاية، كما ان السوريين موافقون علي ان تكون المحادثات الثنائية بين البلدين غير رسمية، وعن طريق طرف ثالث، من اوروبا، كما اكد التلفزيون الاسرائيلي.
ووفق الوثيقة السورية،فان السوريين علي استعداد للشروع فورا في المفاوضات. وتتضمن الوثيقة السورية البنود التالية: البند الاول: سورية تتعهد امام الدولة العبرية بانها لن تشن حربا عليها في الصيف القادم، كما تدعي الاجهزة الامنية الاسرائيلية، وان وجهتها للسلام فقط. البند الثاني يتطرق الي المقاومة الفلسطينية والمقاومة اللبنانية، النظام السوري اكد في الوثيقة ان باستطاعته السيطرة علي حركة حماس، وتحديدا علي رئيس الدائرة السياسية في الحركة خالد مشعل، الذي يتخذ من دمشق مقرا له، كما ان السوريين ابلغوا الاسرائيليين بانهم قادرون علي احراز تقدم في صفقة تبادل الأسري بين حماس واسرائيل فيما يتعلق بالجندي الاسرائيلي الأسير جلعاد شليط. بموازاة ذلك، ابلغت سورية اسرائيل بانها لن تستطع تطويع منظمة حزب الله اللبنانية، ولكن اكدت لها في الوثيقة بانها تتمكن من تزويدها بمعلومات مؤكدة حول مصير الجنديين الاسرائيليين الداد ريغف وايهود غولدفاسر، اللذين اسرا من قبل حزب الله في شهر تموز (يوليو) المنصرم. اما البند الثالث في الوثيقة فيتعلق بهضبة الجولان العربية السورية المحتلة، فحسب الوثيقة السورية فان النظام الحاكم في دمشق علي استعداد لان تكون هضبة الجولان منطقة منزوعة السلاح من الطرفين الاسرائيلي والسوري، وان السوريين علي استعداد لاقامة المصانع والمشاريع الاقتصادية الاخري بمشاركة الاسرائيليين والامريكيين في المنطقة، وهذا ما يتوافق مع تصريحات وزير الخارجية السوري وليد المعلم، الذي صرح بان اعادة هضبة الجولان ليست شرطا اساسيا لتحقيق السلام بين سورية واسرائيل. وتابع التلفزيون الاسرائيلي قائلا ان البند الرابع في الوثيقة يتطرق الي مد سكة الحديد من مدينة حيفا الي اسطنبول في تركيا، وان تمر السكة الحديد في الاراضي السورية.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 2:47 am

 

37. norman said:

The US goverment is increasing it’s forces in Iraq ,do you think that the US is planing to attack Iran while Israel is attacking Syria at the same time this summer in an effort for president Bush to reshufle the midleast cards ,Israel will only seek peace with Syria if the US is defeated in Iraq and Israel felt all alone and needs by having peace with Syria to have a buffer against the rise of vectorious islamists in Iraq and the rise of islamic Iran ,the question will be at that time ,will Syria come to the rescue of the arogont Israel that turned away many calls from Syria for peace ,only time will tell but Israel still have a chance as long as the US is not defeated in Iraq.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 2:52 am

 

38. simohurtta said:

American senators building “peace” in Middle East

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/802723.html

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 4:24 am

 

39. majedkhaldoun said:

I love watching those demonstrators in Lebanon, sitting there, grilling meat on skews over coal fire,playing backgammon,chess,or cards smoking hubble bubble,there are couples met decided to marry,they had their wedding there,they must have the fun of their life.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 4:31 am

 

40. Charles G. Coutinho, Ph. D. said:

To take a slightly different tack than what has been said above, and, to perhaps move the conversation in a somewhat different direction, allow me to note, the following:

a) The ‘neo-conservatives’ to paraphrase Georges Clemenceau ‘c’est un bloc’, id est, are all of a piece. Of that there is no doubt. Meaning that they have the following characteristics: one, pre-dominately, but, not entirely Jewish in origins; b) very pro-Israeli…for a variety of reasons; c) are for the most part, and this is I think something which clearly comes out of the article
on Syriacomment.com today: abysmally ignorant of the Near East, Arab societies, culture, history, politics, et cetera; d) an ignorance mixed in certain cases with a bit of contempt perhaps. The type of contempt that one hears [in New York City at any rate], among Russian-speaking emigres of Jewish or partly Jewish background…the type which is not too far removed from what Liberman and his ilk say in Israel;e) and, following from
elements of the above, as well as their own collective political pasts in the 1960′s / 1970′s and 1980′s, is the idea, the myth really, that if, Arab societies were to undergo the type of transformations that Central and Eastern Europe underwent in the late 1980′s (Prague 1989 et cetera), the anti-American and anti-Israeli line of the Arab regimes of the region, would disappear, poof! Just as the same policies disappeared (admittedly they did after all in fact) in Central and Eastern Europe. Remember that the vast majority of these people’s ‘expertise’ in foreign affairs, insofar as they have any, was focused on Europe and the Soviet Challenge. And, while they were very pro-Israeli, they were not, until in fact the early to mid-1990′s, very concerned with the internal developments of Arab / Near Eastern societies as such.

The upshot of all the above variables is that a group, of articulate and talented individuals, who were at the same time, imbued with a specific
ideology (hegemonic America would sweep the board, and, solve Israel’s problems as well), were able, in the aftermath of September 2001, to
in effect, ‘capture’ the Executive Branch, and launch a war. Of course it is true that neither
Rumsfeld or Cheney are out and out ‘neo-conservatives’, but it did serve both of their interests to follow and or lead where the neo-conservatives wanted to go. Other players in the National Security team (Rice, Powell, Tenet) were either too weak in bureacratic terms, or too dim-witted (Bush) to prevent events from taking their course.

As per the idea that Persia is the ‘next target’, well theoretically there is an argument to make that claim, but, in actual fact, the conditions on the ground in the Near East, make it highly unlikely. In absence of an overt Persian signal like a nuclear test `a la North Korea this fall, I rather doubt that Bush has either the strength at home politically or the necessary allies to back him up. Even if one were to think that the USA were completely ‘mad’, due to the vulnerability of American forces in Iraq, the likelihood of an attack is rather nil I think.
Particularly since, any such attack to really be
successful would require at least two to three months of concentrated air attacks, probably resulting in the deaths, of tens of thousands of innocent people(see Anthony Cordesman’s work on this, 30 August 2006 at http://www.csis.org). All very well televised. Again, in absence of a Persian nuclear test, the USA, will probably continue on the diplomatic front to try to sanction and isolate Persia. Oddly enought, if and perhaps only if, American forces were to be significantly withdrawn from Iraq, could the possibility of a sustained air campaign against Teheran, become more readily possible.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 6:44 am

 

41. Dubai Jazz said:

Syrian expatriates community in Dubai was delighted by the visit of president Al Assad yesterday, he had a tour along with the ruler of Dubai Shiekh Mohamed Bin Rashed, they’ve visited most of the real-estate developments that are under construction, including the upcoming tallest building in the world. They’ve also inaugurated a mock-up passenger coach of the upcoming Dubai Metro.
On a side note: Blair will be in the UAE later today, is that a mere coincidence?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 7:44 am

 
 

43. simohurtta said:

Report: Assad offered Israel a crack down on Hamas, Hezbollah in return for talks

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/803064.html

Israel begins to run out of excuses for peace talks if the news is true. Well we will probably read in future: no talks with Assad because his regime is “undemocratic” and he supports Iran. Always an excuse so that the profitable war like situation for the Jewish state can continue.

What would Israel be if there would be peace with Syria, Lebanon and Palestinians? A six million peoples’ state with no natural resources. No more steady money flow from USA, no more special treatment in Washington. In a couple of years most of the world would forget that Israel even exists. It would became a normal tiny country with the influence possibilities of a tiny country.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 11:12 am

 

44. Innocent_Criminal said:

Simohurtta,

I dont think the report is true. I read it on Al Arabiya (the source of this “report”) and no one else is confirming it. I think its just part of the Saudi-Syrian media war that has been going on for sometime.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 12:36 pm

 

45. why-discuss said:

SIMMOHURTA
“What would Israel be if there would be peace with Syria, Lebanon and Palestinians? A six million peoples’ state with no natural resources. No more steady money flow from USA, no more special treatment in Washington.”

It will autodestroy because having the arabs as a common ennemy is hiding the deep religious and social problems they have. The treatment of the Jews from Africa, the religious extremists: the simple Gay parade showed the potential violent conflicts they will face if they dont focus isrealis attention to resisting the bad palestinians, the bad iranians and the bad hezbollah etc..
A peace treaty will be the end of the Zionist regime, as prophetized by Ahmadinejad and maybe the birth of a new non religious nation, made of moslems, christians ans jews: Something many in israel do not want to see happening…

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 2:02 pm

 

46. t_desco said:

“In addition, Assad claimed Syria would agree to the establishment of an international tribunal investigating the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, on the condition that the tribunal would not be allowed to summon or sentence high-ranked officials.”
Jerusalem Post

In a letter to Olmert?? (Al-Arabiya does indeed claim that the proposal was included in the “letter”.)

I think that Tarek is correct in his assessment.

Al-Akhbar has an excellent background report on the Schröm/Mehlis/Lehmann article, adding many interesting details.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 2:15 pm

 

47. t_desco said:

U.S. Military Buildup To Warn Iran
CBS News: Pentagon Officials Consider Sending Message To Defiant Tehran

The Pentagon is planning to bolster its presence in the Persian Gulf as a warning to Iran’s continuously defiant government, CBS News reports.

CBS News national security correspondent David Martin says the U.S. military build-up, which would include adding a second aircraft carrier to the one already in the Gulf, is being proposed as a response to what U.S. officials view as an increasingly provocative Iranian leadership.
CBS News

As I mentioned back in October, that “second aircraft carrier ” may be the USS John C. Stennis (Carrier Strike Group 3):

Stennis Families Get Shipshape for 7 Months at Sea

They also gave families some details about the deployment, which will take the Stennis to the western Pacific Ocean and the Persian Gulf.
Kitsap Sun, Bremerton

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 4:10 pm

 

48. zaher said:

how many one here think that syrai will have war with isreal????

if you believe so

that will be so funny

and that means guys

none of you knows how is the gove… think

WAR lolololololololo

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 4:38 pm

 

49. norman said:

I do not think that they are only trying to warn Iran ,i think they are planing to attack.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 5:09 pm

 

50. Akbar Palace said:

Mike recommends:

“Maybe you should consult your conscience and intellect for five seconds before you post next time.”

OK. Thanks.

Mike said:

“Why are you so blatantly inaccurate in your post, Akbar? The Iranians and Ahmadinejad in particular have called for the destruction of the Zionist regime.”

I see you’ve been reading the news.

“They have not called for the wholescale destruction of the Israeli state, but rather for an end to what they see as a regime that oppresses Palestinians and Syrians and others in the Middle East.”

When Ahmadinejad stated that “…Israel must be wiped off the map”, he didn’t make the distinction you provided above. Now tell me, do you read his mind?

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816

“I do not support this idea, but how in the hell is it different from the US explicitly stating that it supports regime change in Iran and Iraq and Syria and other places- especially given the fact that the US has followed up on these threats, unlike Iran?”

Mike –

Perhaps the difference is UNSC 1441 and a vote in the US Congress for carrying out the UN’s wishes. Just a wild guess.

And now the UN is focused on Iran because of their pursuit of nuclear weapons and their disregard of their signed agreement with the NPT. Who’s to say the UN doesn’t pass another “1441” on Iran?

EHSANI2 said:

“Akbar Palace seems to be relishing the attention.”

I don’t seek attention, I seek to give you a taste of a different point of view: American conservatism.

“One has to be amused by his rapid fire response to every commentator on this forum. His responses are akin to a non-stop CD that is the flip side to “America is bad and the Jews are responsible for all our ills” version.”

Maybe!

“Islamofacists should all be wiped out from the face of the earth before democracy can spread like wiledfire in the region”.

Although I never said that (please don’t use quotes when none are appropriate), I am saying with perfect clarity that Americans believe they are at war with Islamofascists (al-Queda, Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah, Hamas, et al), and that we need to sideline them.

“He is clearly listening too much to his Sean Hannity-has-a-tremendous-following nonesense. The man is an idiot and for Akbar not to realize this is a joke.”

Frankly, I think there are more idiots here than there are in Sean Hannity’s radio studio.

John H. McCloskey said:

“To defend the Tel Aviv statelet within its internationally recognized and voted-upon limits is incumbent upon us, but only that and nothing more. Anything more would be only by grace and favour.”

What does this mean in english?

norman said:

“The US goverment is increasing it’s forces in Iraq ,do you think that the US is planing to attack Iran while Israel is attacking Syria at the same time this summer in an effort for president Bush to reshufle the midleast cards ,Israel will only seek peace with Syria if the US is defeated in Iraq and Israel felt all alone and needs by having peace with Syria to have a buffer against the rise of vectorious islamists in Iraq and the rise of islamic Iran ,the question will be at that time ,will Syria come to the rescue of the arogont Israel that turned away many calls from Syria for peace ,only time will tell but Israel still have a chance as long as the US is not defeated in Iraq.”

Norman, that’s one whopper of a run-on sentence. I’m out of breathe!

A few days after 9-11 President Bush spoke to the US congress (do yourself a favor and read it in its entirety):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

So although one cannot know exactly what the US or Israel will do, you can be assured they will do what is needed to protect each of their respective countries.

Charles G. Coutinho, Ph. D. said:

“To take a slightly different tack than what has been said above, and, to perhaps move the conversation in a somewhat different direction, allow me to note, the following:
a) The ‘neo-conservatives’ to paraphrase Georges Clemenceau ‘c’est un bloc’, id est, are all of a piece. Of that there is no doubt [oh really]. Meaning that they have the following characteristics: one, pre-dominately, but, not entirely Jewish in origins.”

Most “neo-conservatives” are NOT Jewish. The only advise I can offer you are the following differences:

American conservatives can be divided into a few groups:

1.) Neo-conservatives (many of the first neo-conservatives like Henry Jackson, Jack Kemp, etc) were originally democrats, but decided to become republicans for obvious reasons. Pro-Israel Christians make up a LARGE part of this group.

2.) Paleoconservatives who are more isolationist and who have no affinity toward Israel. Anti-Israel Christians make up a large part of this group. This is the group the pro-terror Arabs want to influence. The others are the anti-Israel Liberals.

Remember, from the conservatives and liberals, there are always anti- and pro-Israel forces. It would be a mistake to equate “neo-conservative = Joo”, except that a neoconservative implies pro-Israel sentiment.

“b) very pro-Israeli…for a variety of reasons; c) are for the most part, and this is I think something which clearly comes out of the article
on Syriacomment.com today:
abysmally ignorant of the Near East, Arab societies, culture, history, politics, et cetera; d) an ignorance mixed in certain cases with a bit of contempt perhaps. The type of contempt that one hears [in New York City at any rate], among Russian-speaking emigres of Jewish or partly Jewish background…the type which is not too far removed from what Liberman and his ilk say in Israel…”

Spoken like a true academic snob.

Neoconservatives like Dr. Wurmser know more about the Middle East than you do. BTW – Dr. Wurmser is an “Arab-Jew” and educated quite well. The myth of discrimination in Israel is a laugh, and I read it all the time on this “astute” forum.

Alex said:

“For how long can Olmert continue to say No?”

Hopefully as long as Syria supports terrorist organizations. But judging from recent history, the Israelis will get a rush of stupidity.

simohurtta said:

“Israel begins to run out of excuses for peace talks if the news is true. Well we will probably read in future: no talks with Assad because his regime is “undemocratic” and he supports Iran. Always an excuse so that the profitable war like situation for the Jewish state can continue.”

No excuses. A country which allows thousands of missiles to cross her border and fall into the hands of terrorists need not be approached. And personally, I think it is a bad precedent to negotiate with nations that support terrorism. We learned this from Arafat.

Oh yeah, Arafat shook hands with Rabin, and declared and end to “armed conflict” but it all turned out to be a sham. I hope Israel doesn’t fall for the same mistake with the Baathist Boy Wonder.

“What would Israel be if there would be peace with Syria, Lebanon and Palestinians?”

Peace is good for everyone, not just Joos. Especially since Arabs and their thuggish governments have killed so many more Arabs and Muslims than Joos could ever hope to.

“A six million peoples’ state with no natural resources.”

The per capita gross domestic product (GDP) (from the CIA factbook) is:

Israel: $25,000
Lebanon: $6,000
Syria: $3,900

This has nothing to do with money from the US, it is what these countries PRODUCE, per-capita.

“In a couple of years most of the world would forget that Israel even exists.”

Except for a few hundred million terrorist sypathizers.

“It would became a normal tiny country with the influence possibilities of a tiny country.”

Israel is tiny, but you’re right it isn’t “normal” (as you can see with the GDP statistics a mentioned above).

why-discuss said:

SIMMOHURTA

“What would Israel be if there would be peace with Syria, Lebanon and Palestinians? A six million peoples’ state with no natural resources. No more steady money flow from USA, no more special treatment in Washington.”
“It will autodestroy because having the arabs as a common ennemy is hiding the deep religious and social problems they have.”

Why-Discuss,

Hey, what a great idea!! Make peace, and Israel will “autodestroy”! Obviously, the best idea I heard so far. Please mention this to the Baathist Boy Wonder, Hasan Nasrallah, Ahmadinejad, and the other terror organizations. They’ll be happy to get this information!

“The treatment of the Jews from Africa, the religious extremists: the simple Gay parade showed the potential violent conflicts they will face if they dont focus isrealis attention to resisting the bad palestinians, the bad iranians and the bad hezbollah etc..”
“A peace treaty will be the end of the Zionist regime..”

We can hope and pray. Isn’t it cute to see our Jewish friend “Mike” on such a nice forum such as this one?

norman said:

“I do not think that they are only trying to warn Iran, i think they are planing to attack.”

Does this mean you be joining the Revolutionary Guard?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 6:54 pm

 

51. ausamaa said:

Through out the years, Syria was the ONE country that represented a real MILITARY danger to Israel. The proximity, the influence, the ability to mobilize the Arab street, its support for Hizbullah, the Palestinian resistance and its stubborn attachment to Arabism. You, I, the World, Bush, and Israel know that Syria is the real OBSTACLE they have to cross to get to get to where they want the Middle East to be. And they know that Syria is THE real agent provocator not the 2000 miles away overblown Iranian threat.

Taking Syria out of the picture would be a real prize to Israel. It will be the mother of all victories. And a defeat of Syria will HAVE a domino effect on all the ones who say NO in the area, starting from Lebanon, Hamas, Fataeh, the Iraqi resistansce…etc.

Yet, and since the 1973 war (when Israel shifted the bulk of its forces from Sinai to the Golan front to hold the developing Syrian attack at the expense of loosing Egyptian territory), Israel has NEVER tried to seriously mess with Syria militarily. Despite some very painfull blows it suffered at the hands of Syria’s allies. Even during its last humilation in Lebanon, it went to extreme lengths to stay away from the well known “Red Lines”. Its politicians kept “assuring” Syria that Israel has no intent of attacking Syria despite “provocatory statements” at the time by Syrian officials “warned” that if Israel came close “we will respond”.

What does that mean? And since the all-mighty Israel knows that Syria is the real impediment to its plans, why has it not attacked Syria during the past thirty years?

Very simply, it means that while Israel enjoys a well known military superiority over Syria, yet it does not dare attack Syria. The end results of such a confrontation can not be predicted, to say the least. And whatever unguaranteed results Israel might hope for would come at a very steep price.A narrow and well defended battle front, a will to fight fiercly, and the ability to retaliate devastatingly. That what Israel will face if it attacks Syria. And it is not willing to take the chance or pay the price. With full US support or not. And if ever there was a doubt, what happened in Iraq was a good example, add to it what is been happening in the west bank and Gaza, and finally, the great humilation at the hands of the resistance in Lebanon in the July war.

So for God’s sake, enough worry about Israel attacking Syria. It is not a cake walk. At least not for an overblown egotistic Monster once called Israel who got its claws trimmed by the Palestinan children, and at the hands of the few hundreds of Hizbullah fighters.

Simply said, if Israel could afford it, it would have done it. Without a second thoght. The nation that shoots at unarmed children in Gaza, would not hesitate to attack a dangerous enemy next door if it thought it can win. Even when encouraged/begged by the US to do so. But as it seems; while the “means” are ther, yet, neither the “will” nor the “ability” or the “courage” to attack Syria are there.

The saying goes: Put Up or Shut Up. And Israel is no exception. It is Shutting Up. Which is the smart thing to do.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 7:32 pm

 

52. majedkhaldoun said:

I love to see blood ,as long as,it is not mine

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 8:08 pm

 

53. Ehsani2 said:

Dubai Jazz,

I also find Bashar’s visit to Dubai very interesting. The U.A.E is not on the way to Moscow. For Bashar to take such a trip at this time is not insignificant. I am particularly thrilled that he was briefed on the amazing list of economic development projects underway in that country. Bashar could not be anything but impressed. Let us hope he will catch the economic reform bug during that stop-over.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 8:19 pm

 

54. simohurtta said:

Akbar not even you can’t deny the fact that Israeli economy functions much with US aid and its special relations with USA. The figures are astonishing even to today when Israel is an industrialized, rather wealthy country. For what needs Israel foreign aid and a lions share (30 %) of US foreign aid? A real welfare state, isn’t it also in you US republican “mind”. Well seems that welfare is good for Israelis but not for Americans. It must be difficult to explain that to voters back home.

Much of the Israeli economy is based on Golan’s and West Bank’s water in chemical and agricultural sectors. Israeli defence industry has benefited from joint ventures with USA, own test ground and a rather “liberal” policy in choosing customers.

The more serious consequence from a peace would be that western and eastern investors would pass Tel Aviv and invest to the 300 million Arab markets. Muslim countries have the oil and growth potential (if they somehow manage to unite their “ranks”). Israel will never became the financial and industrial “hub” of Middle East. Not after it has done.

You Akbar Palace often speak about the religious extremism in Arab / Muslim countries. What have you to say to this story?
Woman beaten on Jerusalem bus for refusing to move to rear seat
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/801449.html

Seems that Israel has her fair share of religious extremists. Maybe these kind of news are not popular among US neocons and not told to the US public.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 8:50 pm

 

55. Akbar Palace said:

ausamaa said:

“So for God’s sake, enough worry about Israel attacking Syria. It is not a cake walk. At least not for an overblown egotistic Monster once called Israel who got its claws trimmed by the Palestinan children, and at the hands of the few hundreds of Hizbullah fighters.”

Ausamma,

If Syria wants peace with Israel, I think that’s preferrable. If Syria doesn’t want peace with Israel, I guess that’s OK too. If Syria and Lebanon want to continue the state of war with Israel, then things get more complicated.

Israel will not allow a neighboring country to arm itself to the teeth with the very real possibility that it will use this weaponry to shed meyhem on her territory. So if the present conditions continue, there is no guarantee Israel will not have to confront the “resistance” in Lebanon or in Syria.

Morevoer, now that Israel got its “claws trimmed by the Palestinan children” (who somehow have a great interest in model rocketry made of steel casings), the same thing applies. Israel will not sit idly by while communities continue to get shelled.

I hope that makes sense to you.

simohurtta,

I was just responding to your question:

“What would Israel be if there would be peace with Syria, Lebanon and Palestinians?”

They’d be quite fine. Economically and socially.

I highly recommend it for everyone.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 9:19 pm

 

56. Akbar Palace said:

‘Seems that Israel has her fair share of religious extremists. Maybe these kind of news are not popular among US neocons and not told to the US public.”

simohurtta,

I know how important it is to discredit Israel on this forum (we can all thank Professor Josh and the Arab News Media for that), but when a civil war hits Israel like it is in Iraq, Palestine and like it may again in Lebanon, it will be in the news here in the US. I can assure you.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 9:23 pm

 

57. Ford Prefect said:

I just returned to find out that my post from last night did not make it, so here it is again: I have no clue who Akbar Palace is, but Innocent_Criminal claimed that we have the same IP address. Funny, even simple IP traceroute lookup could produce such an error. Well, let’s hope that the highly regarded Innocent-Criminal (and I really do like his/her postings) does not work for the NSA. We could be in real trouble if so! No, I have nothing to do with Akbar’s hapless thoughts. He ideas are as deceitful as the Ba’athists – but nevertheless I hope that he is a harmless mammal.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 9:28 pm

 

58. MSK said:

Dear Ausamaa,

could explain to the group just WHY Israel should have wanted to get into another war with Syria?

Israel holds the Golan, and thus the high ground as well as much of the water source for Lake Tiberias and the Jordan River.

In all its “military encounters” with the Syrian Army, during the wars of ’67 and ’73 and then during the Lebanese Civil War (particularly in ’82) the Israeli Army has decisively defeated and embarrassed the Syrian Army.

Syria alone has never been a military threat to Israel – until the Camp David Accord with Egypt Israel had to fear a simultaneous two-front attack (which Egypt & Syria failed to successfully execute in ’73). But after the Egyptian threat was no longer Israel only faced Syria.

Lebanese and Palestinian militias are no threat to Israel as a state, and are not seen as such. Hisbollah’s katyushas are bothersome, but cannot threaten Israel on an existential level.

So, I am really puzzled by your assertions. Now, you might not have a particularly good education about the history of the area, but I suppose that this summer you watched the news: It wasn’t Israel that hastened to state that it would not attack Syria (quite to the contrary – threats to “punish” Syria were made all the time) but Syria that, when some stray missiles landed on the Syrian side of the Syria-Lebanon border north of the Beirut-Damascus Highway, immediately said that it was a mistake and that actually they probably didn’t even land inside Syria.

Btw, have you ever SEEN the Syrian Army?

–MSK

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 10:35 pm

 

59. Charles G. Coutinho, Ph. D. said:

For the edification of the Syriacomment.com readership is the following article in the Beirut Daily Star on a news conference by the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saudi Al-Faisal, on two topics which have concerned this readership lately: one, the possibility of Saudi belligerency of some type (overt or covert) if the USA were to withdraw from Iraq; two, the reasons for the resignation of the Saudi Ambassador in Washington, who is also the foreign minister’s brother (Nota bene: the following has not appeared yet on this online journal). So read and be edified fellow readers:

Riyadh ‘stands at an equal distance from all factions in Iraq’ – foreign minister

Compiled by Daily Star staff
Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister on Tuesday denied reports that the kingdom would step in to back the Sunnis in Iraq’s sectarian conflict in the event of a pullout by the United States. In a wide-ranging news conference, Prince Saudi al-Faisal confirmed that Riyadh’s ambassador to Washington has resigned, and he called on the Palestinians to abide by a truce.

“Since the beginning of the crisis in Iraq and the formation of the government … the kingdom has been saying that it stands at an equal distance from all Iraqi factions,” Prince Saud said. “We do not pose as guardians of one faction or sect,” he said.

His remarks follow repeated reports that Saudi Arabia might bankroll Iraq’s Sunnis against Iran-backed Shiites should US troops pull out swiftly and leave a raging civil war in the country.

“We cooperate with anyone who wants [to preserve] the unity … and independence of Iraq,” Saud said.

“We hope Iraqi citizens will be treated equally before the law in terms of rights and duties,” he said, apparently referring to complaints by Iraq’s Sunni Arabs that they are marginalized and discriminated against by government.

Saud also confirmed Tuesday that his brother Prince Turki al-Faisal had “presented his resignation,” as ambassador to Washington, “and it was accepted.”
http://www.dailystar.com.lb

It was a purely personal decision, Saud said.

Prince Turki, one of the most influential envoys in Washington and steward of the key and sometimes uneasy alliance between the US and the oil powerhouse, abruptly quit last week.

The shock resignation – after only 15 months on the job – sparked a flurry of speculation, ranging from claims that Turki was the victim of bureaucratic back-stabbing in Riyadh to suggestions that Saudi Arabia may be sending a message to Washington over its dismay with Iraq’s descent into chaos.

Prince Saud himself hinted that Turki might take a back seat, saying that he had served his country well “for a long period of time.”

On the ongoing Palestinian infighting, Prince Saud urged the Palestinians to overcome their differences to curb a slide into more violence. “We follow with intense concern the dangerous escalation witnessed on the Palestinian stage,” he said.

“We call on the brothers in Palestine to come together to … to end the Israeli occupation, the suffering of the Palestinian people and achieve their legitimate ambition for an independent state.” – AFP, Reuters
http://www.dailystar.com.lb

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 19th, 2006, 11:28 pm

 

60. Ehsani2 said:

Were Syria to enter an armed conflict with Israel, this is what one can expect:

- The skies will belong to Israel practically unopposed due to the vast superiority of their air force. The Syrian Air force is practically nonexistent.
- The story is the same when it comes to the two navies. There is simply no contest.
- The ground forces get a bit more interesting. Syria is known to possess close to 80 T72 tanks. It is also home to 30-40 Gazelles that are capable of targeting enemy tanks. On balance, the Israeli army will also end up winning a ground war when all is said and done.
- This leaves us with the latest weapon of choice-short and intermediate range missiles. One can argue that some could be fitted with chemical warheads too.

Should a war break out; Syria knows that its army is not up to the task. Instead, it is most likely going to resort to firing some of its missiles into the State of Israel. The question is would Syria dare send one of its serious missiles into an Israeli city? Should it come to this, Bashar will be keenly aware that this would only be his last shot as Israel’s response will be devastatingly predictable.

Well, not exactly his last shot. That would surely be reserved for Dimona!

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 12:39 am

 

61. Gibran said:

What’s all this nonsense about Syrian military might? Damascus will be a walkover to IDF. Anyone familiar with the area knows very well that the city is within firing range. Chemical weapons will confront Nuclear? You must be kidding. Why not go all the way and obliterate Latakia and the surrounding mountains with one shot? You think other Syrian cities will raise a finger? You have to understand Syrian mentality. When Hafez obliterated Hama, other Syrians shut their mouth up and submitted to brute force. Same thing will happen if Assad’s hometowns vaporize. Syrian people will then exhibit extreme politeness and submissiveness to the new power wielding force of the IDF. Remember the people of Syria can only be ruled by a thick stick!

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 1:08 am

 

62. Akbar Palace said:

Ehsani2 and Gobran,

Thank you for the doomsday scenarios. And yes, we all remember the Hama “incident”.

I don’t know about you guys, but instead of discussing chemical and nuclear weapons, tanks, and obliterating cities, wouldn’t you prefer to talk about accepting one another?

Jews accepting Palestinians, Palestinians accepting Jews, Syrians accepting Israelis and Israelis accepting Syrians and so forth and so on?

Call me naive, but I don’t believe people deserve to be oppressed, victimized, and brutalized generation after generation. And neither does the UNIVERASAL Declaration of Human Rights…

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 2:05 am

 

63. Gibran said:

Akbar,
I did not begin the thread. I only commented on the foolishness of those who started it by presenting the most likely scenario for such thinking. Your sentiments require a legitimate partner which does not exist at the moment.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 2:13 am

 

64. majedkhaldoun said:

the syrian air force does not exist,since Hafez Assad died.
the syrian people can only be controled by a thick stick,that is why France is still there.

the jews accept the palastinian, that is why Isreal is killing palastinian, destroying their homes,suffocating them, stealing their money,and not allowing them to transfer money,not even accepting their election,building high wall to keep them in big prison.
I love to see the jordan river called red river.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 2:52 am

 

65. norman said:

Israel will win a war with Syria only if Syria agrees to a stop of that war ,Israel can not occupy Syria and as long as Syria’s leaders have the will to fight Israel will be defeated ,the US with all it’s resources is not able to controle Iraq and in the road to leave ,Israel is much weaker than the US and a long time war with Syria will destroy Israel’s economy ,as we all know most of the Israeli army personals are resevists who can either work or fight and a long term war will keep them mobelised and destroy Israel’s economy and push the Israelies who are rich to leave Israel to the west.hopfully forever if the war lasts long enough for them to start a new life.ps,Syria should make it clear to Israel that any attack on any Syrian city will provoke an attack on Israeli ones not like what happened in 1973 when Damascus was attacked without retaliation,worrying about world openion.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 2:55 am

 

66. Gibran said:

Syrian airforce as well as the Syrian military died before Hafez died. Do you need a reminder? 1982 comic display of Syrian ‘military might’ in Lebanon.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 2:56 am

 

67. Gibran said:

Exactly. And Syria will raise its hands in surrender within one hour of beginning of hostilities. Isn’t Syria doing just that right now and there is no firing taking place? Has it not been doing that for the last 40 years?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 3:03 am

 

68. majedkhaldoun said:

no Gibran ,syrian people are not doing that

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 3:23 am

 

69. norman said:

You are right Majed , the syrian people will be as couragous as the Iraqies.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 3:32 am

 

70. Ehsani2 said:

Gentlemen,

There is no denying that the Syrian army is woefully ill-prepared to fight the IDF in a conventional war.

They do have the missiles however. The only way Syria would use them is if the regime felt that its days were numbered. Clearly, they may opt to do so as a last act of desperation. As many of you implied, Israel’s response to any serious missile attack would be devastating. In the past, Syria could bank on its Aran brothers to rush to its help. Given the current relationship, I am not sure anyone would show up.

On a different note, General Abizaid asked for additional navy carrier in the gulf today. Iran’s recent increased rhetoric and war exercises have not been taken lightly apparantly.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 3:46 am

 

71. Gibran said:

The argument is flawed because conventional missiles against nuclear is no deterence. Assuming it is for the sake of argument, the other party did not wave first use option; and it would be foolish to do so. Therefore, IDF should immediately resort to first use in its strategic planing in order to maintain the current non beligerent state. If Syria feels emboldened (even as a miscalculation), then the current state of non-hostilities will become endangered.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 5:06 am

 

72. Dubai Jazz said:

GIB-RAN yelps again:
“What’s all this nonsense about Syrian military might? Damascus will be a walkover to IDF.”
“Remember the people of Syria can only be ruled by a thick stick!”
….
Apart from the apparent subjectiveness in your comments, and the ostensible grudge you have for Syrian people. Which is all beyond me, I mean if you are all that pissed off with Syrians, why do you bother comment on Syrian issues? Let alone leaving a nasty comment on my own blog?
Now apart from all that, we should not forget the conclusions drawn from the July 2006 war, it is even closer in timeline than 1982. I know that Hezbollah’s gurrela fighters have different techniques than a conventional army like the Syrian army. However, and as Dr. Landis has suggested before, the Syrian amry is undoubtedly going to adopt those techniques, as it has proved to be viable.
The grave fiasco of the Israeli ground assault has raised lot of question marks about the readibility of the Israeli reservists and the capabilitiy of the Merkava tank as a spinal pillar of the IDF armored force. And it is not me claiming all that, it is the Israeli press itself.
…..So again, the “walkove” scenario is only an ingenuity of your puny mind.
BTW, if you are all that excited about Israel attacking Syria, why don’t you join the IDF? They probably need somebody to make them coffee (or tea? Isn’t that familiar?). After all , they need to get sober before initating any war.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 5:10 am

 

73. Gibran said:

The only subjectiveness in this whole debate is your own subjectiveness about the so-called “divine victory” of July 2006. It has been coined properly by many Arab writers as “istinsar ilahi”. Do you know what istinsar means? It is the subjective interpretation of a clear defeat as a divinely inspired victory. Thousands of Hezbollah supporters are homeless for two kidnapped soldiers. What a bargain? It seems the homeless Hezbollah supporters will have to spend the winter camped out in the middle of downtown Beirut. That is indeed a great subjective divine victory.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 5:26 am

 

74. Dubai Jazz said:

I agree Gibran, damage on both sides is incomparable, I am not debating that.
What I am saying is that the IDF would have also loved to have a “walkover” to Beirout to capture Hasan Naserullah and restore the soldiers. But they couldn’t, against all the odds, and it is all because of the epic steadfastness of Hezbollah fighters.
P.S. : Istensar in Arabic is to ask for support, remember the name of the Abbasi Khalifat, “Al Mustensir Bellah” which means: the one who seeks Allah’s support to acquire victory.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 5:45 am

 

75. Gibran said:

O yeah? is that what it means? You’re right Al Mustenser is the one who sought Allah’s support. But that is only his name and he never claimed divinely inspired victories. But Nasrallah is the one who sought victory subjectively when he actually suffered defeat by his own admission. Your so-called hero (Nasrallah) is turning into a comedian. Be real man.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 6:11 am

 

76. Dubai Jazz said:

You know what is mind-boggling about the whole thing; all other nations exalt their heroes, you would never meet a Latino who would tell you that Che Guevara was a Soviet proxy. Or an Indian would claim that Ghandi was a submissive wimp.
Gibran, you are an Arab, right? Lebanese maybe? …. Amongst the Arabic figures in the last 100 years, who do you consider to be your hero?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 6:26 am

 

77. Dubai Jazz said:

Dear Ehsani2:
Glad to see you have taken a slightly positive position, that’s a progress isn’t it?!!!
I had the privilege of being an eye witness to the incredible growth of Dubai during the last couple of years, on the other hand, do you think it is going to be healthy for the Syrian economy to try to emulate the kind of projects that are underway now in Dubai?
I am not an economist myself…

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 8:01 am

 

78. t_desco said:

Syria in Bush’s Crosshairs

Exclusive: A classified document suggests the Administration is considering a plan to fund political opposition to the Damascus government. Some critics say it would be an unwarranted covert action

The Bush Administration has been quietly nurturing individuals and parties opposed to the Syrian government in an effort to undermine the regime of President Bashar Assad. Parts of the scheme are outlined in a classified, two-page document which says that the U.S. already is “supporting regular meetings of internal and diaspora Syrian activists” in Europe. The document bluntly expresses the hope that “these meetings will facilitate a more coherent strategy and plan of actions for all anti-Assad activists.”

The document says that Syria’s legislative elections, scheduled for March 2007, “provide a potentially galvanizing issue for… critics of the Assad regime.” To capitalize on that opportunity, the document proposes a secret “election monitoring” scheme, in which “internet accessible materials will be available for printing and dissemination by activists inside the country [Syria] and neighboring countries.” The proposal also calls for surreptitiously giving money to at least one Syrian politician who, according to the document, intends to run in the election. The effort would also include “voter education campaigns” and public opinion polling, with the first poll “tentatively scheduled in early 2007.”

The proposal has not yet been approved, in part because of questions over whether the Syrian elections will be delayed or even cancelled. But one U.S. official familiar with the proposal said: “You are forced to wonder whether we are now trying to destabilize the Syrian government.”

The proposal says part of the effort would be run through a foundation operated by Amar Abdulhamid, a Washington-based member of a Syrian umbrella opposition group known as the National Salvation Front (NSF). The Front includes the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization that for decades supported the violent overthrow the Syrian government, but now says it seeks peaceful, democratic reform. (In Syria, however, membership in the Brotherhood is still punishable by death.) Another member of the NSF is Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former high-ranking Syrian official and Assad family loyalist who recently went into exile after a political clash with the regime. Representatives of the National Salvation Front, including Abdulhamid, were accorded at least two meetings earlier this year at the White House, which described the sessions as exploratory. Since then, the National Salvation Front has said it intends to open an office in Washington in the near future.

Others detect another goal for the proposed policy. “Ever since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which Syria opposed, the Bush Administration has been looking for ways to squeeze the government in Damascus,” notes Joshua Landis, a Syria expert who is co-director of the Center for Peace Studies at the University of Oklahoma. “Syria has appeared to be next on the Administration’s agenda to reform the greater Middle East.” Landis adds: “This is apparently an effort to gin up the Syrian opposition under the rubric of ‘democracy promotion’ and ‘election monitoring,’ but it’s really just an attempt to pressure the Syrian government” into doing what the U.S. wants.
Adam Zargorin/TIME

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 8:56 am

 

79. Dubai Jazz said:

In an interview with Al Arabiya today:
“Blair thinks it is possible to achieve peace in the middle east without engaging Syria”
http://www.alarabiya.net/Articles/2006/12/20/30066.htm

Oh Tony… Tony! …Our shall I call you “ Yo Blair!”?
Long tenure in the office has taken its toll on this chap, he is suffering a serious political senility.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 9:39 am

 

80. Ford Prefect said:

T_Desco, thanks for sharing the information. It is apparent to many that King Bush and his father Barbara have a true a genuine love to the Syrian people that cannot be hidden. Everyday, they wake up in the morning thinking what they can do to make the Syrian people live a better life. That is why they are funding the opposition to topple the current regime junta. Seriously, if they want to change the regime, one question I have is why? What is the Syrian regime doing different that say Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia for its people and their freedom? If the talk is to provide liberal democracy based on human rights, why don’t they start with their friends first? Or is it that the Syrian regime bothering Israel a little is what is prompting King George’s let’s-free-the-Syrian-people policy? Oh yes, he is the one who proclaimed “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq back in May of 2003. Just accomplishing one mission after another. God Bless Syria and its people, they don’t need the King and his court to show them how they can survive tyrany.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 11:26 am

 

81. Akbar Palace said:

Gibran -

“Your sentiments require a legitimate partner which does not exist at the moment.”

Then why do you suppose the Syrian government contiinues to call for peace talks with Israel?

Our courageous leader Ayman al-Zawahri (who won’t rest until every Arab and Muslim country is at war) has strong words against both political parties in Palestine:

“Ayman al-Zawahri said in a video tape aired on Wednesday that Palestinian elections would not free Palestinian land and would deal a blow to holy war against Israeli occupation.”

I guess he forgot Arafat’s rejection at Camp David.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061220/ts_nm/palestinians_zawahri_dc_3

Dubai Jazz comments on Tony Blair:

“Long tenure in the office has taken its toll on this chap, he is suffering a serious political senility.”

Even Tony Blair, center-left labor party leader, knows that Syria can’t have her cake and eat it.

Beyond politics, it’s common sense. Syria has to give up on terrorism first, then they can chat about Golan. It’s the Baathist Boy Wonder’s only choice.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 12:31 pm

 

82. why-discuss said:

AKBAR PALACE
but when a civil war hits Israel like it is in Iraq, Palestine and like it may again in Lebanon, it will be in the news here in the US. I can assure you.

As you say it so well, “we can hope and pray”…

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 1:55 pm

 

83. Gibran said:

I thought you’d never ask Dubai Jazz. But I’ll put Kemil Chamoun on the top of the list.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 2:19 pm

 

84. Gibran said:

Akbar, Syria has only one objective behind such calls for so-called peace. It only wants to break out of isolation; and on its own terms.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 2:28 pm

 
 

86. Akbar Palace said:

“Akbar, Syria has only one objective behind such calls for so-called peace. It only wants to break out of isolation; and on its own terms.”

Gibran,

What’s wrong with isolation?

Ausamaa said:

“Through out the years, Syria was the ONE country that represented a real MILITARY danger to Israel. The proximity, the influence, the ability to mobilize the Arab street, its support for Hizbullah, the Palestinian resistance and its stubborn attachment to Arabism.”

If Syrian influence is so omnipotent, why did they leave Lebanon after the Hariri assassination?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 3:49 pm

 

87. Ehsani2 said:

Washington (dpa) – US President George W Bush on Wednesday upheld
his conditions for high-level talks with Iran and Syria, and he
criticized Iran’s president for his views on Israel and the Holocaust.
At a year-end news conference, Bush renewed his insistence that
Iran stop enriching uranium before the United States would consider
direct talks with the Islamic republic.
“If they verifiably stop their enrichment programme, we will
talk,” Bush said. The United States says Iran is seeking a nuclear
bomb, which the Iranians deny.
A high-level panel co-chaired by former US secretary of state James
Baker III proposed this month that Washington actively engage Syria
and Iran in the search for bringing peace to Iraq, but Bush has been
cool to the idea unless both countries meet US conditions.
Bush said he was “amazed” about an Iranian-hosted conference this
month aimed at belittling the Holocaust. At the conference, Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed Israel would disappear as the
Soviet Union after the collapse of communism.
“The leader of Iran is willing to say things that really hurt his
country and further isolate his people,” Bush said. “My message to
the Iranian people is: You can do better.”
The United States has regularly criticized Ahmadinejad for
trivializing the Holocaust by calling it a myth and his calls for
Israel to be wiped off the map.
Bush renewed US charges that Syria is helping fuel the violence in
Iraq and destabilizing the government of neighbouring Lebanon, where
Syria kept troops for three decades until being forced to pull out
under international pressure last year.
Syria should take “some concrete positive steps that promote
peace, as opposed to instability,” Bush said.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 4:12 pm

 

88. Ehsani2 said:

Dubai Jazz,

You seem glad that I have taken a slightly positive position and you then ask whether emulating Dubai’s model is good for Syria.

Let me answer your question first. Emulating Dubai is certainly better than continuing the train wreck that Syria is following today. Is excessive growth healthy? It sure beats excessive under-achievement. I also have been a witness of the Dubai experiment. My association with that place stretches back to over 20 years.

Syria should absolutely copy a substantial element of that model. For that to happen, however, a long list of prerequisites needs to take place. Sadly, the country is simply unprepared for this challenge. Baath-inspired economic policy and true economic growth and prosperity are mutually exclusive. You cannot have one with the other.

As for me taking a positive position, I am driven by the facts on the ground and not blind ideology. As Keynes said, “when the facts change, I change my mind.”

I must say that I have seen precious little to take a “slightly positive position” as you put it.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 4:27 pm

 

89. simohurtta said:

I know how important it is to discredit Israel on this forum (we can all thank Professor Josh and the Arab News Media for that), but when a civil war hits Israel like it is in Iraq, Palestine and like it may again in Lebanon, it will be in the news here in the US. I can assure you.

Actually Akbar the news I referred was in Haarezt, which is part of Jewish media. The US or European press tells frequently stories about Muslim extremism but rarely about Jewish extremism.

Anybody who follows Middle East’s events can’t avoid wondering Israel’s role in the ongoing conflicts. It is not only “Islamofasists” and mad dictators. There is also the other side responsible of much of the present chaos.

In seeing Israel situation there are two possible “roles” for Israel.
1) Israel is a weak, honest, democratic state in defence against the brutal medieval Arab herds.
2) Israel is strong aggressive racist state, which uses brutally its military might and holds millions in de facto imprisonment.

In the peace efforts Israel “attitude” can be seen:
1) As an active partner which suggests solutions and negotiates actively with the opposite side.
2) As a reluctant partner which only accepts peace initiatives by third parties under an extreme pressure and then makes irrational demands for even beginning to talk.

I as many others in Europe see Israel in the both sections represent the option 2. It is not anti Semitism to criticize Israel’s racist and brutal policy. Israel has had 40 years to get a solution for the Palestine problem, either by letting the occupied areas to “go” or to append the occupied areas with their population to hers territory and citizens. Israel has done neither. Instead Israel has slowly annexed the land and resources leaving the Palestinians in a miserable situation. Without showing her own cards Israel is demanding ever shifting precedent conditions for even beginning the talks to find a solution. If somebody calls that a behaviour of a nation which desperate tries to get peace, he is nuts.

I see that more dangerous are nations which deliberately create the conditions for terror (as Israel does) than nations which are claimed to support terrorism. If there is no reason for terrorism there can’t be any support. Certainly the fighting methods of Palestinians are not “recommendable” but still they use exactly the same tactics as in many other conflicts around the world have been used. The only “new invention” is suicide bomber, but in the end what is the difference in leaving milk can bombs in a crowded hotel (as under Menachem Begin Irgun did) or between modern days suicide bomber. Nothing, civilians die.

This new term Bush and Blair are now using “war against radicalism and extremism” is even more hilarious than the blurry “war against terrorism”. The Christian extremists (and foreign policy radicals) Bush and Blair demanding others not to be extremists or radical, a real mission give beyond the stars like Bush said some years ago. The western press and politicians have rather little commented (doesn’t fit in the ongoing propaganda war?) about how in Iran the moderate and pragmatists won in the last elections. Isn’t it Akbar rather strange that they have elections in “worst” country of the axis of the evil?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 4:51 pm

 

90. ausamaa said:

Ok Guys,
Syria is week.
Israel is Strong.
Israel does not attack Syria because it has many other considerations; humanitarian, moral, it’s peace oriented strategy, etc… etc…

Syria is no danger to nobody, but POTUS and the neocons act as if they see it in their nightmare every night. Why is that so???

Can someone clarify those facts to POTUS and ask him to take Syria off his mind. And convince Israel of the same while you are it…Or, have Syria raise the white flag one way or the other. The fastest way is to attack it. Why has this not been done? Are the continuous threats to use force since 2003 getting the needed results or response from this “weak Syria”?

Certainly not, it seems; wanna guess again why they are not attacking “weak Syria” yet? Guess again !!!

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 5:51 pm

 

91. Akbar Palace said:

simohurtta said:

“Actually Akbar the news I referred was in Haarezt, which is part of Jewish media. The US or European press tells frequently stories about Muslim extremism but rarely about Jewish extremism.”

Simorhurtta,

Whatever Haaretz reported, it wasn’t anything that remotely appeared to be a civil war. Yes, Israel isn’t a Utopia, but there is freedom, democracy and a quite viable economy.

Ask an Israeli-Arab if he would prefer to live in Palestine.

“In seeing Israel situation there are two possible “roles” for Israel.

1) Israel is a weak, honest, democratic state in defence against the brutal medieval Arab herds.

2) Israel is strong aggressive racist state, which uses brutally its military might and holds millions in de facto imprisonment.”

Are you reading the Baathist handbook again?

“It is not anti Semitism to criticize Israel’s racist and brutal policy.”

No it isn’t anti-semitism (although they do the same thing), it’s just myth and misinformation.

“Israel has had 40 years to get a solution for the Palestine problem, either by letting the occupied areas to “go” or to append the occupied areas with their population to hers territory and citizens.”

And Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians have had 58 years to stop terorism. You know, little things like that.

“Instead Israel has slowly annexed the land and resources leaving the Palestinians in a miserable situation.”

Leaving Gaza isn’t “slowly annexing” anything.

“Without showing her own cards Israel is demanding ever shifting precedent conditions for even beginning the talks to find a solution. If somebody calls that a behaviour of a nation which desperate tries to get peace, he is nuts.”

Not sure what you’re saying, but it sounds pretty bad.

“…about how in Iran the moderate and pragmatists won in the last elections. Isn’t it Akbar rather strange that they have elections in “worst” country of the axis of the evil?”

Democracy does not guarantee that the people will vote in a president or government to their liking.

The hitch is that the government they vote in can change the rules of the game. They can change term limits, they can ban plotical parties to their disliking, etc. Democracy DOES open a Pandora’s box.

So yes, even the Nazi party garnered the most votes in the early 30s. I wonder if the Nazis would have won any election, say, in 1940?

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

It would be interesting to see how elections in Palestine will work out if Abbas has his way.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 7:15 pm

 

92. simohurtta said:

Ask an Israeli-Arab if he would prefer to live in Palestine.

Who would like to live in the occupied area and being beaten or killed by Israeli soldiers?

Ask US or Finnish Jews do they want to live in Israel? Very few do. And a growing number of Israeli Jews use their second passport and leave. Why? They see that this present “road” leads to destruction.

Your comments of democracy are rather absurd. Ariel Sharon won the elections and many considered him much more dangerous than the present Iranian president. Not to mention the known terrorist big boss who served as Israeli Prime Minister. A Jewish terrorist is considered as a freedom fighter and Palestinian terrorist is considered as a terrorist. Both killed innocent civilians. Strange isn’t it Akbar?

PS. Akbar I was not speaking about civil war among Jews as you can read your self from the comments. The article of Haaretz describes the religious extremism and social behaviour among the Jews. Beating one Jewish women (how many are not reported) by several Jewish men is hardly a civil war. By the way is your admired Israeli president freed from the rape suspicions? Have not read news about it for a while…

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 10:12 pm

 

93. Gibran said:

Akbar, there is nothing wrong with isolation in Syria’s case. Actually, Syria should never be allowed to break out from the box it is in.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 20th, 2006, 10:42 pm

 

94. Akbar Palace said:

Gibran said:

“Akbar, Syria has only one objective behind such calls for so-called peace. It only wants to break out of isolation; and on its own terms.”

You forgot to add “and want’s the Golan back”.

Neither should happen unless the good doctor puts an end to supporting terrorism.

“Ask US or Finnish Jews do they want to live in Israel? Very few do. And a growing number of Israeli Jews use their second passport and leave. Why? They see that this present “road” leads to destruction.”

Some Israelis leave and some return and some don’t.

In the end, the Jewish population of Israel is still growing. Shall I apologize?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3246096,00.html

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 21st, 2006, 5:31 pm

 

95. Jimbo said:

Akbar said: “Americans believe they are at war with Islamofascists”

Umm, speak for yourself buddy. Please don’t speak in the name of all Americans when you repeat this kind of garbage. Some of us understand the world is a lot more complicated than such simplistic musings.

Folks in the USG will turn around and support those same evil “islamofascists” in a second if they think it will serve their narrowly perceived interests.

And c’mon dude, Sean Hannity is an idiot. Conservatives have much sharper minds than his. Don’t feel you have to defend him just coz he’s conservative.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

December 23rd, 2006, 7:13 pm

 

96. Ani-Tsaligi said:

The Neo-Con plan for destabilization of the region is outlined in a document co-written by Mrs. Wurmser’s husband David Wurmser. The document is entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”. As you’ll notice forging closer ties with the US and ousting Saddam are absolutely core objectives in this document which is written for the advancement of the Israeli people’s, not the American people. The people whom are the undesigned of the document include high ranking and ex-high ranking officials in the United States government including Douglas Fieth and Mr. Wurmser himself who are or were employed by the Department of Defense (Pentagon). If memory serves me Mr. Fieth was indicted or investigated on charges of espinage for the Israeli government.

Israels war is not our war. America’s intrests should lie in freeing ourselves of the dependance of the fuel that funds the nations that choose to spread their political and religious agenda’s through terrorism. It is silly to bomb these people and put our dollars in their pockets so that they can retaliate.

It is time we purge the Neo-Cons from our government along with any other foriegn agents that seek to steer the United States blindly into war against their enemies. This is our country and it is nothing more than treasonous to allow foriegn entities to dictate our foriegn policy. We should look with disgust upon nations that proclaim to be our allies and attempt to hi-jack our policy maker’s pens.

It is time we return to our roots, time we once again became intraverted and self reliant.

As for Americans who would be proxy to nations who attempt to misguide the United States, I say we call them what they are, traitors. Mr. and Mrs Wurmser are you familiar with the term “Hang’em high.”?

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

June 26th, 2007, 9:54 pm

 

Post a comment


9 + = thirteen