Lebanon - Syria Comment

Lebanon

Lebanese security forces arrest group planning to assassinate Nasrallhah" [mideastwire.com]

As-Safir, an independent leftist newspaper, wrote on November 15: “As-Safir learned that the investigations carried out by the Lebanese internal security forces with an extremist group that was arrested in the Lebanese south and the Al-Kharroub areas last summer resulted in confessions submitted by a member of the group carrying the Libyan nationality that they prepared plans to assassinate the secretary general of Hezbollah Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah. The investigations with the members of the group, which turned out to belong to the Al-Qa’idah organization, showed that there are also big plans to attack the UNIFIL forces in the Lebanese south in order to achieve two gaols.

“The first goal was aimed at carrying out the orders issued by the number two man in Al-Qa’idah Aiman Al-Zawahiri about attacking the UNIFIL forces and the second goal is to incite strife and cause tensions between Hezbollah and the UNIFIL forces as has happened following the various security incidents that took place south of the Litani River. The members of the group also confessed that they were responsible for launching Katyusha missiles in several periods between 2004 and 2007 at the northern parts of occupied Palestine. The investigations proved that the Al-Qa’idah network was divided into three groups. The first group was positioned in the Al-Kharroub area, the second in the city of Saida, and the third in the area near the Al-Qassimiyah region near the city of Tyre.

“As Safir learned that during the search of the house of the Libyan detainee who was hiding in the Al-Kharroub area, a large quantity of the toxic material cyanide was uncovered. This substance is used along with Ammonium and other materials to manufacture explosives. According to knowledgeable sources, the quantity of cyanide discovered in the house of the Libyan detainee totalled 70 kilograms.

Security forces dismiss reports of plot to assassinate Nasrallah: Daily Star

After three months of fighting, Palestinians return to flattened refugee camp in Nahr al-Bared

Bilal Y. Saab and Magnus Ranstorp, "Fatah al Islam: How an Ambitious Jihadist Project Went Awry."
To what extent was Fatah al Islam a spillover effect from the neighboring Iraq conflict?

Seven conclusions and observations can be drawn from the battle of Nahr al Bared that could shed light on al Qaeda and the global war on terror:

1- Despite Fatah al Islam’s Islamist appeal and repeated calls for support throughout its battle with the Lebanese army, not one major salafist jihadist group in Lebanon headed its call. Osbat al Ansar, Jund al Sham (who have now re-merged with Osbat al Ansar), the Qarun group, the Arqoub group, and the Majdal Anjar group remained fairly silent and distanced themselves from the battle. For these groups and others, the battle that Fatah al Islam was waging was the wrong one. The jihadist compass, according to these groups’ leaders, was to be set South (against Israel) not North. This experience solidifies the authors’ earlier conclusion put forth in a study entitled "Securing Lebanon from the Threat of Salafist Jihadism" in which they argued that salafist jihadist entities in Lebanon are not united under a single umbrella or organization, instead they have dissimilar agendas and are relatively small and clandestine semi-autonomous entities with informal organizational structures. Each is more concerned about its own survival than about waging an offensive jihad against "infidels."

2- The battle against Fatah al Islam underscores the argument (also made in the above-mentioned study) that the salafist jihadist phenomenon in Lebanon is not purely a Palestinian phenomenon. Lebanese make a sizable part of the salafist jihadist movement in Lebanon, as evidenced by the high number of Lebanese cells operating in Tripoli, Akkar and al Koura.

3- Fatah al Islam was not a mechanical creation of Syrian intelligence. While Syria did not prevent large transfers of Arab fighters from Iraq to Lebanon, via Syrian territories, it did not play a major role in arming or financing Fatah al Islam.

4- Fatah al Islam could not have survived or accomplished any of its initial or later goals if it had not benefited from the large influx of Arab fighters from Iraq and from the financial support of al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. In that sense, Fatah al Islam, as Kenneth Pollack and Daniel Byman – authors of "Things Fall Apart" – would most probably argue today, is a result of the Iraq conflict.

5- It is very interesting to note that throughout the battle, neither Osama bin Laden nor Ayman al Zawahiri issued a statement supporting Fatah al Islam or endorsing its insurgency. This raises a number of important questions: does al Qaeda only support winners? Why did al Zawahiri praise the attack against UNIFIL on June 24, 2007 but remain silent on Fatah al Islam? Is it because al Qaeda’s senior leadership is more inclined to support terrorist acts as opposed to reckless jihadist enterprises?

6- UNIFIL, as argued in an earlier study by the authors entitled "Al Qaeda’s Terrorist Threat to UNIFIL", remains highly vulnerable to terrorist attacks. The international force is still working with a major handicap: lack of good intelligence and force protection measures.

7- The failure of the jihadist project of Fatah al Islam raises a critical point on terrorist organizational structures. Fatah al Islam morphed from a hierarchical group to a network of semi-autonomous cells. To what extent did that transformation contribute to its ultimate downfall? What does organizational structure say about the effectiveness and survivability of a terrorist enterprise?

Lebanon’s Presidential Front-Runners
New York Times
The 110 members of Lebanon’s Parliament have until Nov. 23 to choose a president. Under a power-sharing pact made by religious leaders in 1943, …

Sfeir's Presidential Election List under Attack before Onset: Naharnet

U.S. Engages Muslim Brotherhood Despite Rice By: NIcholas Kralev | The Washington Times

The United States has resumed contacts with Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood despite Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's 2005 commitment not to "engage" with the banned group — a move that could strain relations with President Hosni Mubarak's government.

Comments (117)


abraham said:

This is just more evidence that the U.S. and Al Qaeda are two opposing factions working towards the same goal. They should join forces.

November 16th, 2007, 1:44 am

 

norman said:

They are joining forces with Saudi help , sometime you wonder if 9/11 was planned as some people thing no matter how wrong that thought might look.

November 16th, 2007, 2:53 am

 

why-discuss said:

France has a very positive meeting with Bashar and the beginning of a promess to have a special conference in Moscou to deal with the Golan, after Annapolis.

“L’Orient Lejour 15 novembre 2007

… La source proche du ministre français des AE mise aussi sur un début éventuel de décrispation régionale et internationale, rapportant que la dernière rencontre entre les émissaires français et le président syrien Bachar el-Assad aurait été jugée très positive, ce qui aurait encouragé les Français à aller de l’avant. Il y aurait ainsi un début de promesse à la Syrie de tenir, après la conférence d’Annapolis, une conférence spéciale chargée d’examiner le dossier du Golan, qui se tiendrait à Moscou…”

November 16th, 2007, 4:56 am

 

Ziad said:

I’ll speak for you, minister tells Syria

By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:37am GMT 16/11/2007

Lord Malloch-Brown, the controversial Foreign Office minister, was in a fresh row last night after telling senior members of the Syrian regime of his willingness to speak for them on the world stage.

The remarks were reportedly made last week at a reception hosted by Sami Khiyami, the Syrian ambassador.

One witness said the minister told the Syrians: “Think of me as your man in the Cabinet.” Lord Malloch-Brown denies making the comment.
advertisement

The reception was held to mark the visit of Abdullah Dardari, Syria’s deputy prime minister. He and Lord Malloch-Brown are said to be close friends from when they worked at the United Nations in New York.

The Arabic newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi, whose correspondent attended the reception, said Lord Malloch-Brown gave an “emotional” speech, recalling how he had considered himself to be “representing Syria inside the UN”. The minister also spoke warmly about Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president.

The speech may fuel doubts about Gordon Brown’s wisdom in appointing Lord Malloch-Brown. The White House accuses Syria of supporting Iraqi insurgents and Lebanon’s Hizbollah movement.

Lord Malloch-Brown was appointed by the Prime Minister as part of his “government of all the talents” and has permission to attend Cabinet meetings.

One guest at the reception told The Daily Telegraph: “People were startled by how effusive he was, especially when he said, ‘Think of me as your man in the Cabinet’.”

A Syrian embassy official said: “It was a courtesy, a kind thing to say. He was saying he would do his best to narrow the gaps between the two countries.”

Bernard Jenkin, a Conservative member of the Commons defence committee, said: “This is another clumsy outburst, which reinforces the impression that the Foreign Office exists to represent foreigners instead of British national interests.”

November 16th, 2007, 6:27 am

 

Disaffection said:

I found that Lord Malloch bit quite funny. Life after Blair is just not the same for Bush. no wonder Sarkozy took up the puppy post so prompty.

November 16th, 2007, 10:12 am

 

Akbar Palace said:

This is just more evidence that the U.S. and Al Qaeda are two opposing factions working towards the same goal.

The same goal?

Democracy is freedom to choose.

Al Queda (and the Taliban) is no freedom at all.

Only a brainwashed jihadist can’t tell the difference.

November 16th, 2007, 10:57 am

 

ausamaa said:

Lebanon….if I can make a small prophecy:

It seems that the Battle for Lebanon had been lost for the neo-cons and Bush. In line with their track record of loosing each unnecessary confrontation they ignited since taking office.

With Aoun gaining enough strength to cut his ties with Bush, with Hizbullah uppeing the ante and with Amal, and with non-14 Feb Tripoli, Sidon and Beirut Sunnies lining up for a confrontation, and with the support of the wide spectrum of other oppononts the “feild” belongs clearly to the Opposition. Lahoud will take the lead and the rest will follow. With the current dissary and confusion and personal infighting charaecterizing the Feb 14 crowd, with the inability of the US and Israel to exert any significant pressure, the Syrian low rethoric on Lebanon has helped the opposition in painting the US as the detterent to reconcilliation, and the Arabs “moderats” are realizing that they are no match for the Opposition and are choosing to stay in the shadow where they belong.

The Opposition controls no less than 70 percent of the population that is enough to give it the needed legitemacy and street support. The Clean Hands reputation of most of its figures stands in stark contrast to the corruption and indifference of the Feb 14 crowd. The Army is practically on the opposition side. A humane wave of he opposition at the street level, and a forcefull counter response (or initiative)by the Opposition will complement the above and set the stage for the Opposition’s getting rid of the Siniora crowd.

Let us hope for a trully independent and clean Lebanon, unaffected from the effects of the Bush rash policies, and representing a leap in rebuilding that country on a true foundations away from the Zua’ama period.

What could prevent this?

-An Israeli attack on Lebanon to reshuffel the deck – Higly Unlikely.
-A quick US super-positive deal with Syria, but as both are not in the “mood”, and as the Lebanese Opposition will not support it fully – so again highly unlikely.
-An attempt to “ignite” civil strife by the Feb 14 – Unlikely.
-US marines landing in Beirut? Not enough are around, so unlikely.
-A face-savig step by Bush and the March 14 by proposing a Candidate accepted and approved by the Opposition- A possibility.
– A total collaps of the Feb 14 Crowd allowing a pro-opposition candidate to be elected in a constitutional parlimetary session. Possible in (Lebanon only).

The Opposition seems to be on the move and in mass, and they do not appear to be ready to trust any more dubious propostions and formulas, so seem most of the Lebanese people who also appear to have reached the edge and are in deep need for the stability and peace of mind which the Feb 14 crowd have not managed to provide them with despite the unprcedented support the US, the EU and the Arab “moderats” have bestowd on the Siniora government since day one.

Let us see..

Let us hope for the best..after wasting three years in the dead-end corridors of international confusion sawed by Israel, Bush and the neo-cons and their local inefficient tools.

November 16th, 2007, 11:41 am

 

abraham said:

Akrood Pal-ass, your posts make sense on Little Green Footballs, Hot Air, RedState, and Michelle Malkin’s blog.

Here, you’re just a kooky right-wing extremist who makes no sense.

Please consider that before posting another message here.

November 16th, 2007, 12:25 pm

 

Disaffection said:

AK-“Al Queda (and the Taliban) is no freedom at all.
Only a brainwashed jihadist can’t tell the difference. ”
said the brainwashed zionist. I suppose the democratically elected Hamas was voted in by brainwashed Palastinians. right habibi? ente meen makhatak?

November 16th, 2007, 12:36 pm

 

Akbar Palace said:

Here, you’re just a kooky right-wing extremist who makes no sense.

Abraham,

Agreed, it makes no sense to those who support Islamofascism, terrorism, intolerance, and Israel’s destruction.

But it makes a lot of sense to the majority of Americans who have yet to be brainwashed like you have.

Thanks, but I’ll continue to post here for as long as the owners permit.

The answer: Why the majority of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7093423.stm

November 16th, 2007, 12:40 pm

 

Disaffection said:

AP doesn’t do itself any favours. so in light of that article, the americans and israeli are allies with the saudis. doesn’t it see the hypocrisy? or is it embedded in it’s gene? Islamofascism? thats an oxymoron you moron.

November 16th, 2007, 1:16 pm

 

MightyMe said:

“Islamofascism, terrorism, intolerance, and Israel’s destruction.”

You forgot “axis of evil”, “holocaust denial” and (their favourite); anti-Semitism. Not to mention the refusal to “worship” Jews to the extent of neurotic obsession.

This is the language that gives away to feeble and absurd mentality of the neo-con bandwagon. The only barrier between them and their inevitable demise is purely time based.

November 16th, 2007, 2:33 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Another clear case of anti-Jewish racism (antisemitism for those that follow common language usage). Disaffection writes: “doesn’t it see the hypocrisy? or is it embedded in it’s gene? ”

First, AP is dehumanized and is called an “it”. Then Disaffection aludes that it is in AP’s genes thus making all Jews hypocrites.

Unfortunately, this kind of talk is quite common in the Arab world. What is most distressing is that many Arabs do not realize how racist this discourse is and do not stand up to it.

PS Just as a reminder since I didn’t have an opportunity to say this in a while: Two wrongs do not make a right.

November 16th, 2007, 4:33 pm

 

Disaffection said:

Your right AIG, its the only language AP seems to understand. I’ve monitored AP’s contribution here for a while and every time someone tries to reason with him, he feeds similar lines to what i’v delivered. For your information, i was dehumanizing him (or it) and Zionists in particular (so what),but not Jews. Otherwise i would have thrown in ‘Judeofascism’ in my comments somewhere. Zionists dehumanize Palastinian Arabs every single day since 1948. Zionists don’t represent all Jews. They think they do but then what do you expect fanatics. Just as much as Al Qaida represent Muslims i suppose. And yes, this kind of talk is common when referred to Zionists (Sahyuni).

Two people i cannot stomach. Zionits and Baath regime apologists.

November 16th, 2007, 5:10 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Disaffection,
At least 90% of Jews are Zionists. If you define Jews as those that believe that a Jewish state should exist in what is now Israel the number is probably more than 98%. So you are walking a pretty thin line in trying to differentiate between Jews and Zionists.

Zionists do not dehumanize Palestinians every day since 1948 and in any case let me remind you that two wrongs do not make a right. I am not happy that you agree that you are racist and that you think that such discourse is common.

And what did you mean when you said about AP that:”or is it embedded in it’s gene”. Which group has hypocritical genes? The 98% of Jews that are Zionists?

November 16th, 2007, 5:20 pm

 

Disaffection said:

what are you basing your 90% on exactly? where do you people come up with these numbers? the ones that live in Israel or refuse to move to Israel? The Israeli that include economic migrants such as the neo-Nazis, Israel blindly imported from Russia? your argument that Israeli/zionist make up 90 something % of Jews is flawed. I wonder who else isnt really of Jewish origin in Israel. Zionist carried fascism with them from Europe an introduced it to the ME, hence the colourful term ‘islamofascism’. that doesnt bother you though does it? Y
If two wrongs dont make a right, then i assume you disagree with your fellow AP. yet i have never seen you putting him in his place. ever. who’s dehumanizing who here? and another thing, im not racist, im anti zionist. since when was Zionism a race?

November 16th, 2007, 5:40 pm

 

why-discuss said:

Akbar Palace

Thanks for pointing out to the BCC program about jihadism.
I wonder what lessons we should take from that?
The lesson I take is that if a rigid religion takes over the sense of national identity, it can blind and breed terrorism, especially when it is supported by money and powerful powers like the US.
Saudi arabia is a good example of a society where the laws are based on religious books that are centuries old and that are not allowed to be re interpreted in light of the modern world (contrary to Iran Shia who allow that).
This religion considers itself superior to others thus it gives the believers the right to control and subordinate the others, with violence if necessary.
The evil engendered in the world by such countries should open our eyes on the dangerous excesses of societies whose laws are too tightly linked to a rigid religion and who have no Constitution, may fall into.

November 16th, 2007, 5:41 pm

 

abraham said:

AP, I hereby dub you “Al Qaeda Palace”.

At its basest, your ideology is indistinguishable from that of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda espouses an unwavering (and arguably rational) hatred towards the West and all things Western and are bent on its destruction. You are their American reflection, expressing an unwavering (and arguably irrational) hatred towards Arabs and Muslims and desirous of their complete destruction.

If we put a beard and turban on you and replaced every utterance you make of “Arab” or “Muslim” with “American”, you could easily be mistaken as some anachronistic cave dweller waging a civilizational guerilla war.

Thanks, but I’ll continue to post here for as long as the owners permit.

Yeah, unfortunately. But unlike your ideologically-aligned hangouts, you won’t get banned here for voicing opinions that are contrary to the values of the majority blog participants. I got banned from RedState the first time I posted a (civil) comment there debating their pig-headed stance on Iran. If you had any integrity you would call them on that, because that’s just so damn un-American.

November 16th, 2007, 5:46 pm

 

Disaffection said:

in light of what Why mentioned, here is the latest:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7098480.stm

yet its perfectly ok to ally with Saudi Arabia. Its all about the means to an end.

November 16th, 2007, 5:49 pm

 

why-discuss said:

90% jews are zionists? When is the Hurricane Annapolis?

“Meanwhile, the Jerusalem Post reports that a group of extremist Zionist rabbis have sent a letter to US President George W. Bush warning him that if the planned Annapolis Middle East parley is not cancelled, a disaster will befall US citizens, just as Hurricane Katrina decimated New Orleans after Israel’s disengagement from the Gaza Strip in August 2005.”

November 16th, 2007, 5:57 pm

 

ausamaa said:

ANOTHERISRAELIGUY

With all due respect -to the average informed mind at least-, saying that 90% of all Jews are Zionists is pure B.S. It is the equivelant of saying that 90% of Americans are KKK or neo-cons or whatever. Or that 90% of all Muslims are Al Qaida and Takfiries. So for God’s sake, do not over do it…

But you know what your problem here is AIG, IG, and AP?

You are under the impression here that you are lecturing to an “uniformed crowd” who can digest your BS without hitting you with the “serious” and core questions which the Average American is not aware of, or does not really have enough interest to care about. While here on Syria Comment you are confronting a totally different informed crowd but you are still using the same simplistic-propagandist language.

And finally, please execuse us all, but YES, you have been dehumanizing the Palestinan people, or whoever people who fell under the raw power of your Haganah, Shtern or IDF for more than sixty year. You know it, we know it, the whole world knows, and according to some article in the Israeli press lately, even “other innocent and unsuspecting” Israelies know it too. So please stop playing the role of the innocent and unsuspecting vergin.

November 16th, 2007, 5:58 pm

 

abraham said:

AIG, Disaffection said it well, but I’ll further contribute a free clue:

All Zionists are not Jews. In the US we have this strange breed of Jesus-follower that dub themselves “Christian Zionists”. They are not Semites. They are primarily of white, anglo-saxon descent.

But by your logic, if I decry them, I am being “anti-Jewish”.

Stop equating anti-Zionism with being anti-Jewish. Not only are you wrong, but it makes you look silly at best and foolish at worst.

And you will gain absolutely no traction with such talk here. We are educated about the players and labels in this conflict. As it is your views are already marginalized and primarily ignored. Basically, you’re like Arafat: i.e. irrelevant.

November 16th, 2007, 6:13 pm

 

ausamaa said:

As irrelevant as Sharon was or is..

November 16th, 2007, 6:24 pm

 

abraham said:

Why-discuss said:

Thanks for pointing out to the BCC program about jihadism.
I wonder what lessons we should take from that?
The lesson I take is that if a rigid religion takes over the sense of national identity, it can blind and breed terrorism, especially when it is supported by money and powerful powers like the US.

I think it’s funny how these kooks think that just because the Saudis are Arab that we support them and are aligned with their ideology. The Saudi regime is almost as odious as Israel’s (but at least Saudi Arabia is occupying an entire civilization). I can’t think of any Arab regime that I despise more than the Saudis, and that is more antithetical to Arab goals and aspirations.

Upon my first visit to Syria a long time ago, one of my cousins had an English-language book called something like, “Saudi Arabia: The American Stooges”. Inside was one particularly disturbing story of some Saudi state security goon who described torturing some poor dissident by putting his head in a vice and squashing it “like a melon”. I was too young then to understand why such a book would have even been written. In time I came to understand the politics of the region, and why the Saudis would be called the American Stooges, although I would submit that that description is too fair by ten.

By contrast, the current Bush administration is no better than the Saudis. But you won’t hear Al Qaeda Palace making such criticism.

November 16th, 2007, 6:24 pm

 

abraham said:

As irrelevant as Sharon was or is..

Agreed.

Sharon is even more irrelevant. He’s an undead corpse, by now deflated and oozing acres of formerly bloated skin over the edges of his death bed, expending precious air that would be better used on living beings, such as hyenas.

Sharon is in the perfect hell. And I thank God every day for that.

November 16th, 2007, 6:33 pm

 

Disaffection said:

are you lot suggesting he’s still alive? get out! i actually thought he was a a goner by now. what an ugly way to go. still it probably deserved it ;)he

November 16th, 2007, 6:38 pm

 

Seeking the truth said:

Abraham said:

Well, it’s not so much a pseudonym as it is my name. Arab Muslims can be called Abraham, too.

I say, it is Ibrahim actually in Arabic.

November 16th, 2007, 6:50 pm

 

Disaffection said:

it has come to this, has it?

November 16th, 2007, 6:51 pm

 

abraham said:

I say, it is Ibrahim actually in Arabic.

Sure, but jidday registered bayay officially as “Abraham” in the US so he could become an American citizen when he was old enough.

So Abraham it is 😉

November 16th, 2007, 7:27 pm

 

jo6pac said:

Hello

abraham said:

This is just more evidence that the U.S. and Al Qaeda are two opposing factions working towards the same goal. They should join forces.

November 16th, 2007, 1:44 am

I thought they were just another US vendor, because they always pop up at the right time. Good call Abraham.
jo6pac

November 16th, 2007, 8:27 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

I think we have a major major misunderstanding what a Zionist is.
Eighty-six percent of American Jews feel close to Israel. It would be fair to say that these at least are Zionists.
http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=837277&ct=867935

As for being anti-zionist, it means being anti-90% of the Jews and being against most people in the world. The Russian, Chinese and Indians are Zionists. They believe Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state. Many Israelis are against settlements in the West Bank. Does that make them anti-Zionists? Of course not. They consider themselves strong Zionists. There is something very confused about your discourse.

Anti Zionists are those that believe that there shouldn’t be a Jewish state. There are not many people who think that outside the Arab world.

November 16th, 2007, 10:07 pm

 

Alex said:

AIG

If we avoid the extreme choices … Israel/no Israel … you’ll see that there are many Jews and definitely many non Arabs who believe that Israel should change dramatically … SimoHurrta will be happy to remind you of the many Eropean polls that considered Israel one of the top threats to world peace. This is quite negative.

So … Israel is here to stay … the questions we have are about what kind of Israel it will be in the future.

Most of the anti Zionists will change their mind if today’s (and yesterday’s) Zionism learned from the mistakes of the past and offered to be a more caring citizen of the Middle East. Do you think this is possible? do you see any wisdom in moving in the direction I proposed?

And try not to flip the question to democracy in the Arab world please … that question was answered by you 10 billion times already. Besides, Arabs do not want Israel to “help them” become democracies .. the same way Israel does not want Arabs helping in making Israel a non-Jewish state.

November 16th, 2007, 10:14 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Alex,
Israel in the future will be what it is now. A democracy muddling along as best it can in a complex environment. Hopefully Israel will soon reach a compromise with the Palestinians on a state in the West Bank. Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe there is no deal that is acceptable to both Palestinians and Jews. As for Gaza and the Golan, we will have to wait till the regimes in Gaza and Syria change.

But really, I want to understand what Abraham and Disaffection mean when they say they are anti-zionist. You will see they mean they want the end of Israel.

November 16th, 2007, 10:26 pm

 

SimoHurtta said:

SimoHurrta will be happy to remind you of the many Eropean polls that considered Israel one of the top threats to world peace.

Thank you Alex for inviting me to teach AIG. Though I have noticed that AIG is not one of the most most talented possible students. No Nobel price winner material in science or peace. Seem rather useless to tell AIG anything. He watches the world from his small military fortress and believes what he is ordered to believe. Just like those guys used to do in ……

Well AIG as Wikipedia tells us:

Orthodox Jews thus retreated into the traditional Jewish belief that the Land of Israel was given to the ancient Israelites by God, and that while the right of the Jews to that land was permanent and inalienable, the Messiah must appear before Israel could return to Jewish control.

So not all Jews are Zionists. If we add to the Orthodox Jews those numerous US and European Jews who do not especially like what modern days Israel has became, we can hardly believe that 90 % of Jews are Zionists.

PS
AIG what have you say to this article: Vatican: Ties with Israel worsening

Pope’s ambassador to Washington blames Israel for deterioration of relations with Catholic Church, says Israel cannot be trusted and laments that ties were better ‘when there were none at all’.

Is the Pope’s ambassador racist anti-Semitic? Interesting to hear your comment.

November 16th, 2007, 11:11 pm

 

IsraeliGuy said:

Alex,

Israel is an extremely difficult thing to digest for many Arabs, but I can’t say that there hasn’t been progress so far.
I honestly do believe that we’ve made some progress since 48.

During the first years the main goal of the Arab world was to exterminate Israel.

Then, after a some years, a few wars and 2 peace deals, I believe most (although not all) Arab and Muslim countries accepted the reality that Israel is here to stay.

It’s still a painful reality for them, but yet – a reality.

I do see it as progress, but there’s still some considerable mileage ahead of us, before we’ll reach a real breakthrough (which will come, eventually).

Many Arabs expect radical changes from the Israeli side.
However, a real change will happen only after the Arabs will make some drastic changes themselves.

Right now the Arabs have a lot of demands from Israel, but show very little willingness to address Israel’s demands.
There’s very little reciprocity here right now.

This change is not going to happen overnight.
The ship is moving, but at a very slow pace and there’s no point in speeding it up artificially.

I truly believe that eventually (years and maybe decades from now), we’ll see a different Arab world (and consequently, a different Israel and a very different Middle East).

Even if everything else fails, the economy will do it.
Sooner or later, in 5, 10, 20 or 50 years, the world will not consume as much oil as it does now.

Most of the modern world’s needs will be answered by alternative energy sources – not oil.

At some point, countries that depend on oil income, will have to develop new income sources – which will require them to develop radical new strategies.

In order to survive, the old oil manufacturers will have to adapt to a new reality, open up, put much better education systems in place and reform themselves in a major way in almost all aspects of life.

They’re not gonna do it because they will want to.
It will simply be a matter of survival.

This process will eventually spread in the Arab world.
It will start with a small number of countries and gradually spread to the rest of them.

This is still some years ahead, but I believe that it will affect the Arab-Israeli conflict in a positive way for everybody.

November 16th, 2007, 11:28 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Sim,
I love it when a rabid racist (antisemite for those using regular language) like you quotes from an Israeli paper criticism of Israel thus proving what a democracy Israel is and what the real difference is between Israel and the Arab world.

As in every democracy, we will have an internal debate about the criticism and if it has merit, we will act on it.

More than 90% of the Jews support Israel in one way or another even if like most Israelis they do not support every action of the Israeli government. Just as a person can support the US even though he does not like Bush.

November 16th, 2007, 11:38 pm

 

why-discuss said:

Aig

Isreal does not have a Constitution and as such is not a real democracy…

November 17th, 2007, 12:04 am

 

IsraeliGuy said:

Why-Discuss, Britain doesn’t have a constitution.
Does it mean it’s not a democracy?

: )

November 17th, 2007, 12:12 am

 

ugarit said:

“More than 90% of the Jews support Israel in one way or another even if like most Israelis they do not support every action of the Israeli government. Just as a person can support the US even though he does not like Bush.”

Supporting Israel, what ever that means (please elaborate), and supporting Zionism are not necessarily the same.

One can support Syria as a nation but not support Syria’s current political system. Do you see the difference?

November 17th, 2007, 12:13 am

 

ugarit said:

Britain is a pseudo-democracy. A winner take all systems are not really democratic. Which is a very similar issue to the US’ winner take all system.

November 17th, 2007, 12:17 am

 

IsraeliGuy said:

So Britain is not a real democracy… Good to know.
Wow, they really managed to fool the world for a while : )

What about New Zealand?
Also not a democracy?

November 17th, 2007, 12:28 am

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Zionism is simply the doctrine that Jews should have a state of their own. There are very few Jews that do not support Zionism. They might disagree with certain aspects of what Israel does, but they are still Zionists. What do others have in mind when they hear Zionism?

November 17th, 2007, 12:47 am

 

Disaffection said:

where shall i start? Leave for few hours and look what happens. can’t have that really.

AIG,

its funny how you went from claiming that over 90% of jews are zionts “At least 90% of Jews are Zionists. If you define Jews as those that believe that a Jewish state should exist in what is now Israel the number is probably more than 98%.” down to 86%. 10% is neither here or there right? there is no misunderstanding of what zionism is all about. there is a misunderstanding of what zionists think zionism is suppose to be. Yet your website didn’t explain what zionism is as you suggested at the beginning of your statement November 16th, 2007, 10:07 pm. I’ll give you a hand.

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/whatis.cfm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RjnvQHWyLE

If zionism was merely about creating a state for the Jews thats one thing, but what forging a state for at the expense of millions of Palestinian arabs is another.

as for the your logic, it’s laughable. anti-zionis = anti world????? you really do think highly of yourself don’t you? chip on the shoulder, hey? Yet lets play it your way.

” In 1948 the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194 on the Question of Palestine, which “resolves that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return…”

Today there are more than 3.7 million Palestinian refugees living in refugee camps throughout the Middle East and many more exiles worldwide. Their right of return is clearly and unambiguously guaranteed by international law under the Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The refugees have a claim to citizenship, financial settlement and, in some cases, return to former homes and property in what is today Israel. The government of Israel, however, opposes Palestinian immigration, in order to maintain the Jewish character of the state. Whatever the details of any future agreement, a lasting and effective settlement must find a solution for Palestinian refugees that recognizes and accommodates their “right of return” and their claim to full citizenship in a state they can call home.”
http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/returnindex.htm

“If all the Palestinian refugees and their descendants (estimates range between 5 and 8 million people) were to return to their original home within Israel this would lead to a demographic shift which would end Israel’s status as a Jewish state, as Israel’s current population is composed of about 5.8 million Jews and 1.3 million Muslim and Christian Palestinian Arabs. This is the main cause for Israel’s continued resistance to the Palestinian “right of return”.

Even if a smaller number of refugees were to return, as little as one million, this would still alter Israel’s character as a Jewish state. A very large majority of Jewish Israelis find this prospect unacceptable. They see the demand for a Palestinian Right of Return as merely another, more subtle way of arguing for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, and demand that the Palestinians recognize that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish-majority state.”

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

Naturally, zionist would staunchly oppose the return of Palestinians as this will mark the end of their state. yet the UN, international law under the Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights all call for the return of those Palestenians. that makes zionist = anti-everyone + anti-world. ANTI-WORLD !!!!

finally, AIG said “Anti Zionists are those that believe that there shouldn’t be a Jewish state. There are not many people who think that outside the Arab world.”
Nope, wrong again, Anti-zionists are not those who believe that Jews should’t have a state.We believe there shouldn’t be a an Israeli state in place of a Palestinian one feeding off the uprooting of local Arabs, Levantines, Muslims, and Christians.

November 17th, 2007, 1:46 am

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Disaffection,
Over 90% of Jews are against the right of return.
And since there is no where else that Jews are offerred a state, the fact that you don’t want a state in mandatory Palestine means you don’t want a Jewish state.
Once there is an alternative on the table there will be something to discuss, but no one is offerring the Jews anything so we will have to stay where we are. I will wait until you propose a better alternative. Perhaps you can convince Sim and the Fins to leave their country and let the Jews take it?

November 17th, 2007, 1:54 am

 

Disaffection said:

AIG,
yes, we’ve established that your against the right of return because it would be just,moral or even meeting Torah and international law as that’s not an intrinsic part of Zionist agenda.
there seems to be a misconception that land in the ME is up for charity, as if its abundantly available. The fact that no one else offered an alternative is not the Palestinians’ fault or problem. Demand such compensation for your European persecutors.

November 17th, 2007, 2:38 am

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

No use talking to the Europeans. I’ll leave that to you and Sim. I am sure you can convince them to give the Jews parts of Poland or Germany. Till then I will wait patiently. And of course its the Palestinians problems. While the Jews are on the land, how can they have it?

November 17th, 2007, 2:43 am

 

Disaffection said:

wait at your own peril mate. LOL . Dont worry about the Jews, its not like your one of them.

November 17th, 2007, 2:55 am

 

ugarit said:

“Perhaps you can convince Sim and the Fins to leave their country and let the Jews take it?”

Why the need to ask? Zionists didn’t do that in Palestine. They ethnically cleansed Palestine of most Palestinians and renamed it Israel

November 17th, 2007, 3:59 am

 

Nur al-Cubicle said:

Re: Lebanon: I saw this and wanted to pass it on [via L’Orient-Le Jour].

Michel Aoun criticized the US policy toward Lebanon, underscoring that it puts the country in an impossible situation: perpetual confrontation. “I call upon Lebanese to reject this policy and to refuse a ready-made, fabricated President having the sole purpose of national conflict.”

Re: Pope’s ambassador to Washington blames Israel for deterioration of relations with Catholic Church,

Well, yes I suppose so since Israel is bleeding the Catholics in the Holy Land dry with church taxes in the hope that they won’t be able to maintain the shrines any longer. Synagogues, of course, don’t pay a shekel.

I would like to point out that democracy and great religions welcome all comers.

November 17th, 2007, 4:57 am

 

abraham said:

Anti Zionists are those that believe that there shouldn’t be a Jewish state.

Yes. You are correct.

Usurping the land of another people, then occupying what remained of the land that the other people were left with, is immoral. I don’t care how you want to frame it. It is immoral.

Now, you can have your Jewish state, but you can’t have it where another people already existed who were quite happily living under their own existing social order. Western powers had no right to arbitrarily seize Arab land to give to ostensibly stateless Jews, no matter how pathetic or desperate their plight. If zionists would have acquired the land legitimately then that’s a different story. But zionists did not. They were awarded it by fiat from an illegitimate power.

Zionism is immoral. Zionism is theft. Of course you are not going to agree with this. I understand that. The thief will not admit to his crime. But you are not the audience. The audience is those who don’t understand that when you’re talking about zionism, you’re talking about an odious ideology that promotes the supremacy of one religion over another and accords rights based on religious affiliation. At least that is the effective reality of modern day zionism, notwithstanding the original zionist “vision” (which was basically the usurpation of Arab land for Jews).

So if, as you say, 90% of Jews consider themselves zionist and believe in the usurpation of Arab land for the benefit of themselves, then they are immoral because they believe in an immoral practice. It would be the same if 90% of Jews believed in child rape. Just because a majority of an ethnic group thinks something is right, it doesn’t make it somehow moral. Aren’t Muslims always being castigated for female circumcision (even though that practice has nothing to do with Islam)?

So it is not anti-Jewish to be anti-zionist. It is merely anti-zionist. Your religion has nothing to do with it. Your immorality does.

November 17th, 2007, 5:38 am

 

abraham said:

But really, I want to understand what Abraham and Disaffection mean when they say they are anti-zionist. You will see they mean they want the end of Israel.

That or full human and state rights of all non-Jews from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. Period. No “ifs” or “whens” or “buts”.

Choose the best option for Jews from the two options. With one you lose it all. With the other you gain it all.

November 17th, 2007, 5:44 am

 

abraham said:

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Sim,
I love it when a rabid racist (antisemite for those using regular language) like you quotes from an Israeli paper criticism of Israel thus proving what a democracy Israel is and what the real difference is between Israel and the Arab world.

How is it racist for Simohurtta to link to a story (in a Jewish newspaper, as you point out) and ask you for your opinion of it?

You’re a stark raving hysteric, and a waste of vowels, consonants, and punctuation.

November 17th, 2007, 6:27 am

 

abraham said:

AIG, remaining clueless, stated:

Once there is an alternative on the table there will be something to discuss, but no one is offerring the Jews anything so we will have to stay where we are.

No one but the Nazis owe you anything. Go back to Germany and take back what the Nazis took from you if you want Justice.

The Palestinians certainly owe you nothing. It is the other way around. Admit it already.

November 17th, 2007, 6:41 am

 

Disaffection said:

Abraham,
he wont admit a thing. you can keep cornering him and he will continue to go in circles. the ultimate sign of him running out of legitimate argument is when he hides behind “the reality” monologue. Palestinians are the easy option. Its not about right or wrong, we all know that. I just enjoy watching the disintegration of a Zionist moral or ethical highgrounds.
The reality for them is that we are HERE too, we’re not going anywhere, and more importantly, outnumber them, and (future generations are brought up to know this) that once their imperial sugar-daddy loose their grip (just like all preceding imperialists) which we are witnessing traces of already, accountancy will be through on that table before anything. Right of return is the least of their problems. Lets hope our democratically elected leaders will be kind enough.

November 17th, 2007, 12:50 pm

 

ausamaa said:

ANOTHERISRAELIGUY,

You say: “Once there is an alternative on the table there will be something to discuss, but no one is offerring the Jews anything so we will have to stay where we are”.

Promiss that you will move and we shall do our best to find you a more suitable place. But then, NO we will not. We do not want a new Israel to wreck havoc on other new victims. And also, Palestine can accommodate both Arabs and Jews as it did before Hertzel came up with his brilliant insight that Jews should live alone and apart from other peoples.

BTW, did you ever take an IQ assessment? It sounds like you know nothing about nothing! By saying things like that, you are hurting Israelis not helping them.

Well, that is in case you do care..

November 17th, 2007, 1:21 pm

 

Disaffection said:

in light of what i subtly mentioned in my last post….

Should the oil be priced in (the plunging) Dollar? some countries are already using other currencies.

“During the session on Friday, Saudi Arabia objected to a attempt by Iran and Venezuela to highlight concern over dollar weakness in the summit communique and the group voted the proposal out.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7084879

“Oil is priced in dollars on the world market, and its depreciation has concerned oil producers because it has contributed to rising crude prices and has eroded the value of their dollar reserves.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7097856.stm

and finally,
“The dollar’s decline: from symbol of hegemony to shunned currency
…Its plight was made still worse by a jarring signal from China that it was switching to other currencies. Cheng Siwei, vice-chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, told a conference in Beijing: “We will favour stronger currencies over weaker ones, and will readjust accordingly.””
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3169638.ece

November 17th, 2007, 1:59 pm

 

Disaffection said:

in light of what i subtly mentioned in my last post….

Should the oil be priced in (the plunging) Dollar? some countries are already using other currencies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7090000/newsid_7099700/7099794.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&asb=1&news=1&ms3=22

“During the session on Friday, Saudi Arabia objected to a attempt by Iran and Venezuela to highlight concern over dollar weakness in the summit communique and the group voted the proposal out.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7084879

“Oil is priced in dollars on the world market, and its depreciation has concerned oil producers because it has contributed to rising crude prices and has eroded the value of their dollar reserves.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7097856.stm

and finally,
“The dollar’s decline: from symbol of hegemony to shunned currency
…Its plight was made still worse by a jarring signal from China that it was switching to other currencies. Cheng Siwei, vice-chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, told a conference in Beijing: “We will favour stronger currencies over weaker ones, and will readjust accordingly.””
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3169638.ece

November 17th, 2007, 2:10 pm

 

annie said:

Disaffection, Abraham, Alex, I love you.

Faced with the relentless assaults of AP, IG and AIG I sometimes feel like giving up on the comments section.

But thanks to your lot, I feel like staying (and skipping the insanity of the dirty three)

November 17th, 2007, 2:49 pm

 

Losing Hope Quickly said:

Ditto

November 17th, 2007, 4:04 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

We already had this discussion just a week or so ago on creative syria at a much higher level of sophistication:
http://creativesyria.com/syrianbloggers/?p=51#comments

At least Mazen Salhi makes sense and bases his arguments on reality and not wishful thinking.

November 17th, 2007, 4:10 pm

 

Disaffection said:

tried posting earlier but nothing got through…

AGI… once again. Reality hey? when losing hope with dialectical history, coming to terms with crimes your ilk perpetrated, and deviation of your cause, i guess you have to run to the safe haven of “yes, but the reality now is…bla bla bla” . shocker!
not sure what Mazen Salhi said to you, but if it was music to your ears, doesn’t mean it was sophisticated.
You can dent history as much as you like. Evidence and counter arguments will always haunt you till the end of time. You’re not the only one who can shape reality now or in the future.
I love it when terrorist apologists start talking about sophistication though. Couldn’t help but crack a smile.

November 17th, 2007, 4:45 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Disaffection,
Read the Mazen Salhi comment section, and if you have anything of substance to add, you can do it there. And as for arguments going on till the end of time, this is our bread and butter, we are Jews after all 🙂

November 17th, 2007, 4:52 pm

 

abraham said:

DISAFFECTION said:

…once their imperial sugar-daddy loose their grip (just like all preceding imperialists) which we are witnessing traces of already, accountancy will be through on that table before anything.

Yes, we are starting to see a break down in the support for Israel as the reality of the situation finally starts to reach Americans who have until now been self-absorbed with their quest for a life free of guilt from US imperialism while enjoying its benefits. They’re now being confronted with it front and center due to the plummeting value of the dollar and the ultimate failure of our monkey dictator’s bungled “mission” in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a reckoning occuring but unfortunately it will affect the entire world rather than just those who are responsible. If the nations of the world don’t have the power to hold us accountable, climate change apparently will.

AUSAMAA said:

Promiss that you will move and we shall do our best to find you a more suitable place. But then, NO we will not. We do not want a new Israel to wreck havoc on other new victims.

Texas is a big state, not to mention the state that launched our monkey dictator into power. I’m all for giving the Zionists an equal part of Texas for their sliver of land in Palestine. The climate is the same and the close-mindedness of the people is similar, so they should get right along.

Carrying forward what I was saying above, the right-wing Christian political power base that has held a dominant position in our national dialogue ever since the thundering idiot Reagan gave them a platform is finally waning. In the interim politicians of either party pandered for their votes and ignored and exacerbated the Palestinian occupation by giving Israel increasing authority to commit war crimes and violate international law, all in the hopes of appeasing extremist Christianist ideologues for their political support. This culminated with the installation of our monkey dictator in power in 2000 who is so uncouth that he didn’t even follow normal US political protocol, which was to support Israel but to do it subtly, not calling a heinous hyena like Ariel Sharon a “man of peace” and telling him to go forth and imprison the Palestinians in ghettos. But now they have over-played their hand. I believe the majority of Americans are fed up with this increasingly oppressive and corrupt institutionalization of Christainist doctrine and are starting to push back. Currently it’s just a few waves lapping up on the beach but soon the tsunami will arrive and hopefully wash out the entire political system. One can hope.

So ultimately this is a problem of the zionists’ own making. They think they’re being clever by exploiting the support from extremists who are just as radical as Al Qaeda when they know full well that ultimately these “Christian Zionist” nutjobs will require them to convert to Christ or die. The ultimate conclusion to this tale is the destruction of Israel, no matter what plot twists and turns we encounter along the way. Israelis may have excellent short term planning (and when I say short term I mean in terms of weeks) but their long term goal lacks no vision or direction other than “we’ll burn that bridge when we get to it”.

November 17th, 2007, 5:43 pm

 

abraham said:

AIG, you are arguably retarded. Nearly the entire comment thread there consisted of argumentation between you and Mazen Salhi. So I presume the “sophistication” to which you are referring are all of your comments?

I laugh at you.

November 17th, 2007, 5:49 pm

 

Alex said:

Disaffection,

I just released your comment. It was considered spam probably because it had many links.

By the way… I recommend reading Mazen Salhi’s article and discussion with AIG who, for a change, was semi reasonable there.

AIG,

Please stop accusing SimoHurrta of being a racist and an Antisemite.

You seem to conclude that if a European is THAT motivated .. then he probably hates Jews.

He hates the current form of Israel the same way you hate Arab dictatorships. The same energy you have for fighting Syrian dictatorships, Simohurrta is equally motivated to fight Israel.

November 17th, 2007, 6:46 pm

 

Mazen said:

AIG,

I guess you’re right about arguing for the sake or arguing. Arguing engages other people and keeps them busy, but it should only be done when we all want to reach somewhere.

I think much of your arguing (not arguments, but the act of arguing) is just an act of smoke screening.

I know a number of Jews who are not Zionists. Zionism is a form of fascism and should be abolished.

November 17th, 2007, 6:47 pm

 

abraham said:

Hi Mazen.

How funny. I just posted a comment to your excellent article on Creative Syria that says basically the same thing.

AIG is arguing for the sake of arguing, to distract you and waste your time so you don’t go off and produce more useful work.

I’m pretty sure he’s a paid agent of the Israeli government, whose job it is to spend time on Arab advocacy blogs wasting peoples’ time.

Well, it won’t work for me. I got a full day of toil ahead of me so bye for now.

November 17th, 2007, 7:09 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Alex,
Sim is an antisemite based on his racist generalizations. I have demonstrated that many times. In the case of the Jewish college girl for example.

Mazen,
Arguing is important in order to understand the position of other people. It is clear that we have a very different view of things. Both of us want to reach peace, but our concept of peace is quite different.

You want to abolish Zionism but this is something that only Jews can decide to abolish just as only Arabs can abolish Arab Nationalism. It is your job to convince Jews. Good luck. At least I appreciate your sincerity because you realize that the Arabs have to get their house in order before they have any chance of convincing the Jews.

And as for the anti-Zionist posters that live in the US and pay taxes to support Israel, all I can say is that actions speak louder than words. I would not live in a country that for decades has been the closest ally of my worst enemy. You are living a lie and wearing your hypocrisy on your sleeve.

In the end, what you all want is to rewind back history. But there is no rewind. We have to accept reality. Yes, accept reality, because there is no other way to solve problems unless reality is acknowledged.

November 17th, 2007, 7:10 pm

 

Alex said:

AIG,

“Accept reality” sounds reasonable … but “Accept the conditions Israel is setting by force” is what we have to … accept.

Th vast majority of Arabs accepted the presence of Jews among them … a smaller majority accepted “Israel” if Israel accepts UNSC resolutions 242 and 338 … but very few will accept today’s Israel … there is no easy way to accept this Israel … only the continuous use of force will make them “Accept” your reality.

But the continued successful use of force by nations who are the proud owners of strong armies (like Israel and the United States) is not something you should take fro granted. Things changed … as you can see in Iraq and as you realized in Lebanon last year …

But I can sense from your confidence that you do not buy that argument. You heard these warnings many times in the past and you KNOW that the IDF is always going to enforce Israel’s rules.

November 17th, 2007, 7:28 pm

 

Nur al-Cubicle said:

AIG is arguing for the sake of arguing, to distract you and waste your time so you don’t go off and produce more useful worK

This is Edward Saïd used to say.

November 17th, 2007, 7:36 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Alex,
That is true from your point of view. You only accept Israel because you cannot beat it at war. Without the IDF there would be no Israel. But there is also history that you cannot undo. You cannot undo 48, 67, 73 etc. That is water under the bridge. You cannot undo the fact that the majority of Israelis were born in Israel many of them even third generation.

Yes, and the loser in wars, especially if the loser initiated the war, needs to accept the reality that the results of war change things. So you have to accept that you could not beat Israel in the past in war and that your attempts made things worse for the Arabs. And you can choose whether you want to fight Israel in the future or not. Israel has to be ready whichever way you decide.

The only way the Arabs can beat Israel is by becoming democracies. But when they become democracies, they will not resort to war to solve problems. They will first invest decades in internal development. The Arab countries have a future only as democracies, but that means accepting Israel and history.

November 17th, 2007, 8:04 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Alex,
Continuous use of force?
Why, there has not been a major war involving Israel since 73.
The Asads have not fired a shot at Israel since 1973 over the Golan border even when Israel bombs inside Syria. It seems they have accepted Israel’s “rules”. The same goes for Egypt and Jordan.

In a few weeks we will know what kind of Lebanon there will be. A Lebanon that is M14 or a Hizballah Lebanon. If it is an M14 Lebanon there will be zero countries that are at war with Israel. And in any case, after July 2006, Hizballah will not start anything for many many years.

And in order for things to change, the worst scenario has to happen from your respect. The regime in Syria and Egypt needs to change in order for Syria or Egypt to start a war with Israel. And that according to you, would most probably lead to a civil war making the Arab states even weaker.

So what exactly do I need to be worried about?

November 17th, 2007, 8:19 pm

 

SimoHurtta said:

AIG,
Please stop accusing SimoHurrta of being a racist and an Antisemite.
You seem to conclude that if a European is THAT motivated .. then he probably hates Jews.

Actually Alex it doesn’t bother me very much if AIG and his buddies call me for for anti-Semitism.

This anti-Semitism blame begins to be nowadays badly inflated and is beginning to be rather “amusing”. An example: Jewish group: Anti-Semitic incidents in Holland up by 64% The study listed during 16 months eight cases of violent anti-Semitic attacks, seven cases of “violent behaviour” and 261 cases of non-physical anti-Semitic attacks. When Jewish organizations’ mail accused them of acting like Nazis because of Israel’s actions, then they considered these mails to be anti-Semitic. No wonder with this kind of accounting principles that “anti-Semitism” is rising. Actually it is astonishing that the Jewish organizations in Holland got so little emails accusing Israel to behave like Nazis.

Why it is insulting to Israelis/Jews when they are accused for making some of same things Nazis did, when the Israelis in reality do that. The points where Israeli behaviour resembles much the Nazi’s are the over nationalistic religious based ideology, the open racism and undermining of “lower races” in leading politicians speeches, the organized attempts to get more lebensraum, creating gethos, using torture, no legal procedures are possible for detained etc. Can anybody seriously claim that that the symptoms of Fascism “seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, religious attributes” do not apply the modern Israel.

So if 95 percent of the anti-Semitic attacks are in reality opinions expressed in letters one can only wonder. Certainly most of the Muslims, especially Arabs, living in the west have some times been called terrorists in verbal conflicts. Simply in Great Britain the amount of “anti-Muslim” attacks with Jewish accounting standards must be tens of millions yearly.

He hates the current form of Israel the same way you hate Arab dictatorships. The same energy you have for fighting Syrian dictatorships, Simohurrta is equally motivated to fight Israel.

Basically I take side because of the extreme hypocrisy of these Israeli guys. If they would not present Israel as “an ideal democracy” and compare it to Arab countries, my comments would be reduce dramatically.

I do not critizize much Arab regimes because in the present circumstances, Iraq and the irrational policy of Israel and USA, I do not see very good changes in regime changes. In this geopolitical situation it would be dangerous for the sake of normal people to make now a jump in Iraq style to democracy. The religious feelings are now so on the top, that the possibility of creating a normal political system would be extremely difficult. The lack of criticism doesn’t mean that I in anyway admire Arab regimes.

Alex,
Sim is an antisemite based on his racist generalizations. I have demonstrated that many times. In the case of the Jewish college girl for example.

Actually AIG you did not prove anything. When this freshman collage girl painted Nazi marks and then complained loudly about those anti-Semitic attacks (done by herself), I simply asked the reasonable question is that “behaviour” organized. Young girls do not normally do such things and the likelihood that somebody in the Zionist propaganda machine urged her to do that is certainly possible. As I said before your movement wants desperately “proofs” of anti-Semitism. No matter of “rules”. I did not accuse all Jews painting swastikas and then shouting “I am a victim of a hate crime”. Some do, most don’t.

November 17th, 2007, 9:05 pm

 

IsraeliGuy said:

Alex said:

““Accept reality” sounds reasonable … but “Accept the conditions Israel is setting by force” is what we have to … accept.”

Alex, all sides try to impose their conditions on one another – in case you didn’t notice : )

All the players try to get a better deal, to get concessions from the other side and to improve their position.

Eventually, it will happen.
Unfortunately, it will take some more wars, deaths, blood and tears on all sides.
In the Middle East, the tears and pain are the materials from which you build bridges of compromise.

Look at how the Arab opinion changed throughout the years, from 48 till now.
It didn’t happen because they fell in love with Israel.
It happened because reality took some time to sink in and to adapt to it.

Will it stop here? I don’t think so.
The Arab world will continue to compromise, very slowly – but very steadily.

Israel also changed considerably throughout the years.
The days where Israelis said ‘not an inch’ or pushed for the ‘Greater Israel’ idea are long behind us (not to mention 2 peace deals).

It’s just a matter of maturity (from all sides), the acceptance that everybody needs to pay in order to reach a satisfactory deal and the ability to come to terms with the fact that some of our dreams, aspirations and hopes will never materialize.

This is a long process which takes time. A lot of time.
Throughout this time, the negotiations never stops.

At times, we negotiate through tanks, Katyushas, F-15’s & Scuds and during other times, we do it through direct and indirect talks, PR, diplomatic pressure, the media, etc.

All of the above are the ingredients of the negotiations, which never stop.

At some point in the future, the Arab side will compromise even more and so will the Israeli side.
It will happen when all sides will feel that they gave a lot, but received a lot too.

Some of the dreams and promises will have to be abandoned for the sake of peace and stability.
We’re not there yet and actually we’re not even close, but each decade we’re getting a bit closer.

November 17th, 2007, 9:22 pm

 

Alex said:

AIG,

Of course Syria understood the strength of Israel’s army. I have explained many times that Syria will not attack Israel, and that Syria will not retaliate for Israel’s “mission” on the Euphrates.

But my typical reply o you is: things are rarely at the extremes you like to see them. Lebanon will not end up being “Hizoballh” or “M14” as you suggested .. and Arabs will not have “democracy” .. they will move towards democracy hopefully.

And for your review, here is how the last few issues were settled when force was part of the game between Israel and Syria, or Syria’s allies (Hizbollah)

1) 1967: Israel won in a dramatic fashion. That part you remember very well obviously.

2) 1973: Syria did very well … if Sadat did not stop fighting, Syria would have been able to keep the Golan. In 1974 Kissinger negotiated a ceasefire agreement between two equals .. he did over 20 trips to Damascus … that tells you Syria was not forced to accept any reality any more than Israel needed to accept Syria’s reality. Syria was the darling of the Arab world.

3) 1981-2000: Israel’s invasion and long term occupation of Lebanon achieved initial successes … downing tens of Syrian MIGs … occupying Beirut … signing a forced peace agreement with a “friendly” Lebanese president. That agreement was scrapped. Israel withdraw from south Lebanon after it cound not achieve its goals of that long term occupation. Israel killed 17,800 Lebanese (mostly civilians) and created a powerful enemy called Hizbollah.

Bravo.

4) 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon: killed 1400 Lebanese (again mostly civilians) made many more Christians dislike America which was preventing the UN from ordering an immediate ceasefire … and you know, made Nasrallah the champion of the Arab world and made Israel’s IDf … you know what.

So to conclude … Syria knows it is wrong to start a war against Israel that it can not win. But Syria (and Israel) know that Israel can not force its will on Syria … it could not in 1973 .. it could not in 1981 … and it could not in 2006.

So .. yes the same way you try to force “solutions” on your Arab neighbors, Syria resists those solutions by “fore” … not the deadly force of wars that Israel loves to apply … but the force of its relations with popular movements in the Arab world and the force of maturity.

And it works … while they are wondering in Washington why they could not force a regime change in Damascus the past 5 years they tried … the Syrians know the answer.

November 17th, 2007, 9:47 pm

 

Alex said:

Israeliguy,

I don’t know about the “Arab side” .. but I know the Syrian side … the Syrian side does not need more wars to be convinced of the benefits of peace.

It is your side that seems to need a couple more wars to feel more superior … in order to negotiate not as an equal but as a superior side.

The process you are talking about took place already in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s … Syria was ready since 1991 .. ready, with the right attitude … negotiating as an equal.

November 17th, 2007, 9:51 pm

 

norman said:

Assyrian International News Agency
Turkey, Shunned By U.S., EU, Seeks Support of Syria, Iran

——————————————————————————–

Posted GMT 11-17-2007 18:32:21

——————————————————————————–

As Turkey’s quest to join the EU evaporates, it is gradually turning its back on the West in favor of strategic partnerships with Iran and Syria who have voiced support for a Turkish invasion of Iraq. Such an invasion could come at any time despite U.S. pleas for restraint when Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited Washington.

He was warned by Bush administration figures that an invasion of Iraq could lead to a wider conflict that would benefit America’s enemies in the region. At the same time, his top general, Yasar Buyukanit, told journalists in the Turkish capital, Ankara, that Turkey was a great state and did not need anyone’s approval to invade Iraq.

Buyukanit said the U.S. had only been consulted about Turkish plans in order to avoid the possibility of “friendly fire” between U.S. and Turkish soldiers once an invasion began. As far as he was concerned, invasion plans were merely awaiting approval.

Iran has cleverly stoked Turkish anger toward the U.S. by persuading the Turks that America has not done enough to stop Kurdish guerrillas from the PKK–Kurdistan Workers Party–attacking Turkey from mountains bordering northern Iraq and Turkey. Iran shares Turkey’s disdain for the PKK, which has also carried out attacks inside Iran.

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has admitted his government has held meetings with the Turks to discuss a bilateral approach to combating the PKK threat.

In a call to the Turkish prime minister, he said Iran fully understood Turkey’s concern with the continued threat from inside Iraq. He complained that the United States was playing a double game by covertly supporting Kurdish insurgents to create disharmony among states in the region.

In a move that further angered D.C., Iran brought Syria into the mix by encouraging it to reach out to Turkey over the PKK issue. Syria’s foreign minister, Walid Mouallem, lost no time issuing a statement that his country backed Turkey’s right to strike back at PKK terrorists who threatened not only Turkey and Iran but Syria.

For some time, these three countries have kept a close eye on other events in Iraq, especially U.S. moves to incorporate the oil rich city of Kirkuk into the Kurdistan Regional Government, which is closely tied to the U.S.

Washington wants the Kurds to control the massive oil reserves in northern Iraq, fearing they could fall under the jurisdiction of a future Iraqi Shiite government with close links to Iran.

The Bush administration will go to any lengths to achieve this goal even if it means dividing Iraq into three regions–Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and the Shiites mostly in the south. While Iran is concerned about Kirkuk being transferred to the Kurds, so too, is Turkey, which has warned the U.S. that Kirkuk would provide Kurds with the means to create a powerful state on its borders with the power to reach out to millions of disgruntled Kurds residing in Turkey and Iran.

All in all, Iran has cleverly courted Turkey by identifying Turkish concerns with issues that conflict with U.S. and Western policy in the region. But it is not just on that level that the two nations have grown closer together. They have become serious trading partners with trade levels between the two now above the $7 billion mark and expected to reach over $15 billion in 2008/2009.

Turkey has also been negotiating to have natural gas piped from Iran into Europe, making European countries less dependent on Russian supplies from the Caspian. That would help make Turkey a bigger regional player.

Perhaps, it was only a matter of time before Turkey, facing EU rejection and a drift from decades of secular rule, would turn its eyes east to the Muslim world in an effort to become a big player. An indication this was happening was the developing Iran relationship, which had previously been one of enmity going back to the days of the Ottoman Empire when Turks limited the spread of what was then the Persian (now Iran) rule of the Safavi dynasty.

A sure sign the U.S. is worried about Turkey’s alliance with Iran was the November 10 visit to Ankara by the Saudi King Abdullah Aziz, a close ally of the United States. His visit to Turkey last year was the first by a Saudi rule for more than four decades. The irony of his two visits was not lost on historians who pointed out that Saudi Arabia had been at the apex of the Arab revolt that led to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, yet now a Saudi king was coming to plead for Turkey’s help in moderating Iranian influence, which the Saudis, like the U.S. and Israel, regarded as pernicious.

Even though his visit appealed to Washington, it nevertheless cemented Turkey’s assertion it was a major player in the Islamic world. It also demonstrated that the Saudis supported Turkey’s drift from secularism to better relations with Islam. Abdullah cautiously voiced his fears that Turkey could unwittingly become a means for Iran to expand Shiite influence inside Iraq at the expense of the Sunnis, whom the Saudis support. But he was careful not to be seen to be dictating to Turkey.

In order to conceal the fact Iran was the primary reason for his state visit, he advocated changes in rules governing the numbers of Turkish pilgrims permitted to attend the yearly religious hajj in Mecca, which is controlled by Saudi Arabia. Last year, almost half a million Turkish Muslims applied to make the pilgrimage, but the Saudis officially insisted on allowing only 70,000. With applications for next year’s hajj expected to be close to one million, the Saudi ruler promised to negotiate a higher quota.

But the introduction of a religious issue did not obscure the fact that King Abdullah’s trip was made at the behest of the U.S. and Israel, who have been leading an international clamor for the total isolation of Iran. In a sign that Turkey was not prepared to take that path, the country’s president, Abdul Gul, a devout Muslim, said Turkey’s greatest asset was that it could serve as a bridge between Europe and the East. In other words, it did not serve one master. He added that his nation was an important part of the Muslim world and “the revered traditions of the East.”

That was exactly what Iran and Syria wanted to hear. The Saudis must now sit back and watch U.S. policy vis-a-vis Kurdish northern Iraq, worried that if it conflicts with Turkish interests, the Turks will draw even closer to Iran and Syria.

By Richard Walker
http://www.americanfreepress.net

Richard Walker is the nom de plume of a former mainstream news producer who now writes for AFP so he can expose the kinds of subjects that he was forbidden to cover in the controlled press.

November 17th, 2007, 10:43 pm

 

IsraeliGuy said:

No problem, Alex.

Let me tell you how I define ‘negotiating as an equal’.

1. The 2 sides meet somewhere for direct talks with zero preconditions.

2. Each side puts on the table whatever he wants from the other side.
Anything can be put on the table by either side.

3. If both sides agree – great, you have a deal.

4. If there’s no mutual agreement – no deal.

How does this formula sound to you?

November 17th, 2007, 11:15 pm

 

ausamaa said:

ISRAELIGUY

Your formula sound very much like: If I steal your wallet while holding a gun to your head, then, to resolve our “differences” we negotiate according to the terms you listed above.

And if we do not reach a “mutual” agreement, then no deal. And I continue to keep your wallet.

And to hell with Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 194, and all other relevant matters.

How brilliant!!!!!!

November 17th, 2007, 11:41 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Alex,
You are mistaken about 1973, from wikipedia:
From 11 October to 14 October, the Israeli forces pushed into Syria, conquering a further twenty-square-mile box of territory in the Bashan. From there they were able to shell the outskirts of Damascus, only 40 km away, using heavy artillery.

The Syrians did not do well and if in fact the counter offensive that thy planned would have taken place, they would have sufferred sever causalties and this is why they didn’t proceed with it.

The Syrians did so “well” that after the 1973 war they decided they would not fight a direct war with Israel anymore.

And you are making a small mistake. Israel could not force its will on Syria during the cold war. But the cold war is over. The next war will stop when Israel wants it to stop, not when the Russians demand the war stop like in 1973.

So I do think that after the next regional war, which is sure to happen the way Asad is acting, all the sides will be ready for a serious negotiation. Either Israel will lose big time or Syria will suffer very dire consequences. We will see.

November 17th, 2007, 11:43 pm

 

abraham said:

AIG:

And as for the anti-Zionist posters that live in the US and pay taxes to support Israel, all I can say is that actions speak louder than words. I would not live in a country that for decades has been the closest ally of my worst enemy. You are living a lie and wearing your hypocrisy on your sleeve.

I suppose it goes without saying that this is just another perfect example of how misinformed and ignorant you are and how you take away the wrong lessons from everything you observe.

The hypocrisy is the American government structure that ILLEGALLY funds the occupation and provides weapons and support to a rogue nation. The hypocrisy is US criticism of regimes like China’s and Burma’s while we give carte-blanche approval to Israel to commit war crimes and violate the Geneva Conventions. Not only do we give our approval but we FUND these activities with the tax dollars of our citizens, many of whom object to the use of their tax monies to support rogue regimes such as Israel’s rather than using it to further American interests at home. The hypocrisy is the majority of Americans who, whether due to religious or political reasons or to outright ignorance, support Israel apparently regardless of the fact that it is a brutal occupier, stealer of land, indiscriminate killer of women and children, and a violator of UN resolutions too numerous to mention. That is the hypocrisy.

We citizens that still abide by our Constitution and still insist that we are a nation of laws and not men are the true voice of America. We are the voice that says the occupation of ANY people is illegal and immoral. We are the righteous, the ones who still believe in justice, a concept that is apparently foreign to zionists.

I was born in this country and it is my home. I was born under a Constitution that starts with “We The People”, something of which all our recent leadership seems either to be unaware or scornful. I believe in the ideals and values embodied in our Constitution. It’s not my fault that most in our leadership do not. It’s not my fault that a foreign agent like AIPAC has somehow hijacked our government and taken our leadership hostage to the point that they do not dare speak ill of Israel or else their political future would be in peril. It is not my fault these politicians don’t have the courage to stand up to such a heinous organization. It is not my fault that these politicians care more about their political career than upholding their oath to the Constitution. Their hypocrisy sullies all Americans, even the good ones. I am extremely critical of the direction our country has taken during the past 100 years. There is a small but quickly growing subculture of fellow citizens who are fed up of the hypocrisy and are trying to fix it.

Your hypocrisy is that of a Jew who spouts the humanity and compassion of the Jewish religion while in your own backyard are the down-trodden victims of your own crimes; while you brutally occupy an entire civilization; while you live in houses that were stolen after their owners and occupants were murdered in cold blood. Your outright ignorance of the ideals of your own religion, or you unwillingness to adhere to them, is the hypocrisy. You are the embodiment of hypocrisy. You are the definition of hypocrisy. You are Hypocrisy.

So before you go talking about the hypocrisy of Americans, take care of your own hypocrisy first. Accusations of hypocrisy from a hypocrite do not give you integrity. They just make you look foolish.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

November 18th, 2007, 12:07 am

 

abraham said:

Without the IDF there would be no Israel.

WRONG.

Without the US, there would be no Israel. Without the US, the IDF would be armed with sticks, rocks, Kalishnakovs and Katyushas, like the Palestinians.

Your arrogance is stunning.

When an Arab country goes to war against Israel, it also goes to war against the U.S. The attack on Lebanon last year demonstrates this. This is why Hizballah’s victory is even more impressive than people realize. Not only did they defeat the IDF, they defeated the US along with them.

November 18th, 2007, 12:13 am

 

Disaffection said:

these people actually believe Israel is a powerful entity? Israel is US’s foot in the ME. An extension of Ameican (tyrannical) dominance. Let’s see how sound this investment is going to turn out to be. nevertheless…
Be careful what you wish for guys. you bang on about democracy. when democracy is re-established in the ME, Union will be the first thing in arab minds, to combat the injustice and put the record straight. I know it will be in mine and every concerned arab or levant citizen. Ridding ourselves of those ridiculous, handicapping colonial borders, whether it’s based on a Federation, khilafa, bonding treaties, some sort of ties amongst the willing states must be implemented to stand as a serious economic and political challenge. Otherwise whats the point.. remain divided and under the thumb? Lets see how zionism will deal with such reality. The prospect itself is probably seen as worst case scenario probably. nightmarish for certain… and we’re not even talking any military confrontation yet.

November 18th, 2007, 2:18 am

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

A husband call his wife’s cell and says: “Honey, be careful there is one crazy diver on 8th avenue driving against the traffic”.
She answers: “I am there right now. What do you mean one crazy driver? All the drivers are crazy and driving against the traffic.”

November 18th, 2007, 2:27 am

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Once there is democracy in the middle east, the countries will focus on internal development not war and I am highly anticipating that day.

And if you are right, then why don’t you work more for democracy since it will help your goals?

November 18th, 2007, 2:28 am

 

Disaffection said:

went through the Mazen Salhi link. your point is? you drove Mazen to say this “You know? you’re ignoring my questions, and I’m going to ignore yours. Besides, this is not the subject, and even if it were, I would probably not be discussing it with a main stream Israeli who does not have the courage to meet me half way.
Please read above. It’s spelled out a half a dozen times.”
Your interested in argument, sure… not discourse though.

AIG’s breaking news:
“As for the “right of return” it is not something that I am willing to consider at this point. In order to be moral, you first have to be alive. There is just no way it will work.”
your preceding sweet touchy feely song breaks down here. It says it all really.
Its called Right of Return because its a right! get it? Something the whole world acknowledges. not up for discussion or consideration whether your willing or not. A concept detached from your menstruation time of the month. You might will now, but that wont hold much water when your will become irrelevant and evaluated as a wrong against the ‘Right’ of return. By the way, Germans have been monetarily compensating Jews. Palestinians didn’t see a penny.

November 18th, 2007, 2:35 am

 

norman said:

If we look at history in the middle east we can see that Israel did not leave any Arab lands without force , They left Lebanon under pressure from Hezbollah and left Gaza under the fire of Ha mas , Israel will never leave the Golan without a war or a resistance , Syria has to prepare for that as Israel will never leave the Golan without war or without Syria abandoning the Palestinians , and abandoning the Palestinians is not something Syria will do , the the only option is a long term war that will starve the Israeli economy and push the Israelites to leave to the west.

It is time for the Syrians to understand that.

November 18th, 2007, 2:38 am

 

norman said:

I do not know how Syria can have peace with people who do not care about the Syrians , That is racism ,

رفضوا تسليم الخرائط وعدد الضحايا في الجولان والقنيطرة تجاوز الـ589

” لن تستطع إسرائيل بتر الحياة حتى لو بترت قدمي”

November 18th, 2007, 2:43 am

 

Disaffection said:

Your problem is that you assume Democracy comes first then internal development. Internal development will come before, will lead to democracy and carry on after.
Not all states begin with a terrorist gang like yours mate.

And who said that it will lead to war? The necessary regional policy will be imposed with political will and perhaps arm twisting. foreign intervention free of course. no need for violence baby, we are peace loving after all. your fairly familiar with that strategy at the moment.

November 18th, 2007, 2:45 am

 

abraham said:

An insane man walks into a coffee shop and yells at the top of his lungs, “I am the most argumentative man on the planet!”

The shop patrons turn to look at him for a moment, then cursing the insane asylum for letting this one go, resume enjoying the conversation of their respective company.

November 18th, 2007, 5:18 am

 

abraham said:

DISAFFECTION said:

By the way, Germans have been monetarily compensating Jews. Palestinians didn’t see a penny.

Yeah, and even if the diaspora Palestinians caved and said, “Fine! We give up. You can have the land. Compensate us,” the Israelis would balk.

In the past, they’ve already indicated they want the US to pay for any compensation if a deal is ever finally made (fat chance). That’s how unbelievably crass these people are.

November 18th, 2007, 5:23 am

 

why-discuss said:

Norman

Excellent article, thank you.
A possible alliance between sunni Turkey and shia Iran may dispel the fears of arabs sunni countries such as Jordan, Egypt and KSA that Iran is trying to create a shia crescent to threaten arab sunni countries. Syria is the only arab country that has a good relation with Iran and is developping relation with Turkey. The pretext of such rapprochememt with Turkey and Iran has been the kurdish issue. The Kurds are being pampered by the US so to have them as a plan B allies in case a unified Iraq turns more friendly to Iran and less to Israel. .
The US will try all they can to derail any alliance between Iran Turkey and Syria. I won’t be surprised is the CIA is not already plotting Shia-Sunni provocations in Turkey and South of Iran.
Nevertheless Turkey is hosting US bases now, so the US has to play subtly as a faux-pas with the Turks and they loose the foot they hold in the area. The US may use the stick of allowing a Kurdish state if the Turks turn their back on them.
This new development is one more reason why the US is accelerating the peace process with Israel. An emerging strong Iraq, allied with Iran is the worst nightmare of the US administration. They must neutralize the arabs before this happens.. thus Rice’s rush.

November 18th, 2007, 6:47 am

 

Alex said:

Israeliguy

Most Israeli politicians will tell you that “everyone knows the price of peace with Syria is the Golan Heights” …I am not being a hardline Syrian when I tell you that any peace agreement with Syria has this one unofficial precondition.

If and when Israel decides to start negotiating with Syria … the decision to return the Golan would have already been taken.

But there is a lot more Israel can talk to Syria about … the Golan has a huge symbolic value to Syrians but it is not really that big a deal in practice … neither Israel will become poor nor will Syria become rich if the Golan is transfered back to Syria.

The substantial benefits that await Israel and Syria after a well negotiated agreement lie in all other areas.

And that’s were there should be no preconditions as you suggested. After implementing UN resolutions properly… doing what is right.

AIG,

You can cut and paste anything you like from any Israel-friendly Wikipedia page, and you can ignore all he parts that are not to your liking. The fact is … few months after the war started Syria still was not defeated by Israel … Sharon was able to surround the Egyptian army, but not the Syrian army. Kissinger was still spending 6 hours per trip with Hafez negotiating … It was a tie.

I told you that no one can win a war … Israel can not win it and Syria surely can not win it.

November 18th, 2007, 6:54 am

 

IsraeliGuy said:

So Alex, I’m afraid I didn’t fully understand your bottom line on this: do you agree or disagree with my suggested plan?

November 18th, 2007, 1:01 pm

 

Disaffection said:

IG,
“Let me tell you how I define ‘negotiating as an equal’.
1. The 2 sides meet somewhere for direct talks with zero preconditions.
2. Each side puts on the table whatever he wants from the other side.
Anything can be put on the table by either side.
3. If both sides agree – great, you have a deal.
4. If there’s no mutual agreement – no deal.
How does this formula sound to you? ”

thats all very good, if we were both equal. We are not equal partners it this conflict. The stronger side has to be brave enough and take the first step, or there cannot be a deal. How can a nuclear power consider itself equal to a non-nuclear power? how can a solder with a rifle be equal with a kid holding a stone? are some more equal than others? is this Animal Farm all over again?

November 18th, 2007, 1:26 pm

 

IsraeliGuy said:

Disaffection, Alex told me that:

“It is your side that seems to need a couple more wars to feel more superior … in order to negotiate not as an equal but as a superior side.”

I’m just trying to get a clearer picture of what Alex has in mind regarding negotiating as equals.

Regarding your other comments:

“The stronger side has to be brave enough and take the first step, or there cannot be a deal.”

Well, actually President Anwar Sadat had a different opinion and made the first step – and it paid off for him, didn’t it?

“How can a nuclear power consider itself equal to a non-nuclear power?”

But take another look at my suggested plan.
ALTHOUGH we’re a nuclear power and Syria isn’t, I suggested a platform where each side has the same rights and privileges.

I didn’t use my nuclear power to set up preconditions or to dictate what will be on the agenda of the talks.
Any side can put whatever it wants on the table.

“how can a solder with a rifle be equal with a kid holding a stone?”

If you’re referring to the Palestinians, the “kids with the stones” apparently have M-16s, AK-47s, machine guns, RPGs, explosives, Qassam rockets – not to mention suicide bombers.

I assume you are aware of it – right?

November 18th, 2007, 2:15 pm

 

Alex said:

Disaffection,

What I was trying to say is that “power” comes from many sources … for example: you have a popular religious figure (a rabbi or an Imam) who does not carry weapons but he is much more “powerful” than a 20 year old soldiers with a machine gun.

The Palestinians are much weaker than Israel. What you said applies to them.

Syria is weaker than Israel when you compare army to army. But overall, Syria’s alliances with popular movements in the area and Syria’s geographic location and its ability to defend itself reasonably well if Israel decides to start a war, give it enough “power” to be somewhat of an equal partner in negotiations.

Israel does not need to do a first move with Syria .. Bashar already made that move .. he called for unconditional peace talks with Israel many, many times the past year.

Israeliguy,

Officially and in public, Syria accepted unconditional talks. So you do have an exit strategy in case your negotiators find out during their talks with the Syrians that Syria is asking for an impossible deal.

But as everybody knows, if Israeli negotiators show up saying we want peace for peace… then it is a waste of time.

The right attitude would be: … ok, let us assume that we return the Golan back to you … what would you do to in return? security? normal relations … moderating Hamas … disarming Hizbollah … reducing your military cooperation with Iran and moderating Iran … joint tourist projects …

November 18th, 2007, 4:22 pm

 

abraham said:

IG:

Well, actually President Anwar Sadat had a different opinion and made the first step – and it paid off for him, didn’t it?

Yeah, sure, it paid off for Sadat, and the ruling dynasty in general. For the Egyptian people? It didn’t count for shit. The US gives billions in aid to Egypt but it doesn’t do much for the people, it just gives Mubarak more control and power.

Some peace deal.

Your arguments are like castles in the sand.

November 18th, 2007, 5:44 pm

 

abraham said:

All this talk is silly and stupid. Syria has made it clear: give back the Golan and you get peace.

The problem is that the Israelis reject the other implicit condition: a comprehensive peace, i.e. settle with the Palestinians. But they don’t want to give up their dream of getting the remaining Palestinian land to achieve “Eretz Israel”. So they’ll never do it.

It’s a charade. A fraud. And it always has been. IG and AIG are just agents of Israeli propaganda that are (obviously in vain) trying to convince internet denizens that Israelis are reasonable and are trying to make peace.

It is humorous. And tragic. Tragically humorous.

Anyway, from my view (and I’ve said this before), it’s pretty evident that Israel is running out of time. One way or another their power will wane and slip (sooner, not later), and the Arabs will seize the initiative and administer the death blow. Israel has a relatively brief moment within the next year or two or maybe three to make a comprehensive peace. If they don’t take advantage of the situation and act now, they will have missed the train at the station.

Abraham was a prophet. I’m warning you.

November 18th, 2007, 6:03 pm

 

Bashmann said:

Alex,

I admire your stamina for this. Don’t you get tired of saying the same thing over and over again?

Habibi, we know we want peace, but we have nothing to offer.

You can’t be beggar and chooser.

Abraham,

I loved your eulogy about hypocrisy. Just one comment, it is inherent in all politics.

AIG,

Spare yourself the trouble, I’ll give you a joke that resonate the feelings I get when I read all these posts;

A young reporter from CNN was sent to the Holy Land to find a human story he can report back to headquarter and impress his superiors with his talent. He heard of a Rabbi that has been going to the wailings wall the same time, prays every day, twice a day for over 50 years. He thought it was perfect.
He took his cameraman and headed to the Holy site, at the appropriate time the Rabbi showed up, went to the wall, prayed for 15 minutes, closed his book and headed back out.
Our reporter jumped in as the Rabbi was walking out and introduced himself;

Reporter; Rabbi, my name is John Smith from CNN, would you please give us a couple of minutes?

Rabbi; Sure

Reporter; You come here everyday?
Rabbi; Yes.
Reporter; Twice a day?
Rabbi; Yes.
Reporter; What do you do?
Rabbi: I pray.
Reporter; What do you pray for?
Rabbi; I pray for everything, health, prosperity and peace.
Reporter; peace?
Rabbi; Yes, peace within and peace without. Peace between all people, and peace between us and the Palestinians, and peace between us and the Arabs.
Reporter; How long have you been doing this?
Rabbi; 50 years.
Reporter; How do you feel?
Rabbi; I feel like I’m talking to a F****ing wall.

Cheers 🙂

November 18th, 2007, 6:04 pm

 

Alex said:

Bashmann,

“Alex,

I admire your stamina for this. Don’t you get tired of saying the same thing over and over again?

Habibi, we know we want peace, but we have nothing to offer.

You can’t be beggar and chooser. ”

There are many reasons why Bashar and not Khaddam is still the president of Syria … the “efficient” security services is one … and your attitude is another.

As long as you (and the rest of the negative “opposition”) believe that Syria has no chance to differ with the Neocon demands, has no chance to resist Saudi Arabia’s wish to monopolize the leadership of the Arab world, and nothing to offer Israel in return for peace … as long as you are so embarrassed of your weak country, you will stay an outsider and your “opposition party” will remain nothing more than a webpage with a generic new Syrian constitution and a new design for a bird to replace the Syrian eagle.

Keep thinking that Syria is a beggar and enjoy Florida forever.

November 18th, 2007, 6:14 pm

 

IsraeliGuy said:

Well Alex, actually Olmert called for unconditional peace talks with Syria just a couple of months ago.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3450452,00.html

It was Syria who rejected that call.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-09/2007-09-19-voa28.cfm?CFID=159431661&CFTOKEN=86189802

By the way, on July president Shimon Peres urged Syria to open direct peace talks.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/19/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Syria.php

From the article:
“Assad responded in his speech Tuesday by saying Syria would resume negotiations in the presence of an honest broker if Israel first promised to return the Golan Heights, captured by the Jewish state in the 1967 Mideast war”.

November 18th, 2007, 7:54 pm

 

Bashmann said:

Alex,

Gee.. Look who woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

Now I see why you can keep going on like the Teshrin official newspaper. You have been indoctrinated like the rest of your regime apologists. Your enthusiasm for dictatorship is cathartic. Speak up for once and stand tall.

Chill … Its politics and you just failed the test.

Note that I refrain from personal attack, a phrase that you like to repeat often here on SC, yet I still think of you as a true Syrian and entitled to your opinion, something I learned while I lived in the evil empire under the leadership of the evil Bush and Cheney. Yet, you seem to belittle our party whose membership exceeded six thousands around the globe and demean my attitude.

Contrary to what you think of my attitude, I’m proud Arab American and the son of a true Syrian patriot, love Syria dearly and working toward making it a better place to live for ALL Syrians.

You on the other hand is keep thinking by supporting an authoritarian regime and demand peace from your enemy can gain respect and concessions. Well all I can say, keep dreaming.

Cheers.

November 18th, 2007, 8:29 pm

 

Disaffection said:

Alex
“Syria is weaker than Israel when you compare army to army.”
isn’t that fundamental?
“But overall, Syria’s alliances with popular movements in the area and Syria’s geographic location and its ability to defend itself reasonably well if Israel decides to start a war, give it enough “power” to be somewhat of an equal partner in negotiations.” you mean give it a bit of resistance, not enough power. you’re assuming Syria can defend itself reasonably well if so and so. but in reality no. how many times does the IDF have to penetrate Syrian airspace till we realize that Syrian army is incapable and handicapped? Do you consider using Hizbollah and Hamas retaliation tools? Where was Iran when IDF bombed that suspected site couple of months ago? North Korea made more noise than them.

“Israel does not need to do a first move with Syria .. Bashar already made that move .. he called for unconditional peace talks with Israel many, many times the past year.”
Disagree, Israel did need to make the first move but instead Bashar did, adding insult to injury. And despite that, we are still expected to act as equal partners. am i the only one seeing how much of a degradation this has been so far?

I dont think there is any such thing as negative opposition. There are 3omala and corrupt agents such as Ghadri and Khadam who are after personal gains (or just scum, you choose). and then there is the real opposition that seek change and don’t believe you can work with the current regime, as the current regime refuses to work with them. e.g. Kilo and co. This Status Quo is a form of devolution. The regime views itself as above the state and sole proprietor of the lives of Syrians, and that cannot be. There has to be unaccountability to the state.

November 18th, 2007, 9:14 pm

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Bashmann,
Thanks for keeping it real.
For some reason Alex believes that being able to spoil is an asset that makes Syria strong. With the current regime in place Syria has nothing positive to ofer. The track record of the Asads is dismal. They were only able to make their people lose ground relative to other countries. Look at what a mess they made of Lebanon.

It is very difficult to be a Christian in the Arab world. Some people like Alex have chosen the simple and short term solution of supporting that powers that be. Others like Azmi Bisharaa have taken a more subtle path that emphasizes Arab Nationalism in the hope of creating a secular and democratic middle east. But in the end, only democracy is the solution because when the people dictate the solution, it will be a stable one and will give hope and work for everyone. And yes there will be a difficult transition period, but it is a price that will have to be paid.

November 18th, 2007, 10:22 pm

 

abraham said:

AIG:

But in the end, only democracy is the solution because when the people dictate the solution, it will be a stable one and will give hope and work for everyone.

How naive.

We have “democracy” in the US. We are the model for democracy in fact. Look what happened: in 2000 our Supreme Court, packed with right-wing conservatives, installed Bush into office in what was effectively a junta. In 2003, we had the largest anti-war turnout in the history of the world throughout the globe, yet we still attacked Iraq (illegally). The will of the people was thoroughly ignored. Some democracy.

Your dumb country likes to think of itself as a democracy (“demockracy” is more like it) but you don’t allow half your population equal rights because they aren’t Jewish (and a third of the people in your midst are imprisoned in ghettos). And a majority of your country wants peace with its Arab neighbors but your leadership wants to continue its traditionally aggressive behavior. Your idiot prime minister had a 98% disapproval rating after your loss against Hizballah but refused to step down, ignoring the will of your people. Some democracy.

You keep hammering away at this idea that democracy will solve everything. Well, democracy is nice and all, and it does give people a say in their affairs (theoretically at least, see above) but it certainly isn’t a panacea. My country and your illegitimate one are proof of this. So much for democracy.

What we need now is justice. In the U.S. when we protest we like to yell, “No justice, no peace!” It’s not only poetic, it is truth.

No justice, no peace.

Repeat this to yourself. Let it leave a permanent imprint on your brain. This is the only thing that will rescue you. Know justice, and you shall finally know peace.

November 19th, 2007, 12:34 am

 

Alex said:

Bashman,

It is not about being a true Syrian vs “a traitor” vs a proud Syrian American …

It is about how each person reads the signs.

Let me facilitate this point through a comparison:

You and “Another Israeli guy” and the Neocons in Washington seem to have very similar views.

I, and Avi dichter and Efraim Halevy have similar views.

So … I guess they (the two former Israel intelligence chiefs) are also dreaming that Syria is more than a beggar.

And I guess these two are also …

I’m happy that you seem to be proud that you and another Israeli guy share the same rejection to my dreamer’s thoughts.

November 19th, 2007, 8:19 am

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

Alex,
Don’t try pulling that trick again. Your view is very very different than that of Dichter and Halevy. IG explained it to you many times but you keep trying to use the same trick.

Dichter and Halevy want to engage Syria in an effort to flip it. Something you do not support. Their condition for peace is a flip.

You on the other hand want no flip but do want the Golan and legitimacy for the despicable Syrian regime. Very, very few people in Israel support that. Your dreamer’s thoughts are the wet dream of the Syrian regime and contrary to the interests of both the Syrian and Israeli people and that is why Bashmann and others reject them.

November 19th, 2007, 11:48 am

 

AnotherIsraeliGuy said:

And as for Olmert and Barak, aren’t those the exact same guys that just bombed Syria and were willing to risk war with it? You really think that they support your point of view? Olmert is the guy that one day after bombing Asad, said he “respects” him. Is this what you are building your optimism on? You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with your arguments.

Bashmann has a realistic assessment of the situation and that is always the basis for moving ahead. Wishful thinking gets you nowhere.

November 19th, 2007, 11:54 am

 

Alex said:

AIG

Is there anyway I can interest you in communicating like a polite person or are you a hopeless case?

“A trick” is something a tricky person uses to gain something.

If you have difficulty understanding my point, try to control your self from thinking you caught another “trick”

The above “trick” was simply my argument that Israel needs to negotiate with Syria and need to return the Golan .. I did not say that I share Dichter’s opinions on abortion and on Iran and on Global warming.

Bashman suggest that Syria is a beggar and that I was dreaming, out of my simplistic pride, that Syria has any significance. I simply reminded him (and you) that Dichter and Halevy who are both consistently motivated to negotiate with Syria and return the Golan to Syria, can not be sharing that part of their opinion with me because they are “dreamers” with pride in Syria’s imaginary power.

So it is not about being a naively proud Syrian or not … Bashman the Syrian shares the same views with AIG the Israeli, and Alex the Syrian shares the same views (on need for negotiations that will reach a treaty that includes the return of the Golan) with the much more experienced Israelis … the ex-heads of Intelligence agencies …

And finally … not that you will understand .. but … you seem to have this great confidence that the different arguments that you engage in are surely concluded to your advantage .. that you convinced, and proved, and demonstrated to the “tricky” Syrians that you were right and their tricks were nothing more than dirty tricks.

I hope you believe me that almost nobody here is convinced of most of your “demonstrations” … You did not demonstrate that SimoHurrta is an Antisemite, and Israeliguy did not demonstrate to me that Halevy interprets flipping Syria in a much different way than the way I see it

Those victories of your in our different discussion here are in your head … and in your friend Bashmann’s head. So I appreciate if you do not imagine again that if I repeat a point (like I did yesterday, about Halevy) that I am using a trick again.

Imagine that things are left undecided if you want. I know you can not possibly imagine that you ever lose an argument with a pro-dictatorship Syrian… you support democracy and therefore you are GOD.

November 19th, 2007, 4:27 pm

 

IsraeliGuy said:

Dear Alex,

Let me ask you the following question.

Let’s say that as an Israeli, I advocate for direct talks between Israel and Iran… And let’s say that the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, says in an interview something like “I want to meet Olmert ASAP, face to face, so I can strangle this Zionist with my bare hands”.

Now let’s say, the day after, I come to this blog and start speaking passionately about the need for direct talks between Israel and Iran.

I tell you something like “Israel and Iran should make peace… it will benefit both peoples… it’s something we all need… Even Ahmadinejad himself expressed his strong will to meet Olmert ASAP!
What are we waiting for?

Wouldn’t you think that this statement of mine will be a bit ‘problematic’?

I mean, sure – Ahmadinejad indeed says, on record, that he really wants to meet Olmert.
But neglecting to mention the 2nd part of his statement, changes the picture and provides a false and distorted reality.

It’s not rare to find Israeli public figures that speak in favor of Israeli-Syrian negotiations.
The vast majority of them, say it in the context of flipping Syria 180 degrees – something which you reject, right?

November 19th, 2007, 5:15 pm

 

abraham said:

Actually, I find Alex’s arguments to be reasoned and reasonable, and AIG’s to be completely unreasoned, unreasonable, illogical, etc. And not just because I share his views.

AIG argues in circles and unintentionally contradicts himself. When he is cornered by someone else’s arguments he flees and starts another argument somewhere else. This is easily verifiable: just go back and read all his comments.

Like I said, he’s not arguing for any purpose other than to argue and waste peoples’ time.

November 19th, 2007, 5:21 pm

 

abraham said:

IG:

Let’s say that as an Israeli, I advocate for direct talks between Israel and Iran… And let’s say that the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, says in an interview something like “I want to meet Olmert ASAP, face to face, so I can strangle this Zionist with my bare hands”.

First of all, your premise is flawed, because Ahmedinejad would never say such a thing. This is yet another example your Israeli demonization of a leader you don’t like.

Furthermore, this example is so contrived that it doesn’t bare any resemblance to the criticism you are leveling at Alex.

The vast majority of them, say it in the context of flipping Syria 180 degrees – something which you reject, right?

Perhaps your interpretation of their comments is the problem. What do you mean when you keep saying Irael wants to “flip” Syria? Flip them to what? To become partners in the occupation of Palestine? To become enemies of Hizballah and Iran? What do you mean?

Your analysis is often nonsense because you misinterpret what you read to fit into your narrow viewpoint.

November 19th, 2007, 5:26 pm

 

Bashmann said:

Alex,

You can read the signs the way you want to read them. Speculate, theorize, and assume all day long, it will not make a difference.

Here are few facts that I see on the ground, which you seem to ignore;

1- The international tribunal which the regime seems to be hell-bent on stopping it.

2- Isolation of Syria from the West.

3- Syrian interference in internal affairs in Iraq and Lebanon.

4- The Iran alliance which is causing rapid radicalization throughout Syrian societies.

5- Prisoners of Conscience and Emergency Law which have left Syrians impaired to challenge authority and participate in their country decision making process.

Before you engage AIG and IG in a debate on how to get the Golan back, try reading these signs correctly, it might give you a better understanding where Syria is currently heading. All the talk about Syria choosing peace as a strategic policy is hogwash and the Israelis know this.

One more thing, I’m surprise that you, living in the West all these years, have not learned that politicians say one thing and mean another! If Olmert and Barak want peace with Syria, what do you think is stopping them? Why have we not seen Olmert visit Damascus for a peace deal?

My dear Alex, your naiveté has caused you to read the signs wrong.

Cheers

November 19th, 2007, 7:09 pm

 

Alex said:

Bashman

1) “hell-bent”? … fact? … show me the facts .. prove it.

2) Isolation of Syria? … King Abdallah went yesterday to Damascus and accepted a positive Syrian role in Lebanon … Sarkozy sent his teo top aids to Damascus …. Rice Met Mouallem twice …

There is an attempt to isolate Damascus .. but all they talk about is how much things would be better is Syria can help them … in Lebanon .. in Iraq .. in Palestine … with Iran … that’s not a very impressive isolation’

3) Who is not interfering in Lebanon? .. your dream democratic secular society of Saudi Arabia? … teh United States? .. France? … Europe? …

4) Syria is rapidly getting closer to Turkey … you need to wake up and realize the balance.

5) True … exaggerated, but true.

You got 0.75 a point right out of 5 “facts”.

By the way, I am not a fan or Olmert or Barak .. I criticize them all the time. If you wanted to pay more attention to my message you will see that my emphasis is much more on Halevy and Richter.

As for being naive … it is a thing I hear from Syrian opposition and Lebanese and Israelis. Never from independent observers or analysts.

I will seriously examine my way of seeing things when I start hearing a lot from independents about my being too naive.

Bashman … I have a priority … find solutions (incremental or comprehensive) that minimize bloodshed without causing any group in the middle east to feel they lost.

November 19th, 2007, 7:35 pm

 

Bashmann said:

Alex,

Take a look and tell me what you think?

http://www.syria-news.com/readnews.php?sy_seq=66121

cheers

November 20th, 2007, 12:04 am

 

Guy Regev said:

Druze nation?

I was wondering.
If in the course of a coming war Israel occupies large swaths of southern Syria and Assad Regime crumbles. Will Israel succeed in forming a Druze state in Jabel Al Druze?
The Druze in Israel are our allies (serve in the army and all), for the time being we’re on the same side as the Druze in Lebanon. The Druze in the Golan are nominally pro-Syrian but in actuality would like to stay in Israel and benefit from all the economic boons.
Is there any Druze nationalism in Syria? Military readiness? How big is the Druze community anyway and how much do they hate the regime?

Thanks for your thoughts

November 22nd, 2007, 8:58 am

 

Post a comment