middle east

middle east

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1854637,00.html

this just about sums up what I beleive about the middle east situation.
what do you think?

Re: middle east

i bet you egg jewish people

Re: middle east

No surprise to see you aligning with an anti-western arab supremacist

"The chances of achieving a region-wide peace in the Middle East are slim to non existent right now, because the key non-Arab players are focusing on the wrong issues. They are trying to manage or eliminate the symptoms of our region's tensions instead of addressing the root causes. Hizbullah and Iran are among the best examples of this"

Since the ceasefire was initiated Israel intercepted Syria shipping arms to Hizbu'llah, Turkey grounded Iranian planes loaded with ballistic missiles bound for Hizbu'llah... But yes its the infadels that are the disruptive element

"What happened in the three decades from the mid-70s to today? Many things. The most consistent one was that we all allowed the Arab-Israeli conflict to fester unresolved. Its bitterness kept seeping out from its Palestine-Israel core to corrode many other dimensions of the region."

What a gross distortion of history! Iran and US relations were strong when Iran was a modernizing secular nation that was focused on ditching its religious past and embracing occidental values... After the Islamic revolution the relationship quickly deteriorated... IT HAD FUCK ALL TO DO WITH ISRAEL.

"The way to end Hizbullah's status as the only non-state-armed group in Lebanon is to rewind the reel, and go to the heart of the problem that caused Hizbullah to develop its formidable military capabilities in the first place. If we solve the Arab-Israeli conflict in a fair manner, according to UN resolutions, we would eliminate two critical political forces that now nourish Hizbullah's armed defiance: the Israeli threat to Lebanon, and the ability of Syria and Iran to exploit the ongoing conflict with Israel by working through Lebanon."

BOLLOCKS.

Hizbu'llah were established to drive the Israeli's out of Lebanon - they were mainly foreign fighters (mujahideen) who were entrenched in the anti-zionist rhetoric of the arab-israeli feuds (they were rarely Lebanese citizens).

When we explore the motivations behind movements like Hamas and Hizbu'llah we find that their objective is not to find a peacefull solution - but to drive thew jews into the sea.... Here are a couple of quotes from the Hamas charter:

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

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. " (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. "May the cowards never sleep."

These are not the words of freedom fighters, these are the words of Arab supremacists.

Israel's persistent attempts to secure its place in this region by military force have always generated a greater Arab will to fight it,

Christ this guy just gets better and better.

1948 - the war was initiated by the Arabs
1967 - Premptive strike by Israel.
1968 - initiated by egypt
1973 - intiated by egypt and syria
1978 - initiated by israel to combat the PLO who were invading Israel from Lebanon
1990 - iraq attacks israel


4 out of 6 invasions were initiated by the Arabs, the two which Israel initiated were defensive manoeuvres undertaken to save the nation from annihilation (where as the Arab initiated attacks were land grabbing tactics exercised to drive the infadels off Arab soil)… Israel as military force is a recent creation – for 75 years Jews had a pathetic military representation – but Arab attacks on Jews were as common then as they are today.

The article is bullshit and its no surprise to see you aligning yourself with it Forks.

Re: Re: middle east

his anti jew stance sickens me

"If our side needs to be bleeding at least as much as the people on the other side before we win your support and understanding, then we will forego that privilege. And we express our utter contempt for your relativistic, statistics-driven morality."

Re: Re: middle east

well you and me won't agree but at least we are not throwing bombs at each other

Re: Re: Re: middle east

Lee I'm not anti the jewish race or the jewish religion. But I am anti Israeli government policy. It sickens me.

Re: Re: Re: Re: middle east

tell it to the national front

Re: Re: Re: Re: middle east

im far more sickened by the actions of terrorist organisations like hizbullah and hamas down the years. they cannot (and probably should not) be bargained with, and until the islamic nations that harbour them can grow some conscience and backbone and take serious measures to remove them, instead of hiding behind diabolically corrupt regimes and inferiority complexes then the problem will not be solved and we will see fighting in the middle east for the foreseable future.

in my opinion israel has the right to exist, hizbullah does not.

now dont get me wrong, i am not a big fan of western and israeli foreign policy all the time... mistakes have been made and innocents will die, but a country cannot stand back and let itself be attacked by terrorists. it would be sending a message that this can be tolerated.

also its not as if hizbullah bunkers were created in the weeks leading up to the conflict... many had been there since the 70's and 80's. israel has never been taken seriously when it has highlighed hizbullahs threat to world leaders... example

i want the democracy in lebanon to succeed but not if it means an iranian proxy on israels border... and i want to see israeli's living peacefully before tourists return to beirut.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: middle east

sorry, this should work

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/22f431edb91c6f548525678a0051be1d/bb095796d02d589785256b910058cc00!OpenDocument

Turkey grounded Iranian planes loaded with ballistic missiles bound for Hizbu'llah... source?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525915046&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

not disruptive. he doesn't say disruptive. he says they are focussed on the wrong thing

Forks the majority of peace processes have been drafted by Zionists and the west, but they have been disrupted almost every time by Arabs... If you can disprove this I will happily consider your perspective.

Israel (as a state – ignoring religious settlers) are not interested in expanding their borders, occupying Arab soil or conquering the middle east… Its only purpose is to create a jewish state in our ancestral homeland. Israel’s Arab neighbours are focused on driving the Jews out of the middle east – one force is acting out of defence – the other is acting out of extremist aggression…. This is reflected in Israel’s desperate attempts at seeking peace with their Arab neighbours and the instant dismissal of such proposals by the Arabs.

How can you sit there and say the reason the Arabs act so aggressively is because of the way the Israeli’s treat the Palestinians? If this were the case how do you explain the attempts of the Arabs to drive the Zionists into the sea before the establishment of Israel?

the arab Isreali conflict helped the sense of injustice which fuelled the revolution

Again your misunderstanding of Middle Eastern history is very apparent, the Islamic Revolution had nothing to do with Israel - Iranian Persians were diametrically opposed to Arab nations (we need only look at the Iraq/Iran wars).

The Islamic revolution was a reaction to the forced modernisation of a state by the Shah - it had fuck all to do with American Imperialism, Israeli Imperialism or any other modern left wing theory.... Spend 5 minutes on wikipedia or google and you'll realise how mistaken you are

well if Israel were not there then they wouldn't have been established. they were a reaction, they didn't come from fresh air

The PLO established camps in southern Lebanon from which they launched attacks on Israel (in a similar fashion to what Hizbullah have been doing), Israel collaborated with the South Lebanon Army to drive out these militants and secure the area for both Israeli and Lebanese civilians.

Both the PLO and Hizbullah (the majority of them) ranks were made up of foreign militants - they too had no place in Lebanon... But of course you choose to ignore this.

you are wrong there. they are mainly lebanese.

"Hezbollah's strength was enhanced by the dispatching of one thousand[38] to fifteen hundred[39] members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the financial backing of Iran. It became the main politico-military force among the Shi'a community in Lebanon and the main arm of what became known later as the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon." - b Nizar Abdel-Kader. Iraq and the Future of Gulf Security Cooperation: A Lebanese perspective. Lebanese Army Magazine. Retrieved on 2006-07-25.

Hizbullah has a 3000 strong militia.

You're out of your depth Forks.

Yes they are but every time Israel turns the screw they get stronger. that is the whole thrust of the article.

So what are you suggesting?

Both Hizbullah and Hamas call for the total destruction of Israel.
The Arab states that have repeatedly invaded Israel - do so to destroy the Israeli state.

Israel's enemies are not interested in peace - you cannot turn the other cheek if it will end up in your extermination.

but Israel IS occupying Arab soil. this is the reason for all the hatred. you say you don't approve of the settlers but still you support the regime which supports them.

Forks, Israel has attempted to give back Palestine countless times and every time the deal has been rejected, as acceptance would mean the recognition of Eretz Israel... If Hamas/PLO/whoever were interested in peace why do they increase their attacks on Israel when Israel handed back the Gaza Strip? Why did they increase their attacks when Israel were considering accepting the Arab Peace Initiative? Why did they reject the UN partition when the nations were first split? On the back of every peace effort has been a surge of Arab initiated violence.

Read the Hizbullah manifesto, read the Hamas charter, read Palestinian polls… Please, as if you were to spend 5 minutes of your day doing this you could at least understand that these organisation and their followers are not interested in peace – they are only interested in the destruction of Israel.

this from the same UN site as quoted by Smog..........
here is the seed......

'During the years of the Palestine Mandate, from 1922 to 1947, large-scale Jewish immigration from abroad, mainly from Eastern Europe took place, the numbers swelling in the 1930s with the notorious Nazi persecution of Jewish populations. Palestinian demands for independence and resistance to Jewish immigration led to a rebellion against the Mandate in 1937, followed by continuing terrorism and violence from both sides during and immediately after World War II. Great Britain tried to implement various formulas to bring independence to a land ravaged by violence. In 1947, Great Britain in frustration turned the problem over to the United Nations.'





After looking at various alternatives, the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947). One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine. Israel also occupied the larger part of Jerusalem. Over half the indigenous Palestinian population fled or were expelled. Jordan and Egypt occupied the other parts of the territory assigned by the partition resolution to the Palestinian Arab State which did not come into being.

In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the remaining territory of Palestine, until then under Jordanian and Egyptian control (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). This included the remaining part of Jerusalem, which was subsequently annexed by Israel. The war brought about a second exodus of Palestinians, estimated at half a million. [\B]Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 called on Israel to withdraw from territories it had occupied in the 1967 conflict.

In 1974, the General Assembly reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty, and to return. The following year, the General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. The General Assembly conferred on the PLO the status of observer in the Assembly and in other international conferences held under United Nations auspices.


Events on the ground, however, remained on a negative course. In June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon with the declared intention to eliminate the PLO. A cease-fire was arranged. PLO troops withdrew from Beirut and were transferred to neighboring countries after guarantees of safety were provided for thousands of Palestinian refugees left behind. Subsequently, a large-scale massacre of refugees took place in the camps of Sabra and Shatila.[\B]

In September 1983, the International Conference on the Question of Palestine, which was widely attended, adopted inter alia the Geneva Declaration containing the following principles: the need to oppose and reject the establishment of settlements in the occupied territory and actions taken by Israel to change the status of Jerusalem, the right of all States in the region to existence within secure and internationally recognized boundaries, with justice and security for all the people, and the attainment of the legitimate, inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.

In December 1987, a mass uprising against the Israeli occupation began in the occupied Palestinian territory (the intifadah). Methods used by the Israeli forces during the uprising resulted in mass injuries and heavy loss of life among the civilian Palestinian population


you gloss over all this..... you say the origin of the conflict was arab hatred of Jews but this was brought about by an influx of Zionists in the early part of the century. when any country is subjected to mass migration of foreigners then tensions can lead to violence as has happenned in europe.


this hatred of the foreigner has been massively increased over the years by the annexation and occupation of more Arab land and the reduction to poverty and despair of the refugees so created. this has led to the PLO Hammas and Hizbullah who see themselves as resistance armies against the Israeli occupation.
The situation is now so bad that it is hard to see a way out other than continued bloodshed or a war of attrition lasting decades.
My point is that Israel started with an injustice and has reacted with military means ever since. this has created more and more hatred which is now out of control. Even states like Egypt and Jordan will be drawn in if the violence continues. Their populations will demand it.
You say that Israel has made repeated efforts at peace but the arabs don't want it, but none of the peace proposals included the right of return and the withdrawal from occupied jerusalem or the removal of the settlers or a return to the 67 borders. I'm sure the proposals seem reasonable to you but not to the palestinians. and they must do to be acceptable.
The only solution I can see is that Israel returns to it's 67 borders and spends some of the vast millions it spends on the military on trying to build up states like Lebanon which has a chance to become a prosperous democracy with investment and so dry up the local support for Hizbullah.
Of course there will be suicide bombers and rocket attacks by those who do want to push the Jews into the sea but they will become a minority if the first injustices can be put right. more killing and bloodshed will not make Israel safe.
You ask me what is my alternative. I put the question back to you. what is yours?

weren't the massacres there carried out by lebanese maronite christian militias? i know israel had the camps surrounded but the official line from israel is they had no idea of what was happening in the camps... controversial i know but im straying off topic...

...for every sabra and shatila there is a coastal road massacre, avavim and ma'alot.

this is the part i dont like, painting israel as the aggressors constantly when in reality both sides have made highly costly decisions in attacking each other... the difference being is israel is a forward thinking democracy surrounded by people's who follow rhetoric, outdated morals/teachings and extremist religious views and want israel destroyed...

i could never side with extremism in the form of hizbullah and hamas. i can go someway to understanding their politics and even sympathise with some of them, but their terrorist attacks, deception and lies kill off most of my sympathy straight away. israel is not perfect, far from it, but its enemies are far more dangerous a threat to stability in the middle east and are far more willing to sacrifice peace, innocent lives and their own lives.

but then we all know its never acceptable for jews to defend themselves

Re: Re: middle east

:clap: Top marks Joe, your still my Jew of choice

'During the years of the Palestine Mandate, from 1922 to 1947, large-scale Jewish immigration from abroad, mainly from Eastern Europe took place, the numbers swelling in the 1930s with the notorious Nazi persecution of Jewish populations.

Do you have a problem with this?

Palestinian demands for independence and resistance to Jewish immigration led to a rebellion against the Mandate in 1937, followed by continuing terrorism and violence from both sides

More antisemitic spiel from you forks

Arabs had been attacking Jews on a serious scale long before '37, the Hebron massacre is a fine example - at this point in history the Jews had no means of defending themselves as they were peaceful settlers.

The events leading up to the Peel commission were again mainly acts of Arabic aggression - the Arab revolt being a fine example.... But of course your article glosses over all of this because the UN are and always have been an antisemitic organisation.

during and immediately after World War II. Great Britain tried to implement various formulas to bring independence to a land ravaged by violence. In 1947, Great Britain in frustration turned the problem over to the United Nations.'

How is curbing immigration to Palestine (when you're aware of the mass extermination of the Jewish people) an attempt to bring peace to the land?!?!?!??!

After looking at various alternatives, the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947). One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine. Israel also occupied the larger part of Jerusalem. Over half the indigenous Palestinian population fled or were expelled. Jordan and Egypt occupied the other parts of the territory assigned by the partition resolution to the Palestinian Arab State which did not come into being.

This paragraph is beautiful, instead of explaining that when Palestine were offered statehood they rejected it and (with the help of 5 other Arab nations) invaded Israel in an attempt to obliterate the nation and claim the land for themselves…. Instead it says Israel claimed independence and war followed!!!! LOL Forks do you seriously align yourself with such gross distortions of history?

In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the remaining territory of Palestine, until then under Jordanian and Egyptian control (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). This included the remaining part of Jerusalem, which was subsequently annexed by Israel. The war brought about a second exodus of Palestinians, estimated at half a million. Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 called on Israel to withdraw from territories it had occupied in the 1967 conflict.

Did Israel not give the land back to the Arab nations in return for peace? Did the Palestinians want peace? No – they rejected the land for peace offer!

I understand that many Palestinians have fled – but what about all the Jews that were forced out of Arab states by the bayonet? You seem to be opposed to Jews fleeing the holocaust and you make no mention of Jews being slaughtered in Arab lands or the “expulsion” (not fleeing) of Jews from many Arab states… Where should all these people go if not Israel?

And why are you sympathetic to the Palestinian Arabs that left their homes by choice – but oblivious to the Jews who were forced from their homes?

In June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon with the declared intention to eliminate the PLO. A cease-fire was arranged. PLO troops withdrew from Beirut and were transferred to neighboring countries after guarantees of safety were provided for thousands of Palestinian refugees left behind. Subsequently, a large-scale massacre of refugees took place in the camps of Sabra and Shatila.[\b]

First of all it was Lebanese that carried out the massacre – yet the antisemitic UN try their hardest to land as much blame on Israel as possible…. But more importantly I ask you how else could Israel of responded to the PLO? It was from these PLO bases in the south that they carried out daily raids on Israel!

In December 1987, a mass uprising against the Israeli occupation began in the occupied Palestinian territory (the intifadah). Methods used by the Israeli forces during the uprising resulted in mass injuries and heavy loss of life among the civilian Palestinian population

LMAO!!!!

No mention of the fucking horrific terrorist attacks carried out by the Palestinians!!!


you say the origin of the conflict was arab hatred of Jews but this was brought about by an influx of Zionists in the early part of the century. when any country is subjected to mass migration of foreigners then tensions can lead to violence as has happenned in europe.

Exactly... The Jews never came to Israel with hate fuelled ambitions – they were peaceful settlers that met with a greater hostility than they’d faced in previous nations.

My point is that Israel started with an injustice and has reacted with military means ever since.

Which injustice is this forks? The majority of early injustices were carried out by Arabs, the majority of the wars were initiated by Arabs, The majority of terrorist attacks have been carried out by Arabs... What is this first injustice which the Palestinians are reacting to????

this has created more and more hatred which is now out of control. Even states like Egypt and Jordan will be drawn in if the violence continues. Their populations will demand it.

If Egypt and Jordan concern themselves again – it will be for border expansion campaigns… But as they are enjoying the benefits the peace process is bringing them I cannot see them attacking Israel.

but none of the peace proposals included the right of return

Camp David 2000 Summit
The Arab Initiative Peace Proposal (which Hamas disrupted)

the withdrawal from occupied Jerusalem

Taba Summit
Camp David 2000 Summit
The Arab Initiative Peace Proposal (which Hamas disrupted)

the removal of the settlers or a return to the 67 borders.

Every peace process has dealt with this?!?!?!?

I'm sure the proposals seem reasonable to you but not to the palestinians. and they must do to be acceptable.

Because the Palestinians do not accept Israel!!!! Have you actually read up on the proposals or are you just guessing from the Palestinian responses?

The only solution I can see is that Israel returns to it's 67 borders and spends some of the vast millions it spends on the military on trying to build up states like Lebanon which has a chance to become a prosperous democracy with investment and so dry up the local support for Hizbullah.

So you agree with both the Arab Initiative and the Camp David Summit… Pretty much everything you suggested has already been offered to the Palestinians.

You ask me what is my alternative. I put the question back to you. what is yours?

The burden is not on Israel’s shoulders, we have made countless efforts for peace and every effort has been thwarted by the Arabs, until the Arabs recognise Israel’s right to exist there can be no peace.

I apoloise about the length of that post - but you were peddling alot of bullshit forks

I'm not peddling anything Joe I was merely stating how I agreed with the guardian article.
You disagree as I knew you would but I was hoping others might have read it with a more open mind.
you constantly state as fact things which are the subject of contention and are not proven.
you downgrade any source which opposes your Israel worship and insist all arabs (or even Jews who disagree with Israels policies) as extreme or ignorant or anti-semitic or false. No facts which don't fit your cosy world view are to be beleived, they are all the result of Jew hatred or Islamic hatred and madness.
Any news stories emanating from the Israeli propoganda machine are taken at face value and as solid facts when they are as tainted by spin as any other.

I don't think hizbullah are sunny chaps who have a fair minded attitude to Israel and if we just felt their pain everything would be ok. I'm not stupid but I also don't think that Israel has been a glowing pile of sweetness and light over the past 60 years. I don't agree that they are the blameless victims of a global conspiracy fostered by the UN, UK, arab states, persians, Europeans etc etc. I think in large part they have been the architects of their own problems and that the friends of Judaism have a duty to tell them that and to point out when they are wrong.
I think the guy in the Guardian was making good points and more war will only lead to more war
so there

Apparently moderate elements of the current Hamas leadership has considered explicity recognising the state of Israel, provided they withdraw to pre-1967 lines.

This strikes me as the best chance for peace in the region...

I was under the impression that Hezbollah enjoys the support of much of the souterhn Lebanese populace, as it portrays itself as providing a defensive force against Israeli aggression, superior to the Lebanese army.

Provided the international force is in place for the medium term, Hezbollah should be disarmed, although Israel must not give the impression that it will violate the ceasefire (any futher). The Lebanese army will need to be strengthened, and there would need to be a prisoner exchange.

With Hezbollah disarmed, a moderate Lebanese government and moderate Hamas leadership, hard line Hamas militants would find themselves increasingly isolated.

It needs concessions on both sides - to my mind, Israel should be proactive in doing this.

Forks you're a lost cause mate.

Israel recognises Palestines right to exist... How many Arab states can say the same?

The majority of wars have been initiated by Arab states.

The majority of terror campaigns against civilians have been initiated by Arabs.

The majority of peace initiatives have been supported or created by Israel.

The majority of the Arab states wish to drive the Jews into the sea.

You never address any of these issues... You're blinded by your own bigotry... A lost cause.

I've never brought religion into the debate... its a secular debate.

Unless that was a sly dig?