Hi Justin Leila, and friends.. if you were going to strip all that bullshit propaganda about islamosfascist etc.. Would it be fair to label Hamas and the palestinian people resistance to the Israeli occupation as a pure case of nationalism ? Would it be fair to label hizbollah and lebanese resistance to Israel and american imperialism as a case of nationalism ? If a it is true hizbollah shouldnt be fighting for palestinians, with the same logic why should US interfer and side up with israel palestinians ? What about Iraq ? would it be fair to categorizes the insurgency against american imperialism strong nationalism? another question, if no one is harassing a bee' nest fro its honey, would the bees has reasons to stings? Wiilit be fair to categorizes the recent bombings on lebanon a punishment on the population for lebanese for nourishing nationalistic tendency that are in conflict with US interests?

lets agree israel started this war to make lebanese people more poor, It did this because it had contingency plan on behalf of the US a country that develop terrorism as another form of culture. American are a very irrational people, they bomb arabs because that what they do, american like to create chaos and it is a people that have hate enrooted in their psyche. Whenever american corporation or government dont get their trades agreements, they forcefully vilainize the others and launch war upon the most helpless people killing as many as they can. In Iraq at the time of bombing half the Iraqis were children, this killings of children did not stop americans.. Israeli policies being enrooted in zionism is a new form of racism and conflict in the middle -east.. people of all nation should rise to stop Israel from abusing poor helpless palestinian..

1) How can a none state actor commit war crimes against a war crimes convention that they did not sign? 

2) You state Hezbollah was militarily building up on Israel's border for 6 years.  Why is it Israel's border and not Lebanon's? Would it have been alright for Lebonon to plan and exicute an attack on Israel for its build up on the Lebanese border?

3) Can you give me a source for you data that "nearly all nations...agree..HEZBOLLAH STARTED THIS WAR".  I would bet that not even half of the 200 countries of the world agree on that.

4) You state that Hamas and Hezbollah can, in your opinion, target Israeli military bases and that they hide among civilians.  Wouldn't both of these shining pieces of brilliant insight also apply to Israel?  Doesn't the Israeli army hide behind its citizens in Gaza and doesn't the Israeli army have the same moral and international law responsibilities to only target military targets? 

5) Exactly where in the Hamas charter does it state a "clear goal of eliminating all Jews in Israel"?  It doesn't!

 

mtbrad 

WOW, talk about giving the other side a FREE PASS.  Are you saying that bombing civilian areas is OK if they don't cause damage?  So INTENT mean nothing, right?  This is silly.  In any case you are WRONG, the rockets DID CAUSE CIVILIAN INJURIES in Israel, you can see reports from Haaretz and other Israeli newspapers detailing the damage and injuries (admitedly not severe, but actual damage to civilians indeed).  I can provide you the news links if you'd like.  Do you take back your statement now?  Or does Hezbollah continue to get a free pass (let me guess:  The Israeli news reports are a lie; or No one actually died, or some other lame excuse), anything but to admit that rockets fired by Hezbollah are a war crime under any definition.

Yes, Israel had plans to confront Hezbollah.  It would be idiotic not to after 6 years of buildup by Hezbollah on Israel's border.  FACE THE FACT that the UN, G8 and nearly all nations EVEN SAUDI ARABIA (I can link you to quotes) agree on:  HEZBOLLAH STARTED THIS WAR.

What happens in Gaza has nothing to do with this.  And yes, it is a war, started by Hamas when they started firing Qassams at civilian targets AFTER Israel pulled out of Gaza.  So yes, Israel is fighting a war against these terrorists.  If Hamas targeted ONLY Israeli soldiers and bases, I would agree, this is just part of the WAR.  Hamas can target military bases as part of the war, yes.  Unfortunately, Hamas hides among civilians (like Hezbollah), thus when Israel targets Hamas, innocent civilians do get killed.  Remember Hamas has in its charter a clear goal of eliminating all Jews in Israel, so for Israel, this is a war of self defense.

It's in dispute whether the Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanon or Israel. If they were captured in Lebanon it was a legal move against an invader. If they were captured in Israel it pretty much amounts to the same as Israel were occupying Lebanon in Shebaa Farms. The rockets fired were to keep the Israeli looks away from the real action (Saron's eye). The rockets didn't hurt anything or anybody, hence it can't be a warcrime. You just have to face the facts. Israel used this as a pretext for an invasion planned years ago, and OK'ed by the US administration in advance. Israel are constantly kidnapping civilians from Gaza. By your (and Israeli and US) logic that means it's an "act of war", and Palestinians have the right to destroy vast parts of Israel without punishment. Do you think they have that right?

Kelvin, probably NO ONE disputes that Hezbollah started this war, with the capture of 2 soldier SIMULTANEOUSLY with the firing of Katyushas at civilian cities, clearly a war crime (if anyone disputes this I have links to many sources confirming this, all except arab media).  So Israel WAS NOT the anagonist.  Saying this really invalidates your entire post and shows your STRONG anti-Israel bias.  You may not like Israel's actions, fine for now, but AT LEAST admit Hezbollah started this AND committed war crimes with its rockets.

speculation of IDF intentions. Keep in mind that this was all started by kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. While the response was disproportionate, any other response would have essentially validated Hezbollah's strategy of kidnapping and encouraged them to escalate the situation on their own terms.

 

Now Hezbollah has lost any chance at creating a state, and again, skirmishes continue to occur in a ceasefire because that is the reality of armed conflict. Believing that the guns automatically fall silent on the stroke of a pen ignores any understanding of military conflict as well as the recent history of the Middle East. After the surrender of Japan, the US was STILL finding Japanese soldiers until the 1980's across many Polynesian islands.

 

Hezbollah, you must also keep in mind, DID NOT AGREE TO THE CEASEFIRE. They are not a state but a group, and a terrorist group at that whose existence is validated by terrorism and combat. Even if Nasrallah and all of the group's top leaders agreed, they have no formal bureaucracy or methods to compel every member to agree. The IDF and Lebanese army can do so in a matter of hours.

Your logic of comparing Israeli's attempt to eliminate Hezbollah's leadership to Hezbollah's kidnapping of two soldiers is also facetious. The former was a RESPONSE to the latter, which means only the event which happened first (the kidnapping) was an "act of war". It is fairly obvious the operation was offensive but it worked in stopping a group that has happilly targeted civilians while ignoring the IDF response entirely. (Much of the fighting was between the IDF and local militias that were affiliated with Hezbollah.)

 

Israel's forces are only occupying Southern Lebanon until Lebanon and the UN show an ability to keep the area safe from Hezbollah domination, something both Lebanon AND the UN failed to do, which resulted in the deaths of Israeli citizens. Despite the imbalance in casualties or territory being fought over, there is a direct defensive component for Israel. They reduced the ability of Hezbollah to stage attacks on citizens and cities with diplomatic and geographic impunity.

 

Or did you notice any Katyusha rockets being aimed at IDF bases, ships (which is what they were actually used for in the Falklands war against the British fleet), or troop convoys?

Posted by Kelvin Yearwood:

This last anonymous post typically and myopically misses the asymmetry of the UN ceasfire.

Isreal, the antagonist, killing 900+ people in an illegal invasion, which has dispossessed hundreds of thousands of their livelihood and property, have no commitment not to re-arm. Israel can re-arm itself, including buying or manufacturing illegal cluster and phospherous arms, which it used illegally in Lebanon, and with impunity.

Israel is a US-backed state-terrorist entity, quite openly conducting aggressive actions against the Palestinian people and the Lebanon, actions which constitute war-crimes.

There is no incentive for Hizbollah not to re-arm.

Buying weapons does not look breaching cease fire...but I say using weapons to commit act of murderous agression like israel is doing in lebanon is..

whats next anonymous, by your cheap reasoning , one could say that Israel is trying to entice Iran to war..

Bwong, in my opinion not only hizbollah should obtain weapons needed for the protection of their country but I believe each person including women should volonteer and enroll to protect their country..

The only reason why Israel attack with long range WMD and mini nukes the poor and the defenseless is because it believs it can do it without military retaliation, give the arabs the means to fight and you'll see Israelis will negotiate..

Bwong your retheoric about mininuke is ill founded, Israel weapons are made with poisonous material that will affect future generations, it is mass murdering the population.

 

 

There is a big difference between being against the policy of the Israeli state, and being against the Israeli state. Most people in the world are against the policy of the US state, but I very much doubt they are against the US state itself. The situation isn't much different when it comes to Israel. People that are the victims of the policies of a certain state, naturally won't be thrilled about this state. That shouldn't be a shock to anybody. The Indians surely weren't euphoric about the US state during its worst atrocities and genocide against the Indian population. Likewise, Palestinians and Lebanese aren't euphoric about the Israeli state. Just as Jews weren't euphoric about the German state during holocaust. People are very quick to jump to the conclusion that people critical of Israeli policy want Israel to cease to exist. That is simply not correct (although there naturally are exceptions). People want the policy of the Israeli state to change, and line up with the international consensus of a two-state settlement.

Brad, I am sure even in the minds of the most extreme PC cultural relativists they don't really believe there is an equivalence between denying same sex marriage and execution of gays like in many Islamic countries. So I will assume you brought this up just as a silly rhetorical device and leave it as that. You may not find the notion of a Jewish state offensive but many do here. But I see you haven't been around very much lately. Will answer your other points later when I have time.

Bwong, first of all when did I ever say that I supported, cheered on or in anyway thought that Radical Islam was the answer to US imperialism? I don't think that I did. However, I do think that attacking them, rhetorically and physically, is very much the method of US imperialism. If you are for a pluralistic society, then you should allow them to live in any manner that suits them and lay of the cultural colonization by attempting to hold them up to your western standards of what constitutes a just free society. Neo conservatism and its good cop partner western liberals construct the discourse of a benevolent messionic western free society to promote imperialism by conterposing this exceptionalism against the evil Other. They used to use Russian communism and now they use radical Islam. When in fact in both cases they acted to construct the very thing they claimed to be against.

Any cheerleading of US imperial expansion, and its proxy wars, weather through patriotism and western liberal exceptionalism or proping up the ideology of the evil Other (radical Islam is out to destroy society) is mearly a tool for Empire. The current "war of position" requires the exposure of the dark underbelly of western "society" and radical Islam is doing just that. The next step is to use these revelations to overcome the limitations of both.

As for applying the laws of the old testament, this is exactly what the anti-gay marriage debate is about. It is claimed to be against god and this is only stated in Leviticus in the old testament. But I agree this theologic debate is lame.

I don't think any z-neter, or few, find the notion of an Israeli state offensive. I think they mearly find an ever expanding and conquiring imperialist Israeli state offensive.

Oh, and Marx never thought there was nothing but the economy. You should reread all of the material on the superstructure and while it is based on the primacy of the economy it functions independently, and many later maxists claim has a seperate and specific material grounding.

mtbrad

Israel broke the cease-fire by attacking Hezbollah. Their aim was to kidnap or kill Hezbollah leaders (as was mentioned in the Haaretz piece covering it). Hezbollah wasn't fooled, and fired back. UN 1701 says that Israeli should halt all offensive military operations. Trying to kill Hezbollah leaders is an offensive military operation. The conclusion is therefore that Israel broke the cease-fire and the resolution. There is a difference between not retreating until UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army are moving into South-Lebanon (which they now are btw), and carrying out offensive military operations. Israel are occupying Lebanon, it's not the other way around. People say that Hezbollah's capture of two soldiers was "an act of war". Using the same logic, that also means that when Israel tried to kill or capture Hezbollah leaders, they carried out "an act of war". Since Israel are occupying Lebanon, every bullett the IDF fires, or every bomb the IAF drops, is an offensive operation. When you are occupying another country there is nothing that is called a defensive operation. Everything military operation carried out in Lebanon by Israel is by definition offensive. That is stricly forbidden in UN 1701, and Israel have clearly broken it.

This is silly. I think most people are aware that Hezbollah get their arms from the East. Probably a good deal from Syria and Iran, and perhaps from Russia and China too, I'm not sure. And where does Israel get their arms from? Mars? They get all the arms they want from the US, at discount prices. Even violating rules to get them as fast as possible to Israel, before they were used to slay innocent civilians in South-Lebanon. This has been documented by human rights organizations. So what is worse? That an organization that tries to defend their country get weapons from neighbouring countries, or that the country that is attacking another country get much more destructive weapons (and means to deliver them) from countries almost on the other side of the world? Is it worse to arm the side that is defending themselves against aggression, or to arm the side that is carrying out the aggression against a basically defenseless country? All your comments, bwong, amount to support for Israeli (and US) aggression. Most human will support the side that is the victim of crimes, not the criminal. I wonder what are your reasons to support the criminal.

So brad if Iran and Syria are not arming the Hezzbollah does it get its arms from Mars? Not too many people dispute that Hezzbolah is better equipped than the Lebanese army. I didn't say all muslims are fundamentalists. There are many cultural muslims (likely the majority) just as there are many cultural christians. But one can still talk about "mainstream Islam" as a religion just as one can talk about "main stream chiristianity". How many Christian theologians (or Jewish theologians for that matter)do you know still believe in applying the laws of the Old Testament? But almost all mainstream Islamic scholars agree on killing of apostates and many important Islamic scholars believe in stoning and amputation. Other than the Vatican do you have any example of a "Christian state"? Many Zneters find the notion of a Jewish state offensive.But at least Israel doesn't impose the law of Moses on its citzens like in the Islamic states where Sharia is practised in all its bloody glory(Do you know Sudan still uses cruxifiction as a way of execution?) A fair number of muslims even in the West don't agree with the seperation of mosque and state on principle (Check out MSA websites of major North America universities or opinion polls conducted on U.K muslims). Why is it that leftists never neglect to pick on Christians on misogny and homophobia while letting muslims off the hook with much more abhorrent beliefs? Jerry Fawell would be considered a major liberal if he were a Muslim instead of a Christian preacher. This is not a forum on theology. Islam and the Quran were brought up mainly because Cyrano was making a big deal out of the bible. But having said that Islam is a factor in M.E politics.Many on the left in their characteristic ideological blindness often ignore that (this began with Marx who thought there was nothing but economics) Just as the loonie right who once fed the Islamists as a counterweight against the U.S.S.R and secular leftist movements in the M.E. the loonie left is now cozying up to the Islamists mistakening them as the greatest allies against American imperialism. I don't know about you but to me it does sound mightily absurd for pinning your hope of progressive, pluralistic democracy on a bunch of reactionary theocrats. The Iranian left made that mistake and only realized it when they found themselves hanging on lamp posts. At least the Christian right and the Islamists have some similarities in their authoritarian beliefs but what is the excuse for the supposedly enlightened left? Fortunately "leftists" here don't have the means to give material support to the Islamofascists like Reagan did. If Cyrano has the power he would have given Iran the nuke already, maybe he would even tag on a few mini nukes for the Hezzbollah as freebies.

If anyone believes that Iran and Syria are not ACTIVELY rearming Hezbolloah, even as you read this, then you are completely naive.  This is a clear violation of the cease fire.  Israel is responding to these cease fire violations.  Even if you do not think so, at least admit that Hezbollah is also violating cease fire with its rearming.  Recent planes intercepted from Turkey, and other reports make clear that Hezbollah is rearming.  Cyrano, once again, you only like to criticize ONE side in the equation.

Bwong I am not sure where you are geting your "news" from these days, but you might want to get another source besides Fox. Armadinajad never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. If you don't believe me, check an accurate translation. Also you seem to be under the impression that Iran is funding Hezzbolah. Again, you might want to double check the source of your info.

you said "Unlike other religions, Islam fundamentalism of one kind or another is the norm rather than the fringe.They are all marked by extreme intolrence,irrationality and tendencies towards violence."

I don't know if you have ever been to any one of a number of secular Islamic countries, or to a city with a lot of muslims, but you seem to think that they are all fundamentalists. You then go on to claim that Islamic fundamentalists are intolerent, irrational and have a tendency for violence. Which fundamentalism is not full of the above?

 

mtbrad 

It doesn't say anyone broke the ceasefire, only that there was a skirmish that killed 3 Lebanese soldiers and 1 Israeli person who was not identified as a member of IDF.  Ceasefires are not the cut and dry simplistic arrangement you think they are.  Skirmishes and fighting will often take place unofficially on and off.  The agreement that ended the Korean War is one example in which both sides sent soldiers and flights over the border for over 2 decades.

Israel's government also stated multiple times that they would only pull their troops back when UN troops showed up to ensure Hezbollah could not reorganize into a state, which was the original purpose of the attack, not to disarm them totally - something that is impossible given the transient nature of Hezbollah's members. 

If anything, the article shows that Syria is the most uncooperative party in this matter by refusing international involvement in territory that does not even belong to the Damascus government.

 

Israel is breaching cease fire ( this was expected ) by many

than what either side is willing to admit to. The entire Middle East, much to the dismay of both Israel and Palestine claims to the contrary, is not arrayed behind the Palestinian cause.

Jordan does not really want a Palestinian state or has made actual contributions to the cause on an official level because coexistence with Israel benefits it more. Nor do Syria and Lebanon except for possible affiliation in bolstering the Hezbollah cells, a strong possibility given their only chance at establishing a state in southern Lebanon was dashed by controversial IDF operations recently.

Here, the argument that Israel has a specific agenda against certain Arabic states is both bolstered and hampered. While they set out to destroy any chance of Hezbollah creating an actual "country", they strengthened the more multicultural and moderate nation of Lebanon.

Even Iran, whose leaders have expressed an endless vitriol of anti-Semitic statements including Holocaust denial, is more interested in Hezbollah as a client for its agenda than Hamas, which has actually been more successful. The fact that most of the Middle East does not express faith in the current Palestinian leaders to create and maintain a state should demonstrate a somewhat subtle but very necessary truth.

Both Israel's present and future lie in creating a less militarized and more multicultural democracy, at least as viewed through the persepective of Western politics. While this would certainly solve much of the disputes in Southern Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and elsewhere, it will create many other complications - complications that require so much examination that most of the current leaders, both democractic and despotic, in these issues are entirely too short-sighted to see.

We should have an international force between the palestinian and the israeli.. partitions should be decided by impartial court without any involvment by the US whom appear to be a menace to peace and arabs.. I dont' know but it seem that Bush is suffering some sort of genocidal complex.

Which is why partition made sense then and makes sense now.  Only problem is the Arabs then, and many now want Jews to have 0% of the land.  Few Jews or Israelis really cling to the Bible as the real source to the claim.  The real source of the claim is that Jews have had a significant presence in Palestine since Biblical times, even before Islam was born.  Yes, some religious or mainstream Jews say the Bible promises them land.  But the real fact is that Jews and Arabs both have historical ties to the land for many 100s of years and thus each should have a state.  Jews were granted 13% of the British Palestine Mandate, with 87% going to the Arabs.  This was considered very fair then, which is why a vast majority of UN nations voted for this plan.  Unfortunately, the Arabs in Palestine and most Arab nations rejected this.  This IS and REMAINS the true source of the problem then and now:  ARAB REJECTION OF ANY JEWISH PRESENCE IN HISTORIC PALESTINE. 

Muslims and Arabs kill and oppress more fellow muslims and Arabs than Israel ever has.

 

yeah lets wipe them arabs because, Muslims and Arabs kill and oppress more fellow muslims and Arabs than Israel ever has. its in the arab culture to hate and make bombs. This seem to be good reasons. tks tks bad arabs they dare talk back when we murder their children and take their land. Problem is arabs have a false sens of grievance

 

 

Is that a rational argument? It is no different from others accusing you trying to reproduce the Holocaust. If the Arabs care about "the brothers and sisters" they should stop killing each other in the first place. Muslims and Arabs kill and oppress more fellow muslims and Arabs than Israel ever has. "Arab solidarity" or "muslim solidarity"(if you include non Arabs such as Iran) only exists when pointing fingers as Israel (at those moments and only at those moments they do want you to think "all Arabs are the same")Palestine is an Arab cause. Meanwhile Almost all Arab countries have grotesque human right records; sectarian persecutions and violence are common; women are treated as second class citizens in all muslim majority countries (e.g. "honour killing" is rampant among Palestinians); minorities are routinely abused; the productivity of the Arab world is among the lowest in the world in spite of considerable oil wealth. Is that all the fault of Israel? Why should the Arabs worry about a small speck of land while they cannot manage decently the humongous amount of land they already have? You have to be blind to not see that for the broader Arab/muslim world Palestine is always about land, honour and anti-semitism, it has never been about the lives the Palestinians. But without it being turned into an Arab/muslim cause nobody outside would care about Palestine, it is just one of many conflicts in the world, and hardly the worst one. We don't hear a beep about the ongoing violence against the Kurds by Arabs or the near genocide in Darfur by Arab muslims against black muslims. Indeed David Peterson obscenely dismissed Darfur as a media event. Do killings and oppression only count when you can use them as weapon against the U.S. and the Jews? Open your eyes and stop your selective humantarianism.

kelvin arabs don't count in the eyes of bwong, desert monkeys are what they are desert monkeys..media has build such a bad imaging of muslim , there is right wingers in canada whom would wipe out our brothers and sisters..they believ they are benefiting ( the ecomonomy ) by murdering arabs I dont think so..

Posted by Kelvin Yearwood:

Bwong, your first sentence I would not quibble with. Why you think what you state there would be news to me, I cannot say.

Why you would discount corporate, capitalist interests in the Middle East, re. US support for Israel since the late 60s, also mystifes me. The US political-economic elite do not increasingly invest in a client country so that that country can simply defend itself. They don't do charity. There seems to be an amazingly naive premiss implicit in your position. Israel serves a strategic purpose for the US elites, resulting in cross-party active support - militarily, economically plus a high level of diplomatic immunity via the UN Security Council permanent member US veto.

You speak of realism, but you realism would entail further radical compromises by Palestinians to no avail as has been evidenced by Israel's unilateral actions; whereas US elite support for Israel entails further greater-Israel opportunities for itself, including the continued - while we blog - stealing of land from Palestinians through a process of economic, security and built-environment oppressive measures that make life for many Palestinians unsustainable.

You, meanwhile, dig as far back and as wide-rangingly as necessary into history in order to score points off of commentors here who cite the cruel facts on the ground at this juncture. You never mention the obscene asymmetry in the level of support for the position of Palestinians versus the Israelis at every level.

And recently we have been given clear evidence of how a pro-Israel, late-brokered peace deal has been set up between Hizbollah and the invading Israel, with the asymmetrical call for Hizbollah not to re-arm while Israel has open access to any legal or illegal weapons it chooses to purchase, following an aggressive invasion in which it murdered more than a thousand poeple and destroyed the property of hundreds of thousands, mostly civilians.

Then, finally, you package Palestinians as being all the same in your last sentence despite evidence from Leila to the contrary.

Bwong what would be the percentage ratio of secular "palestinians" that are illegal prisoners in gaza and the west bank ? What would be the percentage ratio of secular "lebaneses" under siege and starved by US lead Israeli puppet army ?

Actually the ultraorthodox Jews don't accept the state of Israel because they think a legitimate state of Israel cannot be realized until the return of their Messiah.Strangely some of these people are friends of Armadinajad's because they like his idea of wiping Israel off the map. As for religious conquest I don't know of any perpetrated by the Jews except events described in the bible. But the bible is as you say unreliable historically anyway(probably those chapters referred to some local, tribal wars). Say whatever you will Judaism is not a prostylizing religion like Christianity and Islam, it does not seek to spread through the sword. On the other hand Islam (along with Christianity) has a long history of bloody conquest and empire building.How do you think countries like Iran became "Islamic" in the first place? The Islamic conquest of India was one of the most bloody page of history(the muslims ruled India for several centries!) The bible is bloody, but so is the Quran. Moreover the Quran is expansionist because muslims are told to wage war against infidels until the whole world submits to Allah. I don't know of any such unequivacal teaching in the bible. Moreover, while Christians can support the idea of seperation of Church and Sate by citing Jesus (render to Casear..),--like most do today, including the most reactionary christian fundamentalists,-- the Quran teaches that government belongs to Allah, so democracy and secular government are in conflict with Islam. Go check the websites of MSAs (muslim student Associations)in major North American universities. They freely state that Islam is a total way of life which demands complete submission to Allah in ALL spheres including society and government, hence the seperation of mosque and state is unIslamic. Now of course one can spin it to say the Quran doesn't mean what its says in light of context etc.(like Jews and Christians do with the bible) The liberals do that, but still there is only so much you can twist words that are plainly written. It is important to note that the muslims don't have as much liberty to interprete the Quran like the Christians and Jews. Unlike the bible, which is only "divinely inspired", Mohammad claimed angel dictated the Quran to him. It is the unfiltered word of God and must be adhered to in all details. As declaration of faith Muslims are required to accept Islam is the final revealation, there is no other God but Allah, Mohammad is the last prophet..Islam is the perfect religion etc. It is all final, ultimate and "perfect". More than other religions, Islam is a closed system. The Quran has rules that govern all aspects of a muslim's life, from the number of prayers, the way one should dress all the way to absurdities like how to clean one's behind after using the bathroom. Mohammad designed a closed, tight system to exert maximal control on his followers. Of course still there are different schools of Islam. This is because the Quran is full of contradictions and vague on many issues like all "holy" texts.A lot of its verses require interpretive work and commentaries to make sense.But on the whole Islam is a lot more rigid than other religions because of its predisposition to literalism and there are not many escape clauses in the Quran (there is a doctrine known as the rule of abrogation. It says that in case there is a conflict between verses in the Quran, the later one should be upheld,--I don't know why Allah contradicted himself. But unfortunately the later verses,"revealed" at Medina when Mohammad was powerful, were much more bloody and intolerent than the earlier verses "revealed" is Mecca when Mohammad was weak and needed allies and friends) Unlike other religions, Islam fundamentalism of one kind or another is the norm rather than the fringe.They are all marked by extreme intolrence,irrationality and tendencies towards violence. The difference between "moderates" and "extremists" seem to be only a matter of tactics. The latter advocate outright terrorism while the former don't. An Islamic scholar with views like Jerry Fawell would be considered a big liberal in the Muslim world because not even old Jerry advocates stoning women, killing gays and murdering apostates.But most major Islamic scholars agree on these. Tariq Ramadan, the poster boy of "moderate Islam" caused quite a stir in Europe because he refused to denounce stoning as "unIslamic". For Islam the bar of "moderation" is set very low. That is not to say all muslims are fanatics, but most muslims are probably not very religious anyway. Historically, the "Islamic golden age" when much progress occured in science and culture in general was the time when the Islamic world was most secular.

bwong, even judaism does not claim the whole land of palestine..

you wrote: Muslim claim of "holy cities" such as Jerusalem is also theological in nature. Why don't you criticize them ? Its theological in nature but it seem that the habitant of the land live there longer than the new occupier.. Also when i read the bible, it seem that it is always Israeli that are unhappy and their story is always one that is appears to kill a lots of arabs including sons of arabs.. infants etc.. its like their whole history was a 'religious war"...

Not all Zionists use the bible to argue their case. In fact the mainstream Zionist movement was/is secular(Herlzog, Weissmann, Ben Gurion, etc) But it is also true that Jews originated from the M.E and have maintained some tie with it, at least emotionally. You don't have to buy the stories in the bible to see that. Where else do you think the Jews were from originally? Muslim claim of "holy cities" such as Jerusalem is also theological in nature. Why don't you criticize them ? BTW: Speaking of number of wives, Mohammad had 28 wives and concubines, even though Muslims are supposed to be allowed only 4. It was no doubt very far from Solomon's 3000. But it is not so easy to satisfy 28 horny women either.Muslim apologists said he married these women as a kind of charity, to provide them with a livlihood (even though one was widowed because Mohammad killed her hudsband and another was originally married to Mohammad's nephew) The Chinese Emperors were said to have 3000 to 6000 wives. In reality it might be a lot less (people were known to exaggrate on numbers.In Chinese history you often read phrases like "so and so raised an army of one million" while in fact there might be just a few hundreds of them), but still he wouldn't possibly have sex with even "only" a hundred of them on a regular basis. The number of wives was a status thing. They didn't have to serve a sexual function. Indeed most of the Chinese emperor's concubines never even saw his face (let alone his you know what)

What relevance ? Israelis are laying claim that they have a Biblical ownership in part or in whole of the land of Palestine and zionist ideology (with a fervent fanatism ) seem to be apologizing of the murdering of arabs based on this ancient myths.. I just wanted to explain the difference between myth and reality.. I dont disagree jewish had a presence in palestine that can be of old,however this presence does not entiltles zionism ideology for the whole land of palestine or to commit crimes.

What is the relevance of the bible and the number of wives Solomon had? The partition resolution had nothing to do with ancient mythpologies and the Jewish population in Palestine in 1947 was not a figment of the U.N's imagination. The Quran is also a pile of horsecrap. "Allah" sounded like the ventriloquist act of an Arabian warlord (Mohammad)to fool the ignorant, why don't you debate Armadindajad on his blog?

What other groups exist in Southern Lebanon that Hezzbollah does not control and can fire rockets from Southern Lebanon without its knowledge? This sounds like a spin if you ask me. The latest round of conflict did not start with just the kidnapping of two soldiers (and the killing of 8), Katyusha rockets had been fired at Israel from Southern Lebanon for a even before the kidnapping. That was an act of war by any standard. You are making an argument based on what you believe Hezzbollah (and Hamas) would or would not do. That is a subjective judgement of someone who has never experienced the Hezzbollah first hand but also exhabits a clear and strong bias in its favour. This reminds me of the European left dismissing all evidence of Stalin's atrocities as propaganda by the "capitalist press"(the 1930 equivalent buzzword to "the corporate media") How did they know? Becuase comrade Stalin couldn't have done such things because he was an honourable man(you know he was an honourable man by reading his speeches and writings), also the Soviet press had "alternative" reports that were ignored by the "main stream press".

There is a lot of documentation suggesting embelishment of the holy writings..

I f you are interested in Babylonian history ..

 

 

 

 

pangeae next time you visit canada, remind me of introducing you to my 750 wifes and 350 concubines, who knows if you are a good boy, may be I let you have fun " 5 minutes " with one of them.. ( its ok pangeae, we won't tell your wife..)

If it ever was ALL Israel land, could you show me where was located the temple of salomon because I'd be curious to visit.. Also since you are a specialist on the bible.. could you explain how salomon dealt with his (fabled) 700 wives and 300 concubines when you, personally possibly have all the difficulty satisfying one woman at the most.. I don't know , you can't rely on fables..

That's the spin the media put on it (to create the illusion of Hezbullah as the aggressor), but I don't think that's what was meant. I took it as a warning to the Palestinian groups in South Lebanon. Hezbollah has been very strict on stuff like this. Not one Hezbollah rocket was fired at Israel from between 2000 and July 12 2006, according to UNIFIL reports. There was however some other missiles fired, but they didn't know who fired them. As Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah is very reliable not to provoke by rocket attacks. Most (if not all) rocket attacks have come from other groups in Gaza and South Lebanon, groups that Hezbollah or Hamas do not control. In the meanwhile Israel has done all it can to try to provoke them into action. Same was true before the 1982 war. No reaction came, and Israel invaded anyway.

Insofar, hizbollah has been warn over incitement for war but it seem that Israel is doing some inticement. Mr Podur seem's right in his predictions, It is also possible that are preparing for an occupation..

woah.. apparently, jews founded Israel after escaping slavery in egypt. that is the biblical recollection of it, in fact there is no administrative record of such.. hebrews crossed the Nile to escape egyptian armies would have been impossible because the egyptians controlled both side of the nile, also it does not look probable that God would promesse a land in the middles of arabs ( also most likely either a syrian or egyptian border).. Now I dont know, but what the bible say and what reality is was is a different thing.. who knows a long stay in egypt as it is suggested could lead to belief that jews were some sort of sectarian arabs.. now if one goes far as mesapotamia and the famous garden of eden could even be said that jews were iranians.. You can't always rely on books specially if these book support infanticides of arabs.. now if you base the state of israel according to the map roman empire map, the land of israel does look very arabs..

It is simply wrong to say Jews took land that was not theirs.  Jews ALWAYS lived in Palestine (before Islam was even born), always had a presence there.  Jews in Palestine during the Ottoman and British period are as much "Palestinian" as Arabs who lived there at the time. They ARE part of the people who deserved a nation.  The UN after much study, realized that two nations was best solution for each INDIGENOUS groups of people.  To deny the CONTINUOUS Jewish presence and their right to land, just like the indigenous Arabs have a right to land --- is anti-semitism.  Again I ask, why do Arabs in Palestine deserve a nation but not Jews?? The 13% was NOT TAKEN but part of a compromise that created 3 countries in the middle east (I include Jordan).  NEARLY ALL countries in Asia and Africa are CREATIONS of the colonial powers.  Either they are all illegitimate and none of these countries have the right to exist, or they ALL do,including the partition plan that created a Jewish and Arab nation in Palestine.

Norway played a role in Israel's nuclear programme. H. Lie was the Labour Party secretary (arguably the most powerful person in the party) from 1945-1969. He was vehemently against communism, and even the left wing of his own party. He upheld very close relations with the US and UK, and was a big supporter of NATO. In 1959 Norway sent 20 tons of heavy-water to Israel. Heavy water is important in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Such an important step would not have gone unnoticed by Lie, he surely knew about it. Norway also delivered other equipment to Israel vital in the production of nuclear weapons. As I understand it many Western countries also provided important technology and knowledge to Israel for the development of their nuclear arsenal, for instance the UK. It is conceivable that the US did not know about this (and Israel wasn't as close an ally then as they are now), but I do believe they knew. It is, however, also plausible that the US would have wanted Israel to be nuclear-free, just in case. This may be one of the reasons why Israel has influence over US policy. But I do find it hard to believe that the US didn't know about it. Western Europe was very US-friendly in the 50s, and very negative to Moscow. The Soviet Union was seen as an enemy of Israel. The US may have wanted a proxy fairly close to the SU with nuclear capability as "deterrence" (that means threat), as they later did with Turkey, which again resulted in the Cuba Missile Crisis as the SU wanted the same "deterrence" close to the US. I think there was a lot of BIG politics involved in this, and without declassified documents that reveal what really happened it really is only speculations. But from the US perspective it must have made sense to have Israel as a proxy with nuclear weapons very close to the World's biggest energy reserves, and relatively close to the Soviet Union.

I agree to what you say, with a little abstention. Rights in the entire Western hemisphere are under attack. They are lost for all citizens, but it mostly hurts the minorities, such as African Americans and the latinos in the US. Many have lost their voting right for instance, which is why Bush occupies the White House, even though he lost in 2000. You mention something critical for a lasting peace. Israel has to admit that what they've done is wrong, compensate Palestinians for their wrongdoings and offer them their land back. Then one have a good platform for further discussions and conciliation. Guns will never bring peace to the region, only negotiations can do that.

As of 1943 the Jews owned about 13-15% of the arable land in Palestine. The Arabs owned the rest. My point is that no one outside of Palestine should have the authority to give ANYONE anything within Palestine. That was a Palestiinian matter. Should the UN be authorised to arbitrarily decide that 13% of the USA should be given to the Native Americans? How do you think the Dark One would feel about that? And the Arabs did not want 100% of the land. They wanted to retain what was theirs - 86% of the land. It wasn't about land - it was about forced nation-building and exclusion. Recognition that Israel exists is important. Recognising that it is likely to continue to exist is important. But equally important is the need to recongise that Israel exists ONLY because it took what wasn't theirs. Until they admit that, that is no reason why anyone should want to discuss the issue rationally. So I disagree with you here. I think it is vital that Israel admit that it did these folks wrong and acted illegally when it waged its war of "independence". I think it should apologise for doing so, and I think it should seek positive ways of providing just and suitable compensation to the Palestinians whom they harmed. For starters, Israel should give these people the right to return to their lands. The fact that Israelis refuse to do this because they fear that the Palestinians would shortly become a majority in their so-called democracy just gives further ammo to those who say that the Israelis are just as racist as the Arabs surrounding them. Even within the borders of the Empire, there is deep concern that the white population will soon become a minority within an essentially Latino country. But are laws being passed to prevent this? Are people being denied basic rights because of this? Not at this time anyway. Why? Because that's NOT the way a democracy works, is it? But what both Jews and Arabs need to understand is that even the minorities have every right that the majority have. This fanatical fear on the part of Israel that giving Arabs full citizenship and property rights stands in the way of a just and lasting peace and until then you will never have the basis for a "realistic compromise", in my opinion.

It is not at all unusual for a public figure like Eisenhower to say one thing in public and act otherwise. History is filled with such instances. You know that as well as anyone. As for references...hmmm...it's been awhile, but I will try to locate that for you. It was politically unfeasible for the British to re-take control of the Canal at that time. Yes, they could have certainly, but it wouldn't look good in the extremely politically charged environment and it would confirm everything that Nasser had been saying about the colonial powers at the time. They needed another, more indirect route to re-gain control without appearing to have actually done so. The relationship between Israel and the Dark One has always been one of nuance, not black and white at all. But in the end I have to come down on the side of those that consider Israel a proxy of the Dark One. Take oil out of the picture and you will immediately see how much Israel (OR the Arab statesw) REALLY means to the Dark Powers. I find it difficult to believe that Israel could have developed nukes on their own at that time. And if the Dark One was objecting so much, why did they end up with them - surely neither France or the UK would not have given them the technology over the objections of the Empire, and certainly they didn't go to the Soviet Union who was their perceived enemy. So perhaps the nukes could only have come from the Darkness? I don't know, and I freely admit that.

Hezbollah supports Palestinians in the few ways they can. Important for the last conflict was that they captured the two soldiers to get a prisoner exchange. We don't know how many Lebanese are held, but the numbers are probably in the hundreds. In addition there are almost 10,000 Palestinians held captured, many of the kidnapped and without charges. Hezbollah wanted to release many of them. Then there is the political support of a Palestinian state, and actions they took in the last Israeli occupation that protected Palestinians.

It is one thing to criticize what Israel does, but it is not the same as questioning its right to exist within its 1967 border, which is what you and a lot posters do here.

Where do you get these ideas from? I have never questioned Israel's right to exist within the 1948 borders (pre-1967 war). It may not be completely fair from the Palestinian point of view, but it was a lot more fair than what's going on now, and it would have meant a viable Palestinian state. As I mentioned above I agree with Chomsky and Finkelstein when they say that Israel isn't "just" a US proxy, but that they also have influence over US policy. The effect however, is that it acts as a US proxy, protecting US interests in the region. As you surely know Hezbollah didn't start launching rockets at Israeli villages and cities until AFTER Israel attacked infrastructure all over Lebanon. Israel started the war, Hezbollah (or Lebanon) did not. The capture of soldiers is not an "act of war" no matter if they were captured in Israel of Lebanon. Two Norwegians just got kidnapped in Nigeria the other week (the kidnapping of civilians is worse than the capture of soldiers). Does that mean that Norway should go to war against Nigeria and completely destroy the country? Would that be legitimate? That is what we're talking about here, and that is why there is strong criticism of Israel and the US. As for the phonecall. That is my opinion, but I belive that is true. The US gives about 3 billion dollars in "aid" each year to Israel, offers them protection in the UN against even more resolutions condemning their actions, and offer them support in all kind of ways. They get all the weapons they want on the cheap for instance. Bush could have said "get the fuck out of Lebanon or all ties are cut!". Then the war would have been over. Same goes for the Palestine issue and occupation of Golan and Shebaa Farms. The US is the only country in the world that can pressure Israel to obey international law and UN resolutions, and they refuse to do it.

You wrote: "After the fall of the Ottoman Empire the colonialist nations who were responsible for the formation of the League of Nations agreed that that area was to be under British "protection". It was the British who partioned the land into governable States without regard to the peoples involved. It was them who set boundaries arbitrarily. It was them who said Jordan is Jordan, and Palestine is Palestine. The Arabs never said as much nor agreed. Why should the Arabs or anyone else for that matter regard the partioning actions of an occupying force as legal in any sense of the world?" The inter communal strifes were very real. If you have a better way to address that than giving each people their own turf and keep them seperate (hopefully) I would like to hear it. As I said the powers might have other agendas, but the fighting and bloodletting between the Jews and the Arabs were real and both sides were guilty of violence. The partition did not create the conflict. It was (at least partly) an international response to it. In a way it was almost a standard U.N operation. "You seem to think that a Saudi king placed in control by a colonialist power over a people who deeply resented that is ok" No, exactly the opposite. The question is why no one is upset about the Saudi King but keep beating on the Jews who were given only 13% of mandated Palestine as anonymous pointed out. "The Israelis have a country only on the basis of brute force as a result of the 1948 War of "Independence", not as the result of a legal agreement between the parties concerned." But was it reasonable for the other party to reject the agreement and wanted 100% of the land for themselves? (even though the Jews got only 13% of the land) Before the partition plan was implemented, the UN tried to consult both sides. While the Jews were willing to meet with U.N. officials and provided feed back and inputs, the Arabs boycotted the process right from the start. If you don't question the Jews' right to be in Palestine (which you don't) they had as much right to self determination as the Arab palestinians, because the Palestinians did not exist as a soverign entity before then. Now the only reason the Americans have a country is by brute force and genocide of the Natives.The founding fathers didn't even bother with any negotiation and legal niceties. Do you question the U.S. right to exist? "As ben Gurion said the Israelis took the land - they know it, the Arabs know it, the iternational community knows it, and no one should expect the Arabs to be happy about that, nor to ever accept it - simple as that" No one expects them to be happy about it. I don't expect Palestinians to celebrate Israeli independence any more than I would expect Natives to celebrate Columbus day. But what does it have to do with finding a realistic compromise that both sides can live with?

Just to clear up. Chomsky doesn't think Israel is "just" a US proxy. Israel has a disproportionate influence over US policy for their small size too. There is however much more evidence to support that the US has control over Israeli policy, than the other way around. This is something Chomsky agrees to, and probably Finkelstein too.

You wrote "Actually that whole Suez affair was the result of a master plan developed between the US and Britain to regain control of the Suez Canal. Nasser of Egypt had nationalised the Suez and Britain and the US were very nervous about this as it placed the control of a shipping path vital to the interests of Europe and America at risk (in their empirialistic minds). The 56 war was engineered so that Israel was to storm across and take the Canal, thus removing it from Egyptian hands. Then the US was to step in [supposedly] against Israel and "encourage" them to withdraw, leaving the Suez again under "UN" control." So essentially you are saying Eisenhower's apparant disapproval of Israeli(together with the French and British)invasion of Egypt was just an act. That seems far fetched as the invasion would have been successful and the canal would have been reopened. Do you have any source to corrobarate that? Your interpretation is different from everything I read, including Chomsky and Finkelstein, as noted. Surly no one can accuse these two of apologizing for the U.S. Incidentally, Finkelstein seems to have a more nuanced view about the relationship between the U.S and Israel. I was in one of his lectures, when asked if he thought Israel was just a U.S. proxy he replied that he thought it was more complicated than that(and acknolwedged his disagreement with Chomksy). He cited Israel's nuke as an example. He said the Israeli basically acquired it over U.S. objection based on the declassified documents he saw.

After the fall of the Ottoman Empire the colonialist nations who were responsible for the formation of the League of Nations agreed that that area was to be under British "protection". It was the British who partioned the land into governable States without regard to the peoples involved. It was them who set boundaries arbitrarily. It was them who said Jordan is Jordan, and Palestine is Palestine. The Arabs never said as much nor agreed. Why should the Arabs or anyone else for that matter regard the partioning actions of an occupying force as legal in any sense of the world? You seem to think that a Saudi king placed in control by a colonialist power over a people who deeply resented that is ok. The Israelis have a country only on the basis of brute force as a result of the 1948 War of "Independence", not as the result of a legal agreement between the parties concerned. As ben Gurion said the Israelis took the land - they know it, the Arabs know it, the iternational community knows it, and no one should expect the Arabs to be happy about that, nor to ever accept it - simple as that. You cannot expect to make much progress with your arguments until you recognise that basic fact of history. And your continuing argument that to be anti-Zionist and anti-Israel is to be anti-Jew, shows shallowness of thought and deep-rooted fear and insecurity possibly arising from a lack of moral courage to admit that the Zionists were in the wrong when they took that land by force.

bwong - Actually that whole Suez affair was the result of a master plan developed between the US and Britain to regain control of the Suez Canal. Nasser of Egypt had nationalised the Suez and Britain and the US were very nervous about this as it placed the control of a shipping path vital to the interests of Europe and America at risk (in their empirialistic minds). The 56 war was engineered so that Israel was to storm across and take the Canal, thus removing it from Egyptian hands. Then the US was to step in [supposedly] against Israel and "encourage" them to withdraw, leaving the Suez again under "UN" control. After the Yom Kippur War in the 70s, a multinational observer force was established to maintain "neutrality" of the Canal. The force consists of, surprisingly, mostly American Army troops. Both the Arabs and Israelis have always been pawns of imperialist designs and will continue to be, as long as there is oil in the region.

Exactly what does Hezzbollah do for the Palestinians? What has its latest bravado achieved for the Palestinians?(nevermind it is not even a Palestinian entity, it has no right to rocket Israel "for the Palestinians" anymore than it has the right to bomb India over Kashmire) And if you are right that Israel started the latest conflict and the Hezzbolah was just reacting (which I don't agree btw) how was it even standing up for the Palestinians in anyway by only responding to Israel attack? You can't have it both ways. Somehow it reminds me of Saddam "supporting" the Palestinians by shooting Scuds into Israel in 1990. What did that achieve? The Palestinians cheered for a moment because of the excitments but they paid dearly afterwards. You wrote: "t is because of these facts Israel get a lot of criticism in these places, which they rightly deserve. But just as much criticism should be levelled against the US. Israel is afterall the US proxy in the region. Israel only does what the US approvers of. Bush could have made one phone-call, and the war would have been over" That is just your opinion. Israel is not just a U.S. "proxy", it is a genuine country with a very strong national identity.The Israeli are a real people. As long as you don't get around that there is no chance for a peaceful settlement in the ME. It is one thing to criticize what Israel does, but it is not the same as questioning its right to exist within its 1967 border, which is what you and a lot posters do here. It is fair game to criticize the U.S's actions but no one even here on Znet questions its right to exist, even though the U.S. was found by genocide against the Natives. P.S.It is more appropiate to call the Hezzbollah an Iran and Syria proxy as it does not even represent the Lebanese. Amadenajad would have made one phone call and the war would have been over.

If Leila's vision of "dissolving national border" is so realistic maybe she should try that with Jordan first. Afterall the Jordanians and the Palestinians are the same people. If she cannot even convince them to drop the outmoded notion of national border why should we take her seriously that it is achievable with the Jews?

PLO committed horrible crimes yes. But how do they compare to the crimes of Israel? Arab neighbours have done practically nothing for Palestinians, they are all on their own. Nobody supports them. Except Hezbollah. It is perhaps in this light the recent war should be seen. The US already have close relations with the dictatorships of Jordan, Egypt and Saudi-Arabia, and there was a pro-US government in place in Lebanon. The only force in the Middle East that was supportive of the Palestinians was Hezbollah. The US didn't like it, and Israel didn't like it. Therefore they had to be removed. As we know that didn't happen, and Israel basically lost the war. There are many other factors in play, no doubt, but this one is perhaps just as important. Hezbollah are the one reason why Israel will not again try to occupy South Lebanon - therefore they have to be disarmed. As to criticism of Israel. Znet and other progressive blogs and magazines, is perhaps the only places where Israel get the criticisms it deserves. It takes a heart of stone not to criticise Israel after seeing the horrible pictures of maimed and killed children in Qana and other places, and the complete destruction of many villages in South Lebanon. Many of the same atrocities takes place in Gaza on a daily basis. It is because of these facts Israel get a lot of criticism in these places, which they rightly deserve. But just as much criticism should be levelled against the US. Israel is afterall the US proxy in the region. Israel only does what the US approvers of. Bush could have made one phone-call, and the war would have been over. One just can't run away from the fact that Israeli and US foreign policy in the Middle East is the reason for most of the conflicts in the region. If they wanted to solve the Palestine issue, they could have done it easily. But they don't want to. Israel and the US have been rejectionists of peace since at least 1976 (when the US vetoed a two-state settlement). The only distraction from this policy was at Taba, where a solution most probably would have been found if Israel didn't call off the negotiations. This is why people criticise Israel.

No need for such personal attacks, and implicitly saying I support terrorism. I have never said I do, nor implied that I do. As the "West" (big generalization, but let's leave that for now) has a horrible policy in the Middle East, it isn't unlikely the Middle East one day strikes back, as they did on numerous occations in the recent past, starting with 9/11 (No, not the military coup in Chile). However, the timing of the alledged attack, and complete lack of evidence indicate that there wasn't much to it. People are already getting released without charge.

Kelvin, contrary to your misinformation, the UN did not give a homeland in the Middle East EXCLUSIVELY to the Jews.  The Palestine Mandate granted to Britain after WWI included today's Jordan, Israel, West Bank and Gaza.  THERE IS NO DISPUTE OF THIS FACT.  SHortly thereafter, Britain created Jordan by carving 77% of the Palestine Mandate, putting PALESTINIAN people under the rule of a new King that came from Saudi Arabia, Hashemite.  So Jordan today is part of the original Palestine mandate, i.e. Jordanians are Palestinian.  Of the remaining 23% of the mandate remaining, the partition plan gave 55% to a Jewish state, with the a major portion comprising the Negev desert.  In this portion, the Jews were a majority.  Thus, really 13% was given to the Jews, while TWO Palestinian states were created: Jordan and the Arab portion of the partition plan.  The Arabs rejected this partition, and attacked the newly formed Jewish state.  So no EXCLUSIVE state for the Jews, in fact, 2 for Arabs, 1 for Jews.  Partition was right then and is right now (I am 100% for a free Palestinian state in Gaza and West Bank).  After the 1948 war was won by the Jews, the West Bank and Gaza were ANNEXED by Jordan and Egypt directly....no they did not allow the creation of a new Palestinian state in nearly 20 years, something that Israel has agreed to do (following peace of course).  So to say that you hate the actions of the Israeli government and all their actions is one thing.... to say that Israel has no right to exist is anti-semitism, because while you accept that Arabs have a right to a homeland, you will not say the same thing for Jews, even a 13% sliver where they do have a majority, have had a constant presence in the land, and can trace back roots to the land for at least 2000 years (Before Islam was even born).  THESE ARE THE FACTS as they say, I challenge anyone to show me where I am factually wrong.  Painful info that is always ignored by the Israel haters.

Bwong to answer your question about palestinian land

 

Also, The land that Judaism claim was given to them by god does not seem to be bigger than a farm..

here is a map of the roman empire

Kelvin, The U.S was not even involved in Israeli affairs until 1956, when it acted against Israel during the Suez crisis. Strong U.S. Israeli tie didn't develop until 1967, after the 6 day war (read anything by Chomsky on the ME for reference). The Palestinian-Zionist conflict however went back to at least 1900 if not before that. Capitalism, the U.S. and corporations were not part of the equation. Your one size fit all template just doesn't work in understanding history. And I doubt that even most Palestinians would subscribe to some high flying leftist-anarchist goal. For them the issue is much more concrete, it is about land, viable economy, honour and religion (they are all wrapped up in the package called a Palestinian state)

Posted by Kelvin Yearwood:

Bwong you say Leila has an anti-state and anti-capitalist dream world vision of the world, but then you say the whole thing is tribal. It would make more sense if you had said Leila has an anti-tribal dream-world vision of the region.

The conflict is of course not primarily tribal in nature. The Palestinians are clearly not in the US corporate capital values camp and do not have the power to place themselves significantly in this camp, and that is the primary reason why their interests are positioned, and lost, at the sharp end of US foreign policy. I think that is much more to the point of the contemporary situation in Israel/Palestine.

Whatever the relationship was between the Ottoman empire and Palestinians working the land in the region is meaningless other than for the fact that Palestinian Arabs did work the land for generations, and that they deserve respect and consideration concerning possession and restoration to them of that land in current times.

Counter to Rudy's belief, the questioning of the Israeli state does not automatically equal anti-semiticism. The 58 years of progressive occupation of land worked by Palestinians is a reality, it is a matter of record which Ben Gurion and other Israelis, in moments of brutal honesty, have admitted. There is no natural relationship between the appalling reality of the holocaust and the UN granting of an exclusive Jewish homeland in the Middle East. This was an illegal gesture by the UN. And to invoke the UN in such an instance, but to forget the Resolutions calling for the right of Palestinians to return to their own land, and calling for the restoration of lands pre the 1967 conflict is simply selective opportunism.

The Hashemite kingdom of Jordan was, as I understand it, simply a debt that the execrable British empire felt it owed and paid to a 'royal' family that had no genuine ties to the region. What has that got to do with the plight of the Palestinians other than to reinforce the notion that they have been the brutalised victims of Western imperialism and realpolitics in the region?

I cannot see but that Leila's vision is concrete and potentially lasting. Bwong ridicules a multicultural, integrated, egalitarian and democratic resolution of the Israel/Palestine issue, but what could be more permanent and real? The alternative that Bwong's cynicism implies is simply a lasting and violent conflict unequally exploited by US elite barbarian and destructive foreign policy.

Pangaea If "the West" is indeed as evil and demonic as you say in your torrent of posts, maybe, just maybe, some righteous people are finally angry enough to blow up a bunch of civilian flights in order to make their humanitarian point of protestation against Western aggressions? Why do you think it is so impropable that it must be a "diversion"? (Assuming you are not saying this as a sour note because the alleged freedom fighters were caught before they could carry out their anti-imperilaist humanitarian mission) If the war in Lebanon started earlier I am sure someone here would say the World Cup was a diversion, just like O-J Simpson was a diversion.. The omnipotent puppet masters (those who preside over the media-defence-entertainment complex)are pulling all the strings, down to the smallest detail, I am sure.

Can anyone tell us what was the percentage of land given to Israel in the U.N. partition plan? What was the amount given to the Arabs and what were the reactions from both sides? It was the communal strifes and colliding claims of nationhood between Jews and Arabs that brought about the partition in the first place. It was decided that since the two sides could not live with each other, it was better to give them each their little turf. There might have been other Machivalian reasons, but this was nevertheless an important factor that cannot be ignored. It should also be noted that both national claims were tribal and exclusive. Leila's suggestion that only the Jews were exclusive, while the Palestinians were interested in a modern, pluralistic democracy is, to put it bluntly, complete bull crap that doesn't even respect the most elementary historical facts and flies in the face of regional pattern of politics(and judging from the election of Hamas that claim doesn't hold any water today either) Maybe someone can also tell us how the Palestinians were treated by the Ottomann Turks before the Zionist arrived.It is true that the Palestinians lived there for generations, but it is useful to note that they were never a soverign entity. They didn't even own a lot of "their" land, that was how the Zionists were able to purchase it from absentee Ottomann landlords and evicted the Palestinians in the first place. Palestinian claim to nationhood was contemporary to the Zionist claim, not earlier. The founding of Israel wasn't the only instance that involved population transfer. Pakistan is another example. But why is that the Pakistani Hindu managed to build a new life and move on yet the Palestinians linger in refugee camps and stateless? Is that just the fault of Israel that they have no place to go? TransJordan was also a part of mandated Palestine. So where do the Heshimites fit in? I tend to think it is pointless to argue over ancient history. We have to deal with conflicts in an equitable way that respects constraints imposed by reality. There is no point in arguing what the world "should be", it is more useful to figure out what is the most fair settlement given some of the existing facts,--for example, the existence of Israel. People such as Leila who try to tie the Palestinian cause with some kind of anti-state, anti-capitalist vision are completely living in a dream world. The whole conflict is tribal in nature. However, if some of you want to construct a black and white narrative of Jewish villanity and Arab victimhood a cloesr examination of history is in order. It isn't so cut and dry.

By saying 58 years of progressive Palestinian land occupation, you give away the fact that you basically believe Israel has no right to exist, EVEN within the 1967 borders.  You are not talking about Gaza and West Bank anymore, but Israel proper, just like Hamas.  58 years ago Israel was born....if you deny this birth then you seek Israel's end.  You then are supposed to be a true seaker of peace? A reasonable voice on the middle east conflict?  Anything but a hater of Israel and by extension (I know I will get flamed for this), given your VIRULENCE, Jews. 

Posted by Kelvin Yerwood:

Despite being sceptical in the first place and relying on a fairly well-honed political-economic intuition, I still think what you have said is very useful. The timing of this potential 9/11 was all too fortuitous for our state-terrorist UK government and its further crimes in relation to Lebanon and its complicity in stalling the calling of a ceasfire.

Your post is not off topic because not only has the UK been complicit in Israeli bombing of Lebanese civilians in their homes, on the road when they flee, bombing a funeral cortege, ambulances, hospitals, life-sustaining infrastructure, and deliberately stalling the possibility of medical and food/water aid; the UK government has been complicit in the further attacks by Israel on the Palestinian people, all under the cover of the Orwellian 'War on Terror'.

58 years of progressive Palestinian land occupation, the right to return of the disposessed, and US/uk-backed war-crimes against the Palestinian people on a daily basis, they are off the agenda. Israel can continue to squeeze the Palestinian people into unsustainable cantons over which it can exert an oppressive military/security presence in order to ensure Palestinians do not flourish in any way. Clearly the Zionist plan for a greater Israel, and the concomittant devaluation of Palestinian lives under an historical racist colonial tradition of European thinking and action re. Arabs/Persians is alive and well and expressed in US foreign policy and its support and protection of its client states.

The apologists for Israel here should be truly ashamed of themselves.

Cyrano - You can see these numbers from Human Rights Watch, Amnest Int'l and others like these. These atrocities are well documented and acknowledged, not just by right wing groups. If you's like I will point to specific references. Sal is my name.

I don't necessarily agree with the view, but at least one lone voice in actually CRITICIZING the arab dictatorships for atrocities. Israel is a democracy and DOES NOT talk about promoting democracy worldwide like the US does. I still ask why Israel gets all the blame on these blogs for the lack of peace in the middle east. I'm not going to argue against Israeli atrocities even through I strongly disagree. But since you acknowledge atrocities by several other countries in the region, isn't it reasonable to agree at MINIMUM that there is a high level of blame on the lack of peace/wars in the region on the Arab states and the Palestinians. You surely acknowledge the PLO's atrocities in Jordan and Lebanon as well as Terrorist attacks. In short, I am shocked at the lack of BALANCE on the part of the criticizers of Israel. Just because they are a democracy and the other are not is a terrible reason to withhold criticism and blame on the other actors in the Middle East.

I've hardly paid attention to this because I was sure it was bollocks from the start. Even the media sometimes refers to it as "alledged" now. Same thing with the top story yesterday (I think) about the diversion of a plane. The last I heard was that a person on board got clostrophobic. The police do their job in creating full panic, and the media swallows the fishing rod. It was a timely diversion from more serious issues in the Middle East. Anything that will take attention away from serious issues is undertaken. That roach Reid is just out to spread more fear, and take our attention away from more pressing concerns. And more importantly, try to get people on board to throw away all civil liberties. That is his job. He, and all other fear-mongering, jingoistic criminals with their hands soaked in blood should be locked away somewhere deep under the earth in dungeons. They are a danger to mankind, litterally - and should be threated that way. It's just as with drug-crime. There's no point in arresting drug-dealers, it's the guys at the top you want. The same is true with international crime. It's no point in arresting the Husseins (even if that was quite close to the top), it's the top guys we want. And the top guys are Bush, Blair, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Olmert, Halutz and Peretz. At least that's a good start. (Then one could discuss who's pulling the strings of the Bush puppet)

All atrocities are horrible. Get it? It doesn't matter who are doing them, or to who. All atrocities are terrible. The US constantly calls itself the "leader of the free world". Israel calls itself "the only democracy in the Middle East". Syria, Iran, Iraq and Sudan are not democracies, and they don't claim to be "democracy-promotion" mission. The US does. It is in this light you have to understand the criticism of the US and Israel. We expect that outright dictatorships behave horrible. We do not expect that democracies do the same. And to connect the US "democracy-promotions" with your countries above. The US supported Saddam Hussein right through his most horrible massacres. They were fully aware of what he was doing, but did not care. Why? It is much more important to be on board with US policy wants in the region, than to not commit atrocities. For the US those numbers are just numbers. All they care about is whether Hussein - or any leader - follow US commands or not. If they do they are "moderates", if they do not they are "dictators" and "monsters". Iraqi civil war. Who started that now again? Was there a civil war there before 2003? No. The US invaded, the people didn't like it. Groups of terrorist movements were founded, and now there is a civil war. Iraq wasn't a nice place before the US invaded, but at least there was peace, and people weren't blown up on a daily basis. Iraqis have the US to thank for this, and they know it full and well. That is why they have been against the US invasion and occupation since day one. "Syria" 1982. At least 20,000 people were killed by Israel in the 1982 invasion. Beirut was bombed to pieces. It was yet another war fought by Israel to strengthen US influence over the region. The people didn't like it, rose up against Israel, Hezbollah was founded. They fought for 18 years when Israel finally had to withdraw. Iran-Iraq war. As you probably know, and at least should know, the US played an instrumental role here as well. They gave intelligence to Hussein when he needed it, and to Iran when they needed it. This was to prolong the war so that both sides would be heavily weakened in all regards, both military, social, political and economic. This, again, was done to strengthen US dominance over the region. Israel has done absolutely terrible things, and every time they have had US thumbs up in advance. The US has supported Israeli atrocities through and through. Israeli atrocities, however, are weak in comparison with US atrocities. The numbers killed in the Vietnam war are between 3 and 5 MILLION. Then there is the sanction regime against Iraq that killed half a million children under the age of 5. I could go on. The US have close relations with regimes much worse than Iran. Saudi-Arabia is much, much worse than Iran. But the US has no problem having close relations with them. This indicates that human rights violations have nothing to do with the US threatening Iran today. It isn't nuclear technology either (even if Iran some day perhaps aquires nuclear weapons), because India, Pakistan and Israel have nuclear weapons, and the US have close relations with all three. Neither is it the capture of soldiers, because Israel does that on a regular basis, and so does the US too, except Israel and the US do it to civilians instead of soldiers, which is a much worse crime. In conclusion, the US are worried about quite other aspects in the Middle East than the above. They want control of its oil, at whatever cost.

but it's still interesting: http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_uk_terror_p.html

 

August 14, 2006

The UK Terror plot: what's really going on?

I have been reading very carefully through all the Sunday newspapers to try and analyse the truth from all the scores of pages claiming to detail the so-called bomb plot. Unlike the great herd of so-called security experts doing the media analysis, I have the advantage of having had the very highest security clearances myself, having done a huge amount of professional intelligence analysis, and having been inside the spin machine.

So this, I believe, is the true story.

None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.

In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.

Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth.

The gentleman being "interrogated" had fled the UK after being wanted for questioning over the murder of his uncle some years ago. That might be felt to cast some doubt on his reliability. It might also be felt that factors other than political ones might be at play within these relationships. Much is also being made of large transfers of money outside the formal economy. Not in fact too unusual in the British Muslim community, but if this activity is criminal, there are many possibilities that have nothing to do with terrorism.

We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain. Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another 9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11 they could sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the rubbish they have been shovelled.

We then have the appalling political propaganda of John Reid, Home Secretary, making a speech warning us all of the dreadful evil threatening us and complaining that "Some people don't get" the need to abandon all our traditional liberties. He then went on, according to his own propaganda machine, to stay up all night and minutely direct the arrests. There could be no clearer evidence that our Police are now just a political tool. Like all the best nasty regimes, the knock on the door came in the middle of the night, at 2.30am. Those arrested included a mother with a six week old baby.

For those who don't know, it is worth introducing Reid. A hardened Stalinist with a long term reputation for personal violence, at Stirling Univeristy he was the Communist Party's "Enforcer", (in days when the Communist Party ran Stirling University Students' Union, which it should not be forgotten was a business with a very substantial cash turnover). Reid was sent to beat up those who deviated from the Party line.

We will now never know if any of those arrested would have gone on to make a bomb or buy a plane ticket. Most of them do not fit the "Loner" profile you would expect - a tiny percentage of suicide bombers have happy marriages and young children. As they were all under surveillance, and certainly would have been on airport watch lists, there could have been little danger in letting them proceed closer to maturity - that is certainly what we would have done with the IRA.

In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot. Of the over one thousand British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only twelve per cent are ever charged with anything. That is simply harrassment of Muslims on an appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% are acquitted. Most of the very few - just over two per cent of arrests - who are convicted, are not convicted of anything to do terrorism, but of some minor offence the Police happened upon while trawling through the wreck of the lives they had shattered.

Be sceptical. Be very, very sceptical.

 

Anonymous ( sign a name).. Id be curious where you take your numbers..and what are your sources..

Rudy - does the term Moral Repugnance ring any bells with you?

The level of atrocities that the US and Israel submit to Arabs? Lets see now:

1. Saddam Hussein -- Estimates that he killed at least 300,000 of his own fellow muslims. Mass graves continue to be found. Gassed Kurds.

2. Sudan/Darfur -- Estimates of number of dead muslims in the Darfur region are 400,000, killed by Arab militias supported by the Sudanese government.

3. Iraq Civil War - Sunni and Shia are killing each other at the rate of 3,000 per month. Almost more per month than all the Palestinians who have died in the conflict with Israel in at least the last 5 years.

4. Syria - In 1982, 10,000 to 20,000 Suniis were killed by Assad, the town was literally demolished.

5. Iran/Iraq War - Well documented plan, whereby Iran sent waves of unarmed or lightly armed children to the front to clear the way, I quote: " The chief combat tactic employed by the Basiji was the human wave attack, whereby barely armed children and teenagers would move continuously toward the enemy in perfectly straight rows. All told, some 100,000 men and boys are said to have been killed during Basiji operations." (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060424&s=kuntzel042406)

OH I FORGOT. THESE MUSLIMS are not being killed by Jews (or Americans). Who cares then, right? We don't criticize Arab countries, we don't have enough time. Also, these aren't really "atrocities" just "internal conflicts." We care about actions of ONLY Israel (90%) and then we save some criticism for the US.

The true meaning of "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad" means that the only solution for the liberating Palestine (i.e. Israel) is a holy war Does not look like hamas and the palestinian have much choices, really there is nobody willing to negotiate at the tables.. In the same token Israelis people should rise to get ride of zionist ideology that is a obstacle to peace. If hizbollah need to be disarmed, Israel also need to be disarmed because it is a state sponsoring terrorism against civilians Also the war upon Islam seem to have persisted for many years , you can't blame arabs partaking into an insurgency, the mere fact that Islam itself is under attack gives the war a character that is religious, arab dont really need to say jihad , this war is already unholy.

I mean seriously your doctrine is poisoned with depleted uranium.. Ithink Israel had success with its campaing in lebanon, with the level of destruction and the WMD employed don't be surprised of the side effects of depleted uranium.. lebanese are goona die because of your nukes.. If this is not killing a population slowly, Rudy, tell me what it is?

Remember, "politically correct" was historically a term to mean those who blindly adhered to the communist party doctrine. We seem to have a few modern day politically correct.

Take a look at ordinary arabs's back.. do you see a handle ? do you think you can stuff all kind of BS in them like they are some sort of suitcase? Do you think you can murder arabs with total impunity?

 

Two words for the party faithfull that post here: Moral Relativism It excuses unjustifiable behavior. Remember, "politically correct" was historically a term to mean those who blindly adhered to the communist party doctrine. We seem to have a few modern day politically correct.

woahh,, I didnt know... keir , give me links, i would love to see.. ( JD casten is great with photography..

To the obviously humanitarian "anonymous" (this guy is prolific) who proposed a global cultural boycott at 14:29 on 2006-08-16: What part didn't you understand of my statement that as a relatively unknown artist, I believe it makes more sense for me to go and engage the matter than boycott it? You are playing "thief, thief", pointing to the back of the courtroom on Israel's behalf while its horrendous crimes are on trial. If and when I receive invitations to present my work in the other countries you listed, I'll consider whether going and communicating or refusing to go makes more sense. Duh. My passport is issued by the United States of America. Of course for the crimes of its government and corporations the US would be the world's most worthy target of diplomatic, cultural, and economic isolation. Feel free to push me into a rhetorical corner for my anti-humanitarian willingness to use my passport to visit my family and play the occassional gig in my old hometown. Duh. But to be fair, which may be confusing for you, your point is taken about the contradiction inherent in the boycott. As ZNet writer Mickey Z. commented in his blog the other day: "In a way, boycotting Israel without shining a light on America is like not shaking a hit man's hand while having dinner at the Mafia Don's house." Keir The Hague

Falls off chair..( the idiocy of your post) No need to move to iran, we can just reform neocon and zionist tyrannies to an economic system that distribute wealth equally between people. ( you can't tell me Hizbollah make more damages to world peace than the US and Zionism, BTW last time I checked underneath US soldiers foot, I clearly see iraqis oil and soil; it does seem that the US moved to IRAQ!.since your democracy is so great why do you try to control Iraqis oil? The problem with you neo-cons warmongerers is that you don not received the BOMBS and the BARBARISM you are inflicting on others.. if you were you'd probably sit and be the first to wnat to negotiate peace.. Like I said arabs appear courageous and moderate considering the level of atrocities you submit them..

Truly sorry, an accident.

The true meaning of "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad" means that the only solution for the liberating Palestine (i.e. Israel) is a holy war. These are not "buzz" phrases. So you please tell me how to "interpret" the charter. Please do not generalize. Please respond to each quote that I mention and tell me the "true" meaning. Please explain to me what Hamas' goals really are. Again, do this point by point, not with generalities and platitudes. Tell me what each sentence that I quote REALLY means. I think most readers understand what the words mean, I am VERY interested to hear your explanations.

The true meaning of "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad" means that the only solution for the liberating Palestine (i.e. Israel) is a holy war. These are not "buzz" phrases. So you please tell me how to "interpret" the charter. Please do not generalize. Please respond to each quote that I mention and tell me the "true" meaning. Please explain to me what Hamas' goals really are. Again, do this point by point, not with generalities and platitudes. Tell me what each sentence that I quote REALLY means. I think most readers understand what the words mean, I am VERY interested to hear your explanations.

Cyrano - Since it is clear that the US & israel are evil states as you imply and that you would rather see Hezbollah have arms, and you would like to see a new world order....I assume you are considering a move to Iran, correct? In this great peace loving country, there is clearly concern for human rights, the leading bastion of the "new world order." Ahmedinajad I presume is a hero of yours, supporting Hezbollah and willing to stand up to the US and Israel. Please do us a favor and move to this great country.

LOST CREDIBILITY.. ( you are dreaming or what ? baby, ZnET rules for its information, it is both a new church, synagogue and mosque of ideas..its a high grade university, not a kindergarden skewl..) There are very good analogies or racism and ethnic cleansing.. I cant see why the blog would loose credibility; I see you are leaving, please close the door quietly and do not contribute to more palestinian deaths.. To a certain extend, although I am opposed to war in general, I am somewhat opposed to Hizbollah disarmement.. who knows we could probably replace the new world US order with a new police called the newer- than- US - world order.. I don't know if I seem sacrastic but the curentt US -Israel statu-quo seem ( is) to be detrimental to palestinians..like ordinary muslim says, each time the US does something , its never good..

Your interpretation, and you do stretch the charter to the extreme, is but one interpretation of the desires of hamas.  Look, you first proclaimed that the charter would shed all doubts of the goals to illiminate Israel, then when I read it it only increased my doubts of said goals.  Next you interpret the charter for me, telling me what I am supposed to read into the "buzz phrases" inorder to come to the same conclusion as you do and therefore, shed my doubts about hamas' goals.  The simple fact that you have to inform me that the "true" meaning behind phases such as "independence", "liberation", "resistance" and "rights", actually means kill the jews, reveals the hyperbolic nature of your endeavour. 

READ AGAIN my friend. The "buzz" phrases are all there in black and white. Leave the Al Jazeera propaganda aside. READ IT AGAIN. This is the Hamas which Israel is supposed to negotiate peace with. I help you with some quotes:

Note that the Hamas charter will never refer to "Israel" as "Israel" as to do so would mean that they actually recognize "Israel" !! What is known as Israel is called in the charter "Palestine" or the "land of Palestine." The quote below establishes that ALL of Palestine belongs to the Arabs, this includes what is known as Israel:

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that."

This quote establishes that negotiation or peace agreements are not part of the plan:

"Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. "

This quote makes it clear that Jihad (which I am sure you know means Holy War) is the only solution.

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. "

In this quote, the establish that Jews are evil and control the world:

"With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.

You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state."

This quote asks the Arab nations to help in the war:

"They should mobilize the Islamic nations, ideologically, educationally and culturally, so that these peoples would be equipped to perform their role in the decisive battle of liberation, just as they did when they vanquished the Crusaders and the Tatars and saved human civilization."

This quote extends the battle to the Jews:

"The Islamic Resistance Movement consider itself to be the spearhead of the circle of struggle with world Zionism and a step on the road. The Movement adds its efforts to the efforts of all those who are active in the Palestinian arena. Arab and Islamic Peoples should augment by further steps on their part; Islamic groupings all over the Arab world should also do the same, since all of these are the best-equipped for the future role in the fight with the warmongering Jews. "

Keir -- Since as an artist you seek to make a statement against countries who have policies against humanity, I would be curious as to the list of countries you would propose boycotting. I would imagine that you list will certainly include Sudan (do you need information about the 100,000+ killed through the assistance of this government), China (do you need evidence of their brutal occupation of Tibet), Zimbabwe (let me know if you need reports of the brutality of their leader, Mugabe, against his own people and all opposition), Burma (I can tell you about the military government that has brutalized its own people and all opposition), North Korea (do I need to tell you about the oppression in this country?). As a true humanitarian, I would assume that you would treat all countries and peoples alike in your call for a cultural boycott, not just on one nation or people. Let me know when you get your list of countries together.

I think you need to read the link you supplied.  No where in the charter is Israel even mentioned, let alone any call for the destruction of Israel or the killing of the Jews.  Leave the propaganda, fox news buzz phrases behind, no one (not even Irans president) is calling for the destruction of Israel. 

 

Your analogy, in which you imply that the palastinians and hamas are tantrum throwing children is instructive of your authoritarian outlook.  It is not that simple, there is no one who is ethically right in this conflict and it will require compramise on both sides.   

These comparisons between groups of population and individuals are not enlightening. The idea of the indivisible individual does not correspond to groups where individuals will still make their own choices.

One has to incorporate the idea that states and tribes suffer from schiofrenia. The one hand will do one thing and the other the opposite.

For those , like Rudy above, that wants greater coherency in leadership and dicipline on the palestinian side, ( W allies ). That demands a leadership not under arrest, housearrest, or surveilance so close that the leadership is endangering its own enforcers.

As for what is discussed originally, about wether the war is over and if there were winners. Hizballah has gained prestige and has shown that it might be the best organisation to join for all those set on guerilla. That is an important victory. IDF has gotten the international community to take responsibility for their northern frontier, when they withdraw, ( wich is a practical decision ), thay can allso gain goodwill as the ones "unwilling" to occupy.

In other words, bothy warparties win. Civilian infrastructure and the peaceoption looses.

 

Since we all CLEARLY know that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians (and has for decades), we must all think how lucky we are that the Israeli army is so weak. Think about it. They have 1000s of tanks, 250 F-16, a standing army of 170,000 and much more. Yet in the last few years, the number of Palestinians killed by Israel numbers only 2,000 to 3,000. Since 1987, I see Palestinian web sites only listing a handful of 1000s dead. This means that in 20 years, they have only been able to kill a few hundred a year (on average), probably not even one a day on average. With so much power, a more competent army could have (and can today) probably kill 100,000 or more in just a few hours. Even Syria, which common wisdom says has a weaker army than Israel, managed to kill over 10,000 people on the city of Homa in 1982 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_Massacre). Wow, the weak Israelis only wish that they could do this !! I think before we continue to blog, we should all have a moment of silence, thanking whomever we worship, for protecting the Palestinians from the amazing force of the Israelis, while only a few thousand out of 3-4 million survive another day.

Time to call this junk blog what it is, anti-semitic hatchet job. You are practically praising Hezbollah as a peaceful movement, ignoring the fact that they are funded and armed by Iran, the only country in the world that has publicly called for genocide and murder of an entire nation (Israel) and Jews (on numerous he calls for the killing of Jews).

Genocide? Ethnic Cleansing? Are you aware that 1 million Arab Jews live in Israel with full voting rights and all other rights ? (yes, there is discrimination against Arabs, like Blacks in the US and Muslims in France, no different really). If Israel wanted to kill or cleanse Palestinians or Arabs, they would have done so already.

The blatant, one-sided, ignorant and zealous hatred for Israel is anti-semitic. I agree, one can easily criticize Israel without being anti-semitic. This isn't just criticism. This is ignorant bigotry. Until now, Mr. Podur's blog may have had some interesting points, with this one, true colors shine through saying "I hate Israel" and under his breath "I hate Jews." (Being Jewish doesn't matter... trust me, many Jews have this complex about being Jewish and hating it).

With this, I take my leave of this ugly blog, and move elsewhere to a place where serious dialogue can take place. Once this far gone to bigotry, no amount of discussion matters.

I agree genocide is not occuring in the Occupied Territories now. But the gap from today's situation to outright genocide isn't very big. I think your example is weak, to say the least, especially when applied to international affairs (although comparing Israel with a big bully is certainly correct). We have international law to prevent state's committing aggressive wars against other states. Just because a state threatens another (Iran or Lebanon has not done this), doesn't mean that the threatened state has the right to destroy the state that uttered the threat. If there is an attack against a state (which there was against Israel IF the soldiers were captured in Israel, as opposed to Lebanon. It's a bit foggy as of yet), that state attacked, has the right to defend themselves against the attack. But it has not got the right to destroy the country attacking (Lebanon did not attack). The attacking units hould be hit back, not the country itself. This right to self-defense is only viable until the issue is raised in the SC. Then the SC should decide what to do. Nobody in their right mind will say Israel were defending themselves against Lebanon. Simply because their soldiers were not in Israel, they were in Lebanon, and they were mainly bombing civilian targets, not military targets. Assuming the Israeli soldiers were captured in Israel, IDF would have the right to defend against this attack. Once they entered Lebanon (and bombing it), they were no longer defending themselves. When they crossed the border (again, assuming it happened in Israel to start with) right after the capture, they were no longer defending themselves as Hezbollah were going back. So now Hezbollah (or the Lebanese army) has the right to hit back the Israeli attack. International law works like this to try to reduce the threat of conflicts boiling out of control. So why did Israel invade Lebanon? Hezbollah wanted a prisoner exchange, which Israel denied. Then Israel bombed and invaded Lebanon to get the soldiers released - a pretty "strange" tactic if you want people out alive. Now Israel has finally said they will negotiate a prisoner exchange. One have to ask what their real motives were. They've been pretty honest about it. They wanted to destroy Hezbollah. This failed, and it failed miserably. Hezbollah are much stronger today than they ever were before the war. Not military, but in all other aspects. If there was an election today, Hezbollah would "clean the floor". So what has Israel achieved? Pretty much nothing. They have destroyed Lebanon, that is their only achieved goal. But at what cost? Pretty much the entire world now has an even more negative image of Israel. The Arab "street" now hates Israel more than perhaps ever. Israel have to understand that they will NEVER achieve peace by trying to kill their Arab neighbours. The only way to reach a lasting peace is by negotiating, giving back the land they have stolen as per countless UN resolutions, and solve the refugee problem. No country that are actively hostile towards its neighbours can ever achieve long-lasting peace. It will increase hatred, which is a breeding ground for extremists on the other side - which again reduces the security for Israel. It's long over-due to try a different approach.

What is wrong with you people that you question if Hamas is hellbent on the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews? Read their charter.http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/hamas.htm Are you such sheep that you'll walk the party line no matter how morally irrehensible it is? As far as the occupied territories, what do you enlightened people propose? Your logic is analogous to a giving a temper tantrum throwing child what he wants in hopes that he'll calm down. That doesn't work. There is a population that is at a state of war with its neighbor. The neighbor will not allow the war to continue. When the Arab and Muslim world stops fighting Jews at the expense of the Palestinians, then there will be peace. When the Palestinians stop trying to kill the Jews, then they will have a land to call their own.

i think that ahmed's argument about three phases to the german treatment of the jews and the israeli treatment of the palestinians is key in understanding the charge of genocide.

if you recall from the speech, he notes that the first phase is transfer, the second, concentration and the third elimination.

in the german case, this was seemingly true with initial german efforts on transferring jews to other countries with the camps serving as waystations onto other destinations, including palestine. zionist and nazi collaboration in this early phase, prior to outright extermination of the jews in the death camps phase usually marked as 1941, is documented by lenni brenner, among others.

 in the case of the palestinians, i would argue that all three strategies have been used throughout, but that the early years up to 1967 were dominated by the use of transfer via wars, massacres, forced expulsions.

that between 1967 and 2005 the focus was on concentration (both inside Israel where new arab towns were never established and hundreds of existing ones demolished and the occupied territories where oslo paved the way for the cutting up of the west bank and gaza into area a,b and c exprorpriating large swathes of agricultural lands and small village lands in the process and forcing people to choose between life on one side of the wall alone with their land or their families and neighbours in the populated center on the other).

I see the genocide phase beginning in earnest in gaza after the disengagement. lacking electricity, water, food and other basic supplies due to the hermetic closure of the strip totally surrounded by a 62km fence and aerially bombing the 1.4 million people living in an area half the size of toronto with ever increasing ferocity over the last few months is a recipe for large-scale illness and death.

[remember that while those in south lebanon in this latest war could choose to flee further north or to syria, there is no such respite for the people of gaza, as we speak. they are locked in and the only land crossing out to egypt is closed for weeks on end opening for one day, sometimes only the half the day before being shut for "security reasons." if israel simply wanted the palestinians of gaza to leave, you would think it would leave the crossings out to egypt open, no?]

ahmed is not wrong however to suggest that the 1982 war on lebanon was genocidal either. there were half a million palestinian refugees living in lebanon, largely in the south. the plo and the palestinian civilian population it served and represented were the targets of israel's invasion precisely because they insisted on asserting their palestinian identity and rights, something israel has long tried to evade and deny. (remember golda meir's "who are the palestinians?) palestinian institutions in lebanon were attacked and destroyed along with archival histories, documents, maps, and other information. this network was the palestinian state-in-exile and the war on lebanon dealt it a heavy blow from which it has yet to fully recover. good books covering these issues are chomsky's the fateful triangle and robert fisk's account of the lebanon war (forget the title).

it seems that the israeli establishment is progressively choosing the genocide option as it realizes that transfer alone cannot suffice. palestinians linger on the borders with the majority of refugees living less than 200km away from their former homes, and resistance movements aiming to fulfill their lost rights continue to emerge no matter how hard israel hits them. killing them is the only possible final solution for zionists, having failed to eliminate the threat posed by the continued demand for the fulfillment of palestinian rights through transfer and concentration alone.

which is why zionism has to be directly challenged. and quite forcefully. yesterday. now. and tomorrow, before it's way too late.

leila

Pangaea wrote: "I think you have a pretty strange logic though. In a way you are saying that because the Palestinian population has gone up instead of down, it is okay for Israel to kill Palestinians. Does this also apply the other way?" I can't and don't intend to speak for Rudy, but the fact that the Palestinian population has gone up certainly does not indicate a genocide. I don't see how it is a justification of killing by pointing this out, in and of itself. Compare that to Tibet. The population has shrunken so much that even if China allows it, an idependent Tibet is not viable demograhically (and economically).If the Chinese were to pack up and leave a lot of towns in Tibet will simply be left empty and die. Even the Dalai Lama acknowledges this, in a way. He no longer demands independence but instead hoping to work out some deal with the PRC which will turn Tibet into an autonomous province (not just in name as it is now) The Tibetans have become a minority in their own land because of mass influx of Chinses migrants and other measures to keep Tibetan birth rate down, for example, forced sterilization . I don't know if Tibet qualifies as a genocide in the technical, legal sense as its population dwindled gradually over a long peroid of time and didn't happen as a result of actual massacres(even though that happened too in the earlier decades of Chinese occupation.)But definitely it is in a moral and cultural sense. I don't think there is anything comparable in the occupied territories, even with due acknowledgement of the brutality of Israeli occupation.

Etnic cleansing seem more appropriate, although the west used the term genocide for the 3.000 death in kosovo..in this case mass murder could have been applied but massacre be more accurate In Ontario 8 bikers were found murdered, new and police reported the death as mass murder when really the term massacre should have been used..

Pangea wrote: "Assuming what you claim about PLO and Hamas are correct (I think you are grosely over-exaggerating), there is a huge difference in saying you will do something, and actually doing it." It is true that there is a difference between uttering a threat and carrying it out. But if you made a death threat to some body builder and got pummeled as a result should you at least bare some responsibility for your beating because of your big mouth? If you keep making threats and invariably get bloodied nose and bruised body one must question your sanity for keeping it up if you don't even mean it. Conclusion: Either the Islamists really mean what they say and Israel is right in taking them on their words, or they are loose canons who continue to endanger the people they profess to fight for with their bad judgements and recklessness thus don't deserve any support by sane people,--by that I mean sane people regardless of where they stand on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Take your pick.

That recording is great. Thanks for bringing it up, and the letter as well. As an artist invited to perform in Israel and Palestine I have to consider this call for a cultural boycott of Israel. I am an unknown artist and I think there is more to be gained (by me, by others) in my going and communicating then refusing to perform and talk there. On the scale of ambassadors and internationally recognized figures, however, I think there is a lot of sense in moves like the one made by Venezuela. I do take issue with your comment that the IDF "hoped to display their might and failed" though. I think they have succeeded. Much like the US succeeded in displaying its might in Vietnam, I suppose. Paul (Street) has written powerfully on this subject. Keir The Hague

I agree that genocide is over the top. It is more correct to say ethnic cleansing. Let's see what the dictionary says. Genocide: "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." Ethnic cleansing: The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide." Genocide then means the complete destruction of for instance Palestinians by mass killings. This is what the Nazis tried, but it is not what the Israelis are doing. Ethnic cleansing on the other hand seems more right. This includes "deportation" and "forced emigration". This is clearly what Israel are trying to achieve. By constant attacking Palestinians and never letting them live in peace, they are trying to get them to flee the area, i.e. "forced emigration". Then there are all other sorts of crimes, such as stealing land and moving your own citizens into occupied territory (the "settlements"). I think you have a pretty strange logic though. In a way you are saying that because the Palestinian population has gone up instead of down, it is okay for Israel to kill Palestinians. Does this also apply the other way? Because the population of Israel goes up, it is okay for Palestinians to kill Israelis? Assuming what you claim about PLO and Hamas are correct (I think you are grosely over-exaggerating), there is a huge difference in saying you will do something, and actually doing it. Extremists on the Palestinian side want the entire Israel-Palestine land for themselves. Extremists in Israel want the same. Why level accusations only to the Palestinian side? And once again there is a big difference in saying that you want the entire land for yourself, and trying to achieve it by military power and systematic violations of basic human rights. I hope you agree there is a big difference in saying "I'll kill you" to pulling up a gun and shooting the person.

Genocide against the Palestinians? What is wrong with you? If Israel was truely acting genocidial, don't you think all the Palestinians would have been killed long ago? The fact that the Palestinian population has INCREASED since 1967 shows just the opposite of what you assert. Thus, one must question the motive for you assertion. Colonialist against the Lebanese? Again, what is wrong with you? First, you conviently forget that Israel entered Lebanon in 1982 because a the PLO was using the country as a base of attack against Jews. Second, Hezbollah and the PLO have EXPLICITLY stated in their charters their desires to kill Jews and take over Israel. That is genocidal and colonialist. Why don't you criticize that? Finally, why aren't Iran and Syria colonialist in attempting to gain control of Lebanon? You are either a bigot or woefully ignorant of history.