Knicks · O.T. War in the middle East... (page 14)
simrud @ 7/22/2006 11:42 AM
Killa please, the fact that Israel has given back land after winning wars is alone enough to blowup your argument. I can prolly come up with a list just as long for UN resolutions igonred by the Arabs. The reason this war is happening is becaue they failed to hold up their end of the bargain and disarm Hizbollah. End of story.
And they always do it. You can't make a treaty with a muslim country or movement. They sign it, and then go on to ignore it becaue it was signed witht he infedel. Like in Somali right now. The Sharia courts sign a treaty, and then they flood the streets of Mogadishu with blood to set up their radial muslicm order. Its the same everywhere.
And they always do it. You can't make a treaty with a muslim country or movement. They sign it, and then go on to ignore it becaue it was signed witht he infedel. Like in Somali right now. The Sharia courts sign a treaty, and then they flood the streets of Mogadishu with blood to set up their radial muslicm order. Its the same everywhere.
Rich @ 7/22/2006 11:05 PM
As much as I hate Fox News, they have two of the best expert commentators on the Middle East: [url="http://www.greatertalent.com/biography.php?id=180"]Marc Ginsberg[/url] and [url="http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC10.php?CID=8"]Dennis Ross[/url].
Anyway, both Ginsberg and Tom Friedman, who was on with Tim Russert today, suggested (separately) that the most strategic action we can take here, as distasteful as it may be, is to approach Syria to try to make a deal, which, if reached, would cut off Hezbollah's pipeline with Iran, and truncate Iran's influence in the Middle East.
I think it's an idea worth considering.
Anyway, both Ginsberg and Tom Friedman, who was on with Tim Russert today, suggested (separately) that the most strategic action we can take here, as distasteful as it may be, is to approach Syria to try to make a deal, which, if reached, would cut off Hezbollah's pipeline with Iran, and truncate Iran's influence in the Middle East.
I think it's an idea worth considering.
colorfl1 @ 7/22/2006 11:14 PM
[quote]
Posted by Killa4luv:
You have got to be kidding me. This is the abridged version, I didn't wanna take up the whole site with the list of violations...
[quote]
Please let us not turn this into a discussion about how completely enept and corrupt the UN can be...
Needless to say Israel is the only Jewish country in the world, and it must defend itself against the onslaught of the many many Arab states... States that wields control over the UN voting and agenda through the manipulating of UN member states through the power of their oil reserves and related backroom deals...
(For example: Russias bold stance that Israel is over reacting, after they basically masacred the Chechnia population a few years ago bin the process of trying to erradicate the threat of Islamic terror... Russia is in bed with the Arab block on so many economic fronts, their stance appears completely disengenuous...)
I remember the irony of a conferance on Racism in Africa, I believe right before the start of the 2nd Intafada... The Arab block completely overran this conferance to disseminate venomous antisemitism for days in front of all the member States... the event finally was cut short because of the organazation's inability to even control the topic agenda... the Irony of the UN member States going to a conferance on racism that was hijacked to disseminate racist propaganda just underlined how enept the UN can be...
Posted by Killa4luv:
You have got to be kidding me. This is the abridged version, I didn't wanna take up the whole site with the list of violations...
[quote]
Please let us not turn this into a discussion about how completely enept and corrupt the UN can be...
Needless to say Israel is the only Jewish country in the world, and it must defend itself against the onslaught of the many many Arab states... States that wields control over the UN voting and agenda through the manipulating of UN member states through the power of their oil reserves and related backroom deals...
(For example: Russias bold stance that Israel is over reacting, after they basically masacred the Chechnia population a few years ago bin the process of trying to erradicate the threat of Islamic terror... Russia is in bed with the Arab block on so many economic fronts, their stance appears completely disengenuous...)
I remember the irony of a conferance on Racism in Africa, I believe right before the start of the 2nd Intafada... The Arab block completely overran this conferance to disseminate venomous antisemitism for days in front of all the member States... the event finally was cut short because of the organazation's inability to even control the topic agenda... the Irony of the UN member States going to a conferance on racism that was hijacked to disseminate racist propaganda just underlined how enept the UN can be...
colorfl1 @ 7/22/2006 11:27 PM
Posted by Killa4luv:
[quote]Posted by arkrud:
what exactly did he mean by that, that was misconstrued. This isn't some ancient quote, this is 1998, if he meant something differently certainly we can find it, no?
Please do not chalenge my integrity... well meaning people can disagree...
I do however chalenge you to produce the full context of that statement. You seem very reluctant to do so... why?
Can it be that the statement is taken out of context???
Please recall that Sharon ordered his police to forcefully remove families from their homes and buisnesses in order to comply with his plan to negotiate for a new Arab state...
I challenge you to post the context of his speach...('
');
PresIke @ 7/22/2006 11:42 PM
Needless to say Israel is the only Jewish country in the world, and it must defend itself against the onslaught of the many many Arab states... States that wields control over the UN voting and agenda through the manipulating of UN member states through the power of their oil reserves and related backroom deals...
You are presenting a completely skewed version of reality regarding the U.N. and who has "influence" and misleading anyone who does not know any better. Are we referring to the same U.N. that gave Israel the "right" to take control of Palestine and create the state of Israel in 1947? Are we not talking about the same U.N. that has the United States as a permanent member of the Security Council, allowing them to essentially veto/overrule any "voting and agenda" (using your words) presented by the General Assembly (which it does more frequently than any other permanent member), which is the only place "Arab States" can wield power in the U.N., as a body.
Anytime the U.N. votes on any type of resolution that challenges the U.S. government's position on Israel it is immediately vetoed. So please spare us the falsehoods here. Do Arab states use oil as a means of throwing their weight around? Sure, as does the U.S. with its own economic and military power or any other nation that has any power or influence in any instance that they can use it to their advantage. This is just common sense in International Politics and should not be used as a way to turn Israel and the U.S. into "good guys" and everyone else who disagrees with their methods as "evil" because both do the EXACT SAME THING whenever they can.
Do I like the fact that Arab nations use oil to their advantage? Usually, no, just like I dislike how the U.S. uses their own military and economic weight for not so nice reasons either. Anyway, it's not like the U.S., Israel and practically every other nation in the world does not also contribute to this problem by not showing an interest in getting off the addiction of oil through development of other energy resources as well as economic development of countries that are overly dependent on oil, or any other natural resource.
A major problem Americans face is that we are so brainwashed (like many Arabs & Muslims are regarding Jews, Americans and the West) into thinking "these people" are so different than us, and that we are "the good guys" that we turn a blind eye to anything that distorts this point of view from their perspective, and might point some of the finger at us. It's so easy to just say "we did everything we could" and throw your arms up and say "we gotta kill them because nothing else works." Meanwhile history shows that this reaction only exacerbates and elongates the problem to cause damage to future generations through death, inequality, poverty, and despair.
colorfl1 @ 7/22/2006 11:47 PM
Posted by Killa4luv:
[quote]Posted by colorfl1:
[quote]Posted by Killa4luv:
[quote]Posted by Killa4luv:
a zionist a zionist? Get outta here?
[Edited by - Killa4luv on 07-21-2006 9:48 PM]
Your ignorance on this subject alarms me...
Thomas Friedman, commentator of the New York Times wrote also wrote that, "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction - out of proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest".
Silverfuel @ 7/23/2006 12:03 AM
Posted by PresIke:Are you talking about terrorists or Arabs? I hope you arent talking about Arabs. I know plenty Arabs and they are not terrorists. If you are talking about terrorists, they ARE different than us! They dont value human life like we value human life!! I'm a firm believer is wiping out extremism. It has to be a two pronged attack to get to any encouraging results. First, go after the militant wing of fundamentalists like we did in Afghanistan and Israel is doing in Lebanon. The second would be to engage and beat them in politics by empowering the moderates in their community. Both have to be done at the same time. If the militant or political wing are given free reign, they will recruit more poor or misguided folk to die with them.
A major problem Americans face is that we are so brainwashed (like many Arabs & Muslims are regarding Jews, Americans and the West) into thinking "these people" are so different than us, and that we are "the good guys" that we turn a blind eye to anything that distorts this point of view from their perspective, and might point some of the finger at us.
It's so easy to just say "we did everything we could" and throw your arms up and say "we gotta kill them because nothing else works." Meanwhile history shows that this reaction only exacerbates and elongates the problem to cause damage to future generations through death, inequality, poverty, and despair.I dont understand what you think it is anyone could do when a group says its sole reason for existence is destroying you! Let me ask you something PresIke: if you are in charge of dealing with problems caused by terrorists and you find out after years of trying that diplomacy doesnt work, what would you do to deal with the terrorist group? I'm not saying that there are no other ways! I am saying hypothetically speaking, if you realize that you cannot negotiate with a group of guys that want to kill you, wouldnt you want to kill them first?
colorfl1 @ 7/23/2006 12:15 AM
You are presenting a completely skewed version of reality regarding the U.N. and who has "influence" and misleading anyone who does not know any better. Are we referring to the same U.N. that gave Israel the "right" to take control of Palestine and create the state of Israel in 1947?As I said, I do not wish to discuss the merits of the UN...
But the UN was not the only body that gave the Jews back their homeland after the world stood by silently as millions were systematcally anihalted...
You arguement is spurrious... the UN makes thousands of decisions...
to ignore the power of the Arab block to systematically hold Israel to a higher standard than any other State is to proclaim ignorance about how the UN creates consencus...
Yes, the US with certain administrations uses vetos to knock down blatant disregard for evenhandedness and fairness by the Arab block and their allies... but you see what hell the US population is getting for being Israel's ally.
Even the US can not be relied on to consistantly protect Israel from the persistant international scapegoating of Israel.... (for example: Israel was expected to just sit powerless and recieve persistant scud attacks from Iraq during gulf war I. under Bush Sr.'s admin.
In the end.. Israel knows that they can only rely on themselves... History has taught the Jewish nation to expect the worst...
the UN is only as good as the sum of its parts, it does not opperate in a bubble... when majority of its members have interests to undermine Israel's existance... you cannot simply say this is not the action of hostile nations, but the UN,,, that is the crux of what I am saying...
But this is all certainly taking the discussion in a completely different direction... we can agree to disagree on the UN's ability to play a fair role... I do not believe that any body can...
nykshaknbake @ 7/23/2006 1:00 AM
I think you just proved how useless and ultimately unjust the UN is. It's just a tool for the powerful or influential at best and just a waste of time most of the time.
I'm guessing you would call yourself a moral relativist. If that's the case it really isn't worth discussing right and
wrong here.
I'm guessing you would call yourself a moral relativist. If that's the case it really isn't worth discussing right and
wrong here.
Posted by PresIke:Needless to say Israel is the only Jewish country in the world, and it must defend itself against the onslaught of the many many Arab states... States that wields control over the UN voting and agenda through the manipulating of UN member states through the power of their oil reserves and related backroom deals...
You are presenting a completely skewed version of reality regarding the U.N. and who has "influence" and misleading anyone who does not know any better. Are we referring to the same U.N. that gave Israel the "right" to take control of Palestine and create the state of Israel in 1947? Are we not talking about the same U.N. that has the United States as a permanent member of the Security Council, allowing them to essentially veto/overrule any "voting and agenda" (using your words) presented by the General Assembly (which it does more frequently than any other permanent member), which is the only place "Arab States" can wield power in the U.N., as a body.
Anytime the U.N. votes on any type of resolution that challenges the U.S. government's position on Israel it is immediately vetoed. So please spare us the falsehoods here. Do Arab states use oil as a means of throwing their weight around? Sure, as does the U.S. with its own economic and military power or any other nation that has any power or influence in any instance that they can use it to their advantage. This is just common sense in International Politics and should not be used as a way to turn Israel and the U.S. into "good guys" and everyone else who disagrees with their methods as "evil" because both do the EXACT SAME THING whenever they can.
Do I like the fact that Arab nations use oil to their advantage? Usually, no, just like I dislike how the U.S. uses their own military and economic weight for not so nice reasons either. Anyway, it's not like the U.S., Israel and practically every other nation in the world does not also contribute to this problem by not showing an interest in getting off the addiction of oil through development of other energy resources as well as economic development of countries that are overly dependent on oil, or any other natural resource.
A major problem Americans face is that we are so brainwashed (like many Arabs & Muslims are regarding Jews, Americans and the West) into thinking "these people" are so different than us, and that we are "the good guys" that we turn a blind eye to anything that distorts this point of view from their perspective, and might point some of the finger at us. It's so easy to just say "we did everything we could" and throw your arms up and say "we gotta kill them because nothing else works." Meanwhile history shows that this reaction only exacerbates and elongates the problem to cause damage to future generations through death, inequality, poverty, and despair.
PresIke @ 7/23/2006 1:35 AM
As I said, I do not wish to discuss the merits of the UN...
I haven't read every post here, but it does seem a bit odd, from my standpoint, that one is comfortable suggesting that the U.N. is "manipulated" by "Arab States" and then say you don't want to talk about its merits. One would have to assume you don't care for it much.
But the UN was not the only body that gave the Jews back their homeland after the world stood by silently as millions were systematcally anihalted...
You arguement is spurrious... the UN makes thousands of decisions...
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/22562.htm
Ok, if you could explain who gave Zionists/"Jews back their homeland" (a phrase littered with propaganda-ish rhetoric, since it isn't as if the Jews that migrated to Palestine were actually from Israel/Palestine) other than those who supported the U.N. resolution it would be helpful. Meanwhile, for Arabs and Palestinians of the region who had felt that they had been disrespected for a long time by Western powers who seemed (from their perspective) to continually appease Eastern European Jewish immigrants, this only led them to attack Israel in 1948 (although I suspect a quest for power was also in play, to be fair).
However, in reality, the Jews in Palestine/Zionists were being used for the interests of the major Western powers. They could have cared less about a "Jewish state" if it didn't serve their interests. Like when it served the "interests" of those in power in the West to do nothing for Jews who were placed in concentration camps in Nazi Germany...nothing was done and 6 million died. Power and interests are how most nations act in the realm of international politics. Let's not candy coat things anymore than they need to be.
to ignore the power of the Arab block to systematically hold Israel to a higher standard than any other State is to proclaim ignorance about how the UN creates consencus...
Yes, the US with certain administrations uses vetos to knock down blatant disregard for evenhandedness and fairness by the Arab block and their allies... but you see what hell the US population is getting for being Israel's ally.
I am not saying the Arab states are any good at all. Never has that phrase been uttered here. Israel is, however, held to a higher standard because they are a nation who are almost entirely made of immigrants of one ethnic background which disregarded and had many who openly declared the annihilation of the other group in the region (Arabs), and really only exist as a nation because they had the support of powerful nations like the U.S.
Yes, the U.S. "gets hell" from many because of their support of Israel, but apparently has never cared much about it. In the view of those in power, currently, popularity with those outside of the U.S. means nothing, and is turned into a overly simplistic "the critics are wrong and we are right" argument.
Even the US can not be relied on to consistantly protect Israel from the persistant international scapegoating of Israel.... (for example: Israel was expected to just sit powerless and recieve persistant scud attacks from Iraq during gulf war I. under Bush Sr.'s admin.
Israel is a scapegoat in Palestine like France was a scapegoat in Algeria or the U.S. was a scapegoat in Vietnam.
In the end.. Israel knows that they can only rely on themselves... History has taught the Jewish nation to expect the worst...
the UN is only as good as the sum of its parts, it does not opperate in a bubble... when majority of its members have interests to undermine Israel's existance... you cannot simply say this is not the action of hostile nations, but the UN,,, that is the crux of what I am saying...
Is playing the victim the only way to create peace? Isn't that what is the true goal here? The convenient lack of perspective on history and over-generalization about "members" of the U.N. here is quite disturbing. As someone who is of Jewish background I understand the feeling of being victimized, but it cannot be used as an excuse to make such sweeping generalizations about everyone who you do not agree with. If you honestly believe the U.N. plans to annihilate Israel I don't know what can be said to convince you otherwise. Of course that isn't realistic, most likely, but Israel is not completely innocent here as has been outlined here and elsewhere. The problem us Jews have is that we feel so darn victimized that many of us can't see beyond that perspective. Many Muslims and Arabs suffer the same fate, which leads to the terrible act of suicide bombing, etc.
My view is enough already. We need to stop turning everything into black and white and try to find common ground with those who want peace, which I believe has been proven to be most people.
[Edited by - PresIke on 07-23-2006 01:35 AM]
[Edited by - PresIke on 07-23-2006 01:37 AM]
[Edited by - PresIke on 07-23-2006 01:39 AM]
Rich @ 7/23/2006 1:57 AM
Posted by Killa4luv:
An article from the staunchly conservative Washington post
Obviously, you have no clue that this is an OPINION column that is NOT written by the Washington Post.
Apparently, the irony is lost on you. Sheesh
Rich @ 7/23/2006 1:59 AM
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/741409.html
Fatah: Hamas ready to accept deal on ceasefire, release of Shalit
By Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondent
Fatah: Hamas ready to accept deal on ceasefire, release of Shalit
By Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondent
Last update - 08:30 23/07/2006
Senior Fatah sources in Gaza said on Saturday that Hamas is ready to accept a deal that involves freeing abducted Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit, a joint cease-fire and an end to IDF actions in the Gaza Strip.
What is not clear is whether Khaled Meshal, the Hamas leader in Damascus, will sanction the Egyptian-brokered deal.
The initiative, proposed by Egypt and discussed by Palestinian leaders in Gaza in the last few days, consists of freeing Gilad Shalit, a joint cease-fire and the cessation of the IDF's assassinations in the Gaza Strip and freeing Palestinian prisoners later o
The deal also includes understandings to set up a national unity government.
Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas met Hamas parliament members and leaders in Gaza, urging them to accept the deal before American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's arrival this week.
Most Palestinian factions, including the Hamas leadership, agreed to the deal in principle, but argued that Israel is not ready for a cease-fire as long as Shalit is held captive. Fatah's leadership also rejects a unilateral cease-fire at this stage.
Egypt, meanwhile, is continuing its efforts to persuade Hamas leaders overseas and in Gaza to free Shalit in exchange for Egyptian guarantees to release Palestinian prisoners later on, as part of a comprehensive cease-fire deal.
Dr Salah al-Bardawil, head of the Hamas parliamentary faction, told Haaretz that if Israel stops its actions in Gaza, most streams would accept a cease-fire.
He added, however, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh already proposed a unilateral cease-fire and Israel rejected it.
Hamas leaders in Gaza are interested in separating the negotiations over the Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Gilad Shalit from Hezbollah's negotiations over Lebanese prisoners. Bardawil stressed that there is no cooperation between Hamas and Hezbollah about the prisoner exchange negotiations.
"We don't intend to reach a joint deal. Hezbollah entered the picture after Hamas was already in it, they want their prisoners and we have ours," he said.
It is not clear whether Meshal is also in favor of a separate Hamas deal with Israel.
Fatah sources said that Hamas' Gaza leadership does not want its name mixed up with the fighting in Lebanon, especially in view of the sharp international criticism of Hezbollah.
Hamas leaders believe Hezbollah has harmed the Palestinian cause by its actions and are striving to reach a separate deal with Israel.
However, Fatah officials are doubtful about the chances of reaching an agreement, due to the unclarity of the position of Hamas' overseas leadership, headed by Meshal.
colorfl1 @ 7/23/2006 3:22 AM
[quote]
Posted by nykshaknbake:
I'm guessing you would call yourself a moral relativist. If that's the case it really isn't worth discussing right and
wrong here. [quote]
colorfl1: Quite the opposite. I sympathize for all parties of this tragic triad... but I am a man of conviction and I am passionate on issues relating to justice and liberty...
Diplomacy, by its very nature means the disregarding of real justice for the realistic obtainable better good... I have a hard time digesting diplomatic wranggling using real politik... I do however contend that it is a often necessary to achieve a greater good.
I do not sit on the fence... and I believe that the world's silence over the evils of terrorism for decades has poetically brought terrorism right onto our doorsteps...
if we are to learn anything from 9/11, it is to never tolerate rationalizations for the avoidable intentional killing of innocents. Canada is where I live - and Canada for the past 25 years has been a country of fence sitters... that is not really a debatable point, as few Canadian's would get off the fence to debate me on it.
I guess this has engrained in me a stronger sensitivity to fence-sitting than most.
but I am not on this post to spread an extreem agenda... I have only been forced to present a certain posture because certain individuals have presented perspectives with unbalanced vitriol...
in truth, my world views are in line with what you would consider in the US to be a moderate Democrat... but I do believe, as every US administration believes, (as G. Lukas borowed and made famous,) that with graet power comes greater responsability; the US has a duty to the world to do its utmost to export its greatest asset, liberty and democratic values to the rest of the world... (while realizing that it will often, as with all countries, protect its' own strategic interests...)
I recognize much of the world resents the US, including most Canadians, but I understand that this nation has a unique calling and responsibility to the world. Even with all the negativity thrown at the US worldwide, I recognize that the world looks to the US to clean up its messes and criticizes the US for its actions and inactions at the same time...
I guess my perspective in a nutshell is: If you do not learn from history, we are then doomed to repeat it. and that karma is a bitch...
People need to look at the world not from just this moment's perspective but also from a macro historic perspective...
and when you do, you will realize that the natural order of the world for as far back as civilization, is for the world to persecute the Jewish nation, country or not... much of what I see happening to the Israel today is clarified through this lens...
I look at the situation globally from a historical perspective and to me it is quite apparent that Jews have every right to be paranoid about trusting the world to look after their affairs, even with regard to the US... I just feel that this nation deserves peace and security already...
They have shown they could make peace with Egypt, Jordan and Germany... certainly you must see what I see, it is so clear that there is much more at play here; are we not ashamed???
of course I cry for all the torment that the Palatinian's must deal with... yet, they are as much the victims of their own leadership, Arab leaders and insideous ideologies that attract mass popularity... and I don't see that acknowleged enough...
I, like Killa, wish the Middle East situation could be settled by moderates... but that is not realistic because the majority of the Arab world today is the farthest thing from moderate...
I do, however, object to the blatant ignorance and arrogance (a leathal combo, if there ever was one) I find in many of his posts...
I fear for my children, as they are growing up in a world with a conveniently shifting moral compass... while I wish for a day when peace and brotherhood will reign... amidst mankind.
Posted by nykshaknbake:
I'm guessing you would call yourself a moral relativist. If that's the case it really isn't worth discussing right and
wrong here. [quote]
colorfl1: Quite the opposite. I sympathize for all parties of this tragic triad... but I am a man of conviction and I am passionate on issues relating to justice and liberty...
Diplomacy, by its very nature means the disregarding of real justice for the realistic obtainable better good... I have a hard time digesting diplomatic wranggling using real politik... I do however contend that it is a often necessary to achieve a greater good.
I do not sit on the fence... and I believe that the world's silence over the evils of terrorism for decades has poetically brought terrorism right onto our doorsteps...
if we are to learn anything from 9/11, it is to never tolerate rationalizations for the avoidable intentional killing of innocents. Canada is where I live - and Canada for the past 25 years has been a country of fence sitters... that is not really a debatable point, as few Canadian's would get off the fence to debate me on it.
I guess this has engrained in me a stronger sensitivity to fence-sitting than most.
but I am not on this post to spread an extreem agenda... I have only been forced to present a certain posture because certain individuals have presented perspectives with unbalanced vitriol...
in truth, my world views are in line with what you would consider in the US to be a moderate Democrat... but I do believe, as every US administration believes, (as G. Lukas borowed and made famous,) that with graet power comes greater responsability; the US has a duty to the world to do its utmost to export its greatest asset, liberty and democratic values to the rest of the world... (while realizing that it will often, as with all countries, protect its' own strategic interests...)
I recognize much of the world resents the US, including most Canadians, but I understand that this nation has a unique calling and responsibility to the world. Even with all the negativity thrown at the US worldwide, I recognize that the world looks to the US to clean up its messes and criticizes the US for its actions and inactions at the same time...
I guess my perspective in a nutshell is: If you do not learn from history, we are then doomed to repeat it. and that karma is a bitch...
People need to look at the world not from just this moment's perspective but also from a macro historic perspective...
and when you do, you will realize that the natural order of the world for as far back as civilization, is for the world to persecute the Jewish nation, country or not... much of what I see happening to the Israel today is clarified through this lens...
I look at the situation globally from a historical perspective and to me it is quite apparent that Jews have every right to be paranoid about trusting the world to look after their affairs, even with regard to the US... I just feel that this nation deserves peace and security already...
They have shown they could make peace with Egypt, Jordan and Germany... certainly you must see what I see, it is so clear that there is much more at play here; are we not ashamed???
of course I cry for all the torment that the Palatinian's must deal with... yet, they are as much the victims of their own leadership, Arab leaders and insideous ideologies that attract mass popularity... and I don't see that acknowleged enough...
I, like Killa, wish the Middle East situation could be settled by moderates... but that is not realistic because the majority of the Arab world today is the farthest thing from moderate...
I do, however, object to the blatant ignorance and arrogance (a leathal combo, if there ever was one) I find in many of his posts...
I fear for my children, as they are growing up in a world with a conveniently shifting moral compass... while I wish for a day when peace and brotherhood will reign... amidst mankind.
colorfl1 @ 7/23/2006 4:15 AM
ground rules for fair debate... I believe this will clarify many of Killas previous staements...
In 2005, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) of European Union, tried to define more clearly the relationship between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. The EUMC developed a working definition of anti-Semitism that defined ways in which attacking Israel or Zionism could be anti-Semitic. The definition states:
Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
- Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionist
In 2005, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) of European Union, tried to define more clearly the relationship between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. The EUMC developed a working definition of anti-Semitism that defined ways in which attacking Israel or Zionism could be anti-Semitic. The definition states:
Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
- Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionist
colorfl1 @ 7/23/2006 4:17 AM
Thomas Friedman of The New York Times wrote that,
"Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction - out of proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest".
"Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction - out of proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest".
colorfl1 @ 7/23/2006 4:46 AM
Thomas Friedman of The New York Times wrote:
In Giving the Hatemongers No Place to Hide
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
We also need to spotlight the "excuse makers," the former State Department spokesman James Rubin said. After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed. When you live in an open society like London, where anyone with a grievance can publish an article, run for office or start a political movement, the notion that blowing up a busload of innocent civilians in response to Iraq is somehow "understandable" is outrageous. "It erases the distinction between legitimate dissent and terrorism," Mr. Rubin said, "and an open society needs to maintain a clear wall between them."
There is no political justification for 9/11, 7/7 or 7/21. As the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen put it: "These terrorists are what they do." And what they do is murder.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/opinion/22friedman.html?ex=1279684800&en=17fb5beb19b09d86&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
In Giving the Hatemongers No Place to Hide
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
We also need to spotlight the "excuse makers," the former State Department spokesman James Rubin said. After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed. When you live in an open society like London, where anyone with a grievance can publish an article, run for office or start a political movement, the notion that blowing up a busload of innocent civilians in response to Iraq is somehow "understandable" is outrageous. "It erases the distinction between legitimate dissent and terrorism," Mr. Rubin said, "and an open society needs to maintain a clear wall between them."
There is no political justification for 9/11, 7/7 or 7/21. As the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen put it: "These terrorists are what they do." And what they do is murder.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/opinion/22friedman.html?ex=1279684800&en=17fb5beb19b09d86&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
colorfl1 @ 7/23/2006 4:55 AM
The "New" anti-Semitism
By Natan P.F. Kellermann © 2005
A strange mixture of people and organizations are involved in this "new" anti-Semitism. They do not only come from the pro-Palestinian camp and from Islam, but also from the radical left and extreme right. Radical leftist groups who protest against the US Colonialism, Globalization, and the Western capitalist civilization in general have joined up with extreme rightist groups of neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, skinhead activists, racists and xenophobes who all share the common bond of Jew hatred.
These "new" anti-Semites make no differentiation between Jews in general and Israelis in particular. For them, Jews and Israelis all represent the ultimate Zionist evil, which should be destroyed at all cost. Much of such anti-Israeli sentiments came to a violent outburst during the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001, which tried to de-legitimatize Israel by equalizing Zionism with Racism. The fanatic pro-Palestinian terrorist camp certainly does not make any distinctions between Zionists and anti-Zionists, between those who are for or against P.M. Ariel Sharon, or between the right and the left in Israel.
People from all such political fractions travel in buses and they are all are exposed to the same threat of being blown up. What is most surprising, however, is that such terrorists also attack Jewish institutions outside Israel who one would think would comply with their vision of a Palestine without Jews. This non-differentiation between hating Jews in Israel (either in central Israel or in the occupied territories), or Jews who live outside Israel, is the main evidence for the blurring of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism among such people.
According to Natan Sharansky, anti-Zionism becomes de facto "new anti-Semitism" and not legitimate criticism of Israel, if it fails the "3D" test: (1) If Israelis are seen as Nazis and Palestinian refugee camps as concentration camps (demonization). (2) If Israel is criticized for human rights abuses while other nations with similar actions are not (discrimination and double standards). And, (3) if the right of Israel to exist is denied (deligitimization).
Thus, the difference between a leftist pro-Palestinian activist, who wants to get rid of the Jews in Israel, and a neo-Nazi, who wants to get rid of the Jews everywhere else, is purely academic. Both think that Jews should be deprived of certain rights, be kept out of certain economic, social and political positions, be expelled from their country, and, finally, be eliminated.
By Natan P.F. Kellermann © 2005
A strange mixture of people and organizations are involved in this "new" anti-Semitism. They do not only come from the pro-Palestinian camp and from Islam, but also from the radical left and extreme right. Radical leftist groups who protest against the US Colonialism, Globalization, and the Western capitalist civilization in general have joined up with extreme rightist groups of neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, skinhead activists, racists and xenophobes who all share the common bond of Jew hatred.
These "new" anti-Semites make no differentiation between Jews in general and Israelis in particular. For them, Jews and Israelis all represent the ultimate Zionist evil, which should be destroyed at all cost. Much of such anti-Israeli sentiments came to a violent outburst during the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001, which tried to de-legitimatize Israel by equalizing Zionism with Racism. The fanatic pro-Palestinian terrorist camp certainly does not make any distinctions between Zionists and anti-Zionists, between those who are for or against P.M. Ariel Sharon, or between the right and the left in Israel.
People from all such political fractions travel in buses and they are all are exposed to the same threat of being blown up. What is most surprising, however, is that such terrorists also attack Jewish institutions outside Israel who one would think would comply with their vision of a Palestine without Jews. This non-differentiation between hating Jews in Israel (either in central Israel or in the occupied territories), or Jews who live outside Israel, is the main evidence for the blurring of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism among such people.
According to Natan Sharansky, anti-Zionism becomes de facto "new anti-Semitism" and not legitimate criticism of Israel, if it fails the "3D" test: (1) If Israelis are seen as Nazis and Palestinian refugee camps as concentration camps (demonization). (2) If Israel is criticized for human rights abuses while other nations with similar actions are not (discrimination and double standards). And, (3) if the right of Israel to exist is denied (deligitimization).
Thus, the difference between a leftist pro-Palestinian activist, who wants to get rid of the Jews in Israel, and a neo-Nazi, who wants to get rid of the Jews everywhere else, is purely academic. Both think that Jews should be deprived of certain rights, be kept out of certain economic, social and political positions, be expelled from their country, and, finally, be eliminated.
colorfl1 @ 7/23/2006 5:12 AM
PresIke; it was wrong of yout challenge my integrity...
('
');UN Secretary General Kofi Annan himself has said that it "sometimes seems as if the United Nations serves all the world's peoples but one: the Jews."
... I rest my case, as far as the UN is concerned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_anti-Semitism#The_left_and_anti-Zionism
('
');UN Secretary General Kofi Annan himself has said that it "sometimes seems as if the United Nations serves all the world's peoples but one: the Jews." ... I rest my case, as far as the UN is concerned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_anti-Semitism#The_left_and_anti-Zionism
colorfl1 @ 7/23/2006 5:33 AM
attn. killa:
Martin Luther King, Jr. in a 1968 appearance at Harvard;
“When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews, You are talking anti-Semitism.”
Although other attributed quotes are hoaxes, this is 100% ligit.....
http://www.websters-dictionary-online.org/definition/DR%252E+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING,+JR
Martin Luther King, Jr. in a 1968 appearance at Harvard;
“When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews, You are talking anti-Semitism.”
Although other attributed quotes are hoaxes, this is 100% ligit.....
http://www.websters-dictionary-online.org/definition/DR%252E+MARTIN+LUTHER+KING,+JR
colorfl1 @ 7/23/2006 5:38 AM
Lets not blame the the west...
At the time when the Zionist settlement of Palestine began, most of the Arab world was under the control either of the Ottoman Empire or of one or other of the European colonial powers. There was thus no official voice for the Arab peoples.
Towards the beginning of Zionist settlement in Palestine in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, a few Arabs were willing to consider alliance with the Zionist movement; for instance, Emir Faisal, the son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca, who helped lead the Arab nationalist revolt against the Ottomans, signed the following agreement with Chaim Weizmann at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference:
Mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab states and Palestine.
Furthermore, this agreement called for the fulfillment of the Balfour Declaration and supported all necessary measures:
to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil.
At the time when the Zionist settlement of Palestine began, most of the Arab world was under the control either of the Ottoman Empire or of one or other of the European colonial powers. There was thus no official voice for the Arab peoples.
Towards the beginning of Zionist settlement in Palestine in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, a few Arabs were willing to consider alliance with the Zionist movement; for instance, Emir Faisal, the son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca, who helped lead the Arab nationalist revolt against the Ottomans, signed the following agreement with Chaim Weizmann at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference:
Mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab states and Palestine.
Furthermore, this agreement called for the fulfillment of the Balfour Declaration and supported all necessary measures:
to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil.
colorfl1 @ 7/23/2006 5:45 AM
http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060731&s=ross073106
IN CRISIS COMES OPPORTUNITY.
Roll Back
by Dennis Ross
Post date: 07.21.06
Issue date: 07.31.06
Conspiracy is like oxygen in the Middle East. Everyone breathes it. And it's a mode of thought suited to understanding Hezbollah's attacks on Israel. The attacks, after all, represented a sudden shift in the group's thinking. In the six years following Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, the Shia militants didn't cross the blue line--the recognized international border separating Israel from Lebanon. When they launched attacks, they did so in disputed areas like the Sheba farms. Hezbollah seemed to realize that it could only go so far before provoking international opprobrium. Then, last week, Hezbollah changed its posture. It did so in a way certain to bring pain and suffering to Lebanon. This fact is itself interesting. Hezbollah, until now, has branded itself as a protector of the Lebanese people, not the representatives of a foreign agenda.
That self-image is no longer tenable. Many Arab (and non-Arab) observers see an Iranian hand guiding Hezbollah. Isn't it interesting, they ask, that Hezbollah's attacks coincided with the deadline the European Union set for Iranians to respond to its proposed nuclear deal? What better way to show that Iran can make life difficult for those who pressure it than to create a broad crisis in the region?
If you buy this reading of events, you must accept a certain irony. It is fashionable in some quarters to say that U.S. identification with Israel produces hostility against us in the Islamic world. But, in actuality, Israel may be paying a price for the U.S.-led effort to pressure Iran to give up its nuclear aspirations.
Those who view the Israeli offensive in Lebanon as counterproductive to U.S. foreign policy miss an emerging reality: Iran is waging a struggle to achieve regional dominance that threatens the United States and all its friends in the Middle East. The good news is that Hezbollah has unmasked Iran's intentions, which even Arab leaders now appear to recognize. As such, with the right U.S. steps, the current crisis may be turned into an opportunity.
How has Hezbollah exposed Iranian intentions? If Israel were still in Lebanon, perhaps Hezbollah could claim it was resisting Israeli occupation. But Israel ended that occupation, and the Iranians stepped up the supply of katyushas and surface-to-surface rockets--approximately 13,000, according to the Israelis. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Iran saw value in provoking an indirect conflict with Israel at a time of its choosing. In this, Iran is strangely mimicking its old nemesis, Saddam Hussein, who responded to the onset of the Gulf war--a war designed to expel Iraq from Kuwait--by launching missiles against Israel. Much like Saddam before them, the Iranians believe they can mobilize the Arab world against the United States by playing on the sense of grievance that is so deeply embedded among many against Israel.
The last thing that Iran wants is for that grievance to disappear. No wonder that, during my time as the American negotiator, we were constantly aware of Iranian pressure on Hamas and Islamic Jihad to initiate acts of terrorism in Israel. And that was when we had a peace process. We have not had one since 2001, but, at moments of promise--if only for quiet--it is Iran that pushes the hardest to make sure the quiet does not last. Only last week, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak asserted that he had arranged a deal for the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, but "other parties" undercut the deal. Shalit's release would have helped end the siege of Gaza--and much Palestinian suffering--but that wouldn't serve Iran's interests.
I don't mean to excuse Syria. In the past, they suggested that only low-level Hamas functionaries reside in their country. But, last week, Khaled Meshal, the real leader of Hamas, held a press conference in a Damascus hotel, announcing that he was the man to talk to about Shalit's release. No reason to keep Hamas hidden; no reason to be fearful; no reason to think that Syria would pay a price for Hamas's actions.
In the end, this conflict is not about Israel. True, Israel may be a foil, but Iran has bigger fish to fry. Hezbollah and Hamas are tools in the Iranian game of self-promotion, furthering an Islamist agenda, and undoing Western influence in the area. The Syrians, for their part, seem to believe that Iran is on a roll, and better to be playing along with it than with others, and they clearly see little price for doing so.
Today, Israel and the United States are on the same side facing the same threat. But they are not the only ones under threat. Every non-Islamist regime in the area is ultimately a target. Iran seeks to exploit anger in the area against the United States and Israel for the occupations of Iraqis and Palestinians. To be sure, they don't create the sense of grievance, but they are determined to fuel it. Only this time, with Hezbollah, they may have miscalculated. Hezbollah does not command an instinctive following throughout a largely Sunni Arab world.
When Hezbollah was fighting Israeli "occupation," it was untouchable. But the general Arab narrative has been that the violence, meaning terrorism, is driven by occupation: no occupation, no violence. Hamas has already cast doubt on this narrative by launching attacks from Gaza after the Israeli withdrawal, but it is hard for Arab regimes to challenge Hamas's legitimacy. Hezbollah, however, is another story. Saudi Arabia has taken the lead in denying that Hezbollah's act represented "resistance"--hollowed in Arab psychology--and declared it "reckless." Then, over the weekend, at the Arab League, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al Faisal--hardly a paragon of unscripted language--called Hezbollah's actions "unexpected, inappropriate, and irresponsible." He told his counterparts, "These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we cannot simply accept them." The foreign minister's remarks were then endorsed by Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and the Palestinian Authority. (The Palestinian Authority represented Mahmoud Abbas, not the Hamas-led cabinet.) In Lebanon, you could hear similar noises. Walid Jumblatt and other parliamentarians asked what gave a party (Hezbollah) the right to commit the country to war, with all its attendant costs.
As Israel carries on its campaign to damage Hezbollah and hold the Lebanese government accountable, it needs to be mindful of this potentially strategic development among the Arabs. Neither the Arab world nor the international community will give Israel a blank check for military action. Israel needs to walk a fine line: to inflict a devastating blow against Hezbollah's infrastructure without so substantially damaging Lebanese infrastructure and killing Lebanese civilians that it diverts attention from Hezbollah and onto itself. This is easier to say than to do, especially when Hezbollah rockets are hidden in the basements of apartment buildings and continue to kill Israeli civilians. But, ultimately, as I discovered in helping to broker the 1993 and 1996 understandings that ended Israeli-Hezbollah battles, Israel cannot stop the katyushas.
This time, however, Israel may have some silent partners, at least in Lebanon. It is not only Israel that may demand the Lebanese army assume positions along the border, something that the Lebanese government was required to do, according to U.N. Security Council Resolution 425. The Arab world may join in making this possible, determined to prevent Hezbollah from being able to repeat this scenario in six months' time.
Israel will demand this as an outcome, since it will not accept the preexisting status quo vis-à-vis Hezbollah or Hamas. Israel is now trying to reestablish its deterrent. Withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza were interpreted as signs of Israeli weakness, and a new Israeli government is now acting to prove that, if you attack Israel, you pay a terrible price.
The United States has an interest in seeing that deterrent reestablished. It is necessary if there is to be relative calm between Arabs and Israelis. It is necessary if, at some point, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is to pursue his desire to fix Israel's borders. (The lesson about the withdrawals is now clear: They can't be strictly unilateral. Obligations must flow in two directions. Israel can declare its readiness to leave most of the West Bank, but, if Palestinians want Israeli withdrawal, they must prove they will assume security responsibilities.) Reestablishing the Israeli deterrent is also necessary as part of the struggle with Iran and its proxies. They have provoked these twin conflicts, and they must not be seen as gaining from them. This is part of a larger struggle, and Islamists must begin to lose their swagger; they must be discredited and their more secular opponents must begin to gain. We want models of success on the non-Islamist side, and it may be that Hezbollah's action, so clearly serving a non-Lebanese agenda, is a wake-up call for a large part of the Arab world.
Perhaps, it will also be a wake-up call for the Bush administration. Outside of Iraq, we sit on the sidelines. We inspire no fear in Syria or Iran today; Syria need not be a proxy for the Iranians. But our warnings mean nothing to them because there is never a consequence. It seems remarkable to say it, but several years into the war in Iraq, most in the area expect very little of us, or worse, dismiss our statements.
We need to become a factor again. It is time for us to take a leading role in ending this crisis, recognizing who must not gain and understanding that, with much of the Arab world lined up on the right side, we have something important to work with. Statecraft is about identifying when a crisis can be turned into an opportunity. Remaining on the sidelines is likely to turn one more opportunity into a lost cause.
Dennis Ross is counselor and Ziegler distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and author of The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace.
FYI:President Clinton awarded Ross the Presidential medal for "Distinguished Federal Civilian Service" and Secretaries Baker and Albright presented him with the State Department’s highest award.
IN CRISIS COMES OPPORTUNITY.
Roll Back
by Dennis Ross
Post date: 07.21.06
Issue date: 07.31.06
Conspiracy is like oxygen in the Middle East. Everyone breathes it. And it's a mode of thought suited to understanding Hezbollah's attacks on Israel. The attacks, after all, represented a sudden shift in the group's thinking. In the six years following Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, the Shia militants didn't cross the blue line--the recognized international border separating Israel from Lebanon. When they launched attacks, they did so in disputed areas like the Sheba farms. Hezbollah seemed to realize that it could only go so far before provoking international opprobrium. Then, last week, Hezbollah changed its posture. It did so in a way certain to bring pain and suffering to Lebanon. This fact is itself interesting. Hezbollah, until now, has branded itself as a protector of the Lebanese people, not the representatives of a foreign agenda.
That self-image is no longer tenable. Many Arab (and non-Arab) observers see an Iranian hand guiding Hezbollah. Isn't it interesting, they ask, that Hezbollah's attacks coincided with the deadline the European Union set for Iranians to respond to its proposed nuclear deal? What better way to show that Iran can make life difficult for those who pressure it than to create a broad crisis in the region?
If you buy this reading of events, you must accept a certain irony. It is fashionable in some quarters to say that U.S. identification with Israel produces hostility against us in the Islamic world. But, in actuality, Israel may be paying a price for the U.S.-led effort to pressure Iran to give up its nuclear aspirations.
Those who view the Israeli offensive in Lebanon as counterproductive to U.S. foreign policy miss an emerging reality: Iran is waging a struggle to achieve regional dominance that threatens the United States and all its friends in the Middle East. The good news is that Hezbollah has unmasked Iran's intentions, which even Arab leaders now appear to recognize. As such, with the right U.S. steps, the current crisis may be turned into an opportunity.
How has Hezbollah exposed Iranian intentions? If Israel were still in Lebanon, perhaps Hezbollah could claim it was resisting Israeli occupation. But Israel ended that occupation, and the Iranians stepped up the supply of katyushas and surface-to-surface rockets--approximately 13,000, according to the Israelis. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Iran saw value in provoking an indirect conflict with Israel at a time of its choosing. In this, Iran is strangely mimicking its old nemesis, Saddam Hussein, who responded to the onset of the Gulf war--a war designed to expel Iraq from Kuwait--by launching missiles against Israel. Much like Saddam before them, the Iranians believe they can mobilize the Arab world against the United States by playing on the sense of grievance that is so deeply embedded among many against Israel.
The last thing that Iran wants is for that grievance to disappear. No wonder that, during my time as the American negotiator, we were constantly aware of Iranian pressure on Hamas and Islamic Jihad to initiate acts of terrorism in Israel. And that was when we had a peace process. We have not had one since 2001, but, at moments of promise--if only for quiet--it is Iran that pushes the hardest to make sure the quiet does not last. Only last week, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak asserted that he had arranged a deal for the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, but "other parties" undercut the deal. Shalit's release would have helped end the siege of Gaza--and much Palestinian suffering--but that wouldn't serve Iran's interests.
I don't mean to excuse Syria. In the past, they suggested that only low-level Hamas functionaries reside in their country. But, last week, Khaled Meshal, the real leader of Hamas, held a press conference in a Damascus hotel, announcing that he was the man to talk to about Shalit's release. No reason to keep Hamas hidden; no reason to be fearful; no reason to think that Syria would pay a price for Hamas's actions.
In the end, this conflict is not about Israel. True, Israel may be a foil, but Iran has bigger fish to fry. Hezbollah and Hamas are tools in the Iranian game of self-promotion, furthering an Islamist agenda, and undoing Western influence in the area. The Syrians, for their part, seem to believe that Iran is on a roll, and better to be playing along with it than with others, and they clearly see little price for doing so.
Today, Israel and the United States are on the same side facing the same threat. But they are not the only ones under threat. Every non-Islamist regime in the area is ultimately a target. Iran seeks to exploit anger in the area against the United States and Israel for the occupations of Iraqis and Palestinians. To be sure, they don't create the sense of grievance, but they are determined to fuel it. Only this time, with Hezbollah, they may have miscalculated. Hezbollah does not command an instinctive following throughout a largely Sunni Arab world.
When Hezbollah was fighting Israeli "occupation," it was untouchable. But the general Arab narrative has been that the violence, meaning terrorism, is driven by occupation: no occupation, no violence. Hamas has already cast doubt on this narrative by launching attacks from Gaza after the Israeli withdrawal, but it is hard for Arab regimes to challenge Hamas's legitimacy. Hezbollah, however, is another story. Saudi Arabia has taken the lead in denying that Hezbollah's act represented "resistance"--hollowed in Arab psychology--and declared it "reckless." Then, over the weekend, at the Arab League, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al Faisal--hardly a paragon of unscripted language--called Hezbollah's actions "unexpected, inappropriate, and irresponsible." He told his counterparts, "These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we cannot simply accept them." The foreign minister's remarks were then endorsed by Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and the Palestinian Authority. (The Palestinian Authority represented Mahmoud Abbas, not the Hamas-led cabinet.) In Lebanon, you could hear similar noises. Walid Jumblatt and other parliamentarians asked what gave a party (Hezbollah) the right to commit the country to war, with all its attendant costs.
As Israel carries on its campaign to damage Hezbollah and hold the Lebanese government accountable, it needs to be mindful of this potentially strategic development among the Arabs. Neither the Arab world nor the international community will give Israel a blank check for military action. Israel needs to walk a fine line: to inflict a devastating blow against Hezbollah's infrastructure without so substantially damaging Lebanese infrastructure and killing Lebanese civilians that it diverts attention from Hezbollah and onto itself. This is easier to say than to do, especially when Hezbollah rockets are hidden in the basements of apartment buildings and continue to kill Israeli civilians. But, ultimately, as I discovered in helping to broker the 1993 and 1996 understandings that ended Israeli-Hezbollah battles, Israel cannot stop the katyushas.
This time, however, Israel may have some silent partners, at least in Lebanon. It is not only Israel that may demand the Lebanese army assume positions along the border, something that the Lebanese government was required to do, according to U.N. Security Council Resolution 425. The Arab world may join in making this possible, determined to prevent Hezbollah from being able to repeat this scenario in six months' time.
Israel will demand this as an outcome, since it will not accept the preexisting status quo vis-à-vis Hezbollah or Hamas. Israel is now trying to reestablish its deterrent. Withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza were interpreted as signs of Israeli weakness, and a new Israeli government is now acting to prove that, if you attack Israel, you pay a terrible price.
The United States has an interest in seeing that deterrent reestablished. It is necessary if there is to be relative calm between Arabs and Israelis. It is necessary if, at some point, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is to pursue his desire to fix Israel's borders. (The lesson about the withdrawals is now clear: They can't be strictly unilateral. Obligations must flow in two directions. Israel can declare its readiness to leave most of the West Bank, but, if Palestinians want Israeli withdrawal, they must prove they will assume security responsibilities.) Reestablishing the Israeli deterrent is also necessary as part of the struggle with Iran and its proxies. They have provoked these twin conflicts, and they must not be seen as gaining from them. This is part of a larger struggle, and Islamists must begin to lose their swagger; they must be discredited and their more secular opponents must begin to gain. We want models of success on the non-Islamist side, and it may be that Hezbollah's action, so clearly serving a non-Lebanese agenda, is a wake-up call for a large part of the Arab world.
Perhaps, it will also be a wake-up call for the Bush administration. Outside of Iraq, we sit on the sidelines. We inspire no fear in Syria or Iran today; Syria need not be a proxy for the Iranians. But our warnings mean nothing to them because there is never a consequence. It seems remarkable to say it, but several years into the war in Iraq, most in the area expect very little of us, or worse, dismiss our statements.
We need to become a factor again. It is time for us to take a leading role in ending this crisis, recognizing who must not gain and understanding that, with much of the Arab world lined up on the right side, we have something important to work with. Statecraft is about identifying when a crisis can be turned into an opportunity. Remaining on the sidelines is likely to turn one more opportunity into a lost cause.
Dennis Ross is counselor and Ziegler distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and author of The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace.
FYI:President Clinton awarded Ross the Presidential medal for "Distinguished Federal Civilian Service" and Secretaries Baker and Albright presented him with the State Department’s highest award.
Page 14 of 34