The Israeli-Palestinian issue

[jeffrey smith]

Jeff:

Thanks. I was aware of it.

I am trying my damnedest to get him off the drumbeat in his heart and try to reduce this issue to some facts.

For example, and I have to check this, but Adonis represented that Akmadenijad did not deny the holocaust, that the prayer that was referred to has been voiced for a thousand years, that the Twelvers' are not attempting to bring about chaos and that there is a fatwa regarding nuclear and biological weapons.

I have some trusted Iranian sources and I will make inquiries.

I believe Adonis is being honest as to the representations, but as Ronny Reagan said, trust, but verify. Just like Harry Truman, I am from Missouri when it come to these kinds of issues.

To folks who may not know, Missouri is called the show me state. It was also one of the only state in the union to have a state law permitting the killing of Mormons. No wonder the Mormons left town and headed West!

Adam

I've heard him interviewed (through translators, of course) on TV, and he's made statements that call for academic study as to whether the Holocaust took place, and treating Holocaust denial as an intellectual position reasonable honest people can hold. To me, that's condoning Holocaust denial--rather like someone calling for academic study of whether or not Stalin's Great Purges actually took place, and treating people who deny the purges (if such exist) as worthy of intelligent consideration.

I've heard of a fatwa against nuclear weapons, but I seem to remember it was attached to the name of one or more Sunni clerics. I may be wrong that Sunni clerics were involved; and of course the existence of a Sunni fatwa does not mean there can not be a similar fatwa originating from Shia sources.

The allegation that Ahmedinejad (however his name is spelled) is involved in a chiliastic Twelver cult I have seen before, but only in sources that advocate going to war with Iran in the near future, so I'm taking those allegations

with several grains of heavy duty salt. Which is a convoluted way of saying that I think Adonis is completely accurate about that particular point.

Jeffrey S.

[Libertarian Muslim]

I've heard him interviewed (through translators, of course) on TV, and he's made statements that call for academic study as to whether the Holocaust took place, and treating Holocaust denial as an intellectual position reasonable honest people can hold. To me, that's condoning Holocaust denial--rather like someone calling for academic study of whether or not Stalin's Great Purges actually took place, and treating people who deny the purges (if such exist) as worthy of intelligent consideration.

Stalin's Great Purges don't have as much of an impact on global politics that reach into the Middle East as the Holocaust does so they're not the same, I don't think asking questions is condoning Holocaust denial and I think that the assertion that this is the case is insulting to everyone's intelligence, does someone have something to hide that causes them to retreat to such a ridiculous position of saying that questioning is tantamount to denial? That is what the science of history is, it's the examination of facts and looking at sources and allowing people to do so..

It's the obligation of all of us to be objective when presented with conclusions and not just believe what we're told, I believe that is an Objectivist ideal also. Why do we suddenly have to stop being objective because of this? I'm sorry but when someone tells me that something happened and it's a fact, but wont allow me to view the evidence and then claims that I am a bad person for wanting to see that evidence and says to everyone that I'm bad and slanders me then alarm bells go off in my head, it makes me not believe a word they say because they won't allow me to examine the evidence..

I also ask for evidence about global warming and get called a climatechange denier.. It's the same deal.. They use it to shut up opposition or questions.. We know there's something to hide with climategate, but is there something to hide with the Holocaust? If not then allow it to be examined..

I've heard of a fatwa against nuclear weapons, but I seem to remember it was attached to the name of one or more Sunni clerics. I may be wrong that Sunni clerics were involved; and of course the existence of a Sunni fatwa does not mean there can not be a similar fatwa originating from Shia sources.

Iran's position on Weapons of Mass Destruction has been the same since 1979, Khomeini made the first fatwa and Khamanei reaffirmed it.. The use of all WMD's are forbidden in Islam.

The allegation that Ahmedinejad (however his name is spelled) is involved in a chiliastic Twelver cult I have seen before, but only in sources that advocate going to war with Iran in the near future, so I'm taking those allegations

with several grains of heavy duty salt. Which is a convoluted way of saying that I think Adonis is completely accurate about that particular point.

Exactly,

I don't believe he is in such a cult. Iranians aren't stupid, they are one of the oldest civilizations on Earth and to assume that they'd allow themselves to be duped into such silliness is a bit rich.. Especially coming from civilizations that've been around for a minuscule amount of time in comparison.

[Libertarian Muslim]

So if the Palestinian community were to abandon violence as a preferred method, it would either gain the moral high ground if Israeli violence continued, or open the way to actual peace. (And if Israelis reined in the settlers and military violence, they might get some benefit. Or they might simply get more violence.) Unfortunately, however, the Palestinian community seems to have viewed violence as the preferred method for some time now--since the 1920s, in fact.

And I am puzzled by Adonis' apparent belief that violence is the only way Palestinians can react to the Israeli occupation. It certainly doesn't have to be.

Oh please.. It's hilarious to hear thoose that support the oppressor call for non-violence.. What utter nonsense.. It's so typical to hear people like yourself to say that Palestinians don't use non-violence, in history they have indeed and continue to use non-violence and to no effect..

How come the Zionists didn't use non-violence against the British?

Public Remarks Ignore Palestinian Nonviolence Movement's Roots

By Edith Garwood, Amnesty International USA Israel and Occupied Territories Specialist

Remarks made by Bono , New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof and President Barack Obama stating they hoped Palestinians would find their Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) or Gandhi completely ignore Palestinian nonviolent resistance to brutal oppression.

The presumption that the Palestinian struggle is mainly violent is disturbing. And the dismissal of the people who have sacrificed time, money and even their lives to fight injustice with nonviolence is callous.

Although Palestinian nonviolent resistance dates back to the early 1900's, the image of armed and violent Palestinians still prevails. In the 1970's and 80's, Palestinian refugees from camps in foreign countries, seeing no resolution after decades of displacement, chose armed struggle and more recent suicide bombings in Israel reinforced the perception.

Several factors have hindered a single, iconic figure from emerging or a cohesive civil disobedience movement from blooming despite its continued use by different sectors of Palestinian society.

Israeli policies are repressive and brutal. The use of live ammunition, beatings, destruction of property, rejection of building permits, constant threats, repeated administrative detentions and the escalation in arrests is discouraging and has been effectively obstructive.

Nongovernmental delegations, employees and individuals who are perceived as critical of Israel or sympathetic to Palestinians are increasingly denied entry or proper work permits for the Occupied Territories.

Sami Awad, Coordinator for the Holy Land Trust, a not-for-profit community support organization committed to nonviolence and the teachings of MLK and Gandhi, aptly points out, "Nonviolence is not something that happens overnight. It's not a means to end the conflict tomorrow. It's something that evolves over long periods of time."

Complicit too is the media's noncoverage of nonviolent direct actions and damaging comments by someone of Bono's stature that completely ignores the vital nonviolent struggle and committed activists.

Palestinian leaders like Ghassan Andoni, Mustapha Barghouti, Jamal Juma', Abdallah Abu Rahme, Mohammed Othman and Jean Zaru , among others, continue to speak publicly and organize direct actions to nonviolently protest injustices.

Israeli and Jewish activists join Palestinian initiatives regularly. Neta Golan, Jeff Halper, Rabbi Erik Ascherman and Ezra Nawi are just a few. "Internationals" from other countries also participate, facing beatings, arrest, bullets, teargas and even death from Israeli forces.

Many Palestinians have been killed while taking part in nonviolent protests including Basem Abu Rahme who was killed during a protest in Bil'in. Internationals have also been killed, including Rachel Corrie and Tom Hurndall. Tristan Anderson, an American, lies in a coma after being shot with a teargas canister.

Navigating children through militarized checkpoints, attempting to harvest crops while being attacked by Israeli settlers and living in a tent near the home recently taken over by settlers are all forms of nonviolence resistance or as the Palestinians call it "sumoud" or "steadfastness".

Bono, Kristof and President Obama should not discount the millions of Palestinians who are struggling against daily obstacles peacefully. Nonviolence resistance in addition to protests includes blogging, boycotts, and creating youtube videos.

It would benefit Bono, Kristof and President Obama to take the time to learn about Palestinian history and meet some of the living Palestinian and Israeli Gandhi's, MLK's and Aung San Suu Kyi's active today.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amnesty-international/public-remarks-ignore-pal_b_441790.html

[Leonid]

Adam: “obscure use of the word orient to orient it to what most folks would understand the word as representing."

Does " most folks" includes Agatha Christie, who used the word " orient" in the same "obscure" way as I did? Obviously not. She was famous writer and knew how to use English language, but she was British after all. Not only she implicated that "Orient" means Middle East, she even used to write "lift" instead elevator. Unforgivable!

Adam: "What is obvious is that you should have a real conversation with yourself someday. If you did, you would obviously be extremely shocked as to how you project yourself."

Is it a joke? Tell me when to laugh. People who talk to themselves usually require special treatment. I'm not that crazy. Why couldn't you simply admit that you are plain wrong on this minor issue. It would be much better than this piece of cheap folk psychology you’ve posted.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Leonid

[Selene]

Adam: "obscure use of the word orient to orient it to what most folks would understand the word as representing."

Does " most folks" includes Agatha Christie, who used the word " orient" in the same "obscure" way as I did? Obviously not. She was famous writer and knew how to use English language, but she was British after all. Not only she implicated that "Orient" means Middle East, she even used to write "lift" instead elevator. Unforgivable!

Adam: "What is obvious is that you should have a real conversation with yourself someday. If you did, you would obviously be extremely shocked as to how you project yourself."

Is it a jock? Tell me when to laugh. People who talk to themselves usually require special treatment. I'm not that crazy. Why couldn't you simply admit that you are plain wrong on this minor issue. It would be much better than this piece of cheap folk psychology you've posted.

No problem. You were more right than I was on a minor issue.

Adam

joker jock

[Leonid]

Adonis :"Iran's position on Weapons of Mass Destruction has been the same since 1979, Khomeini made the first fatwa and Khamanei reaffirmed it.. The use of all WMD's are forbidden in Islam."

This is relief.They're apparently going to use 20% enriched uranium as a fertilizer.

http://newsx.com/node/72010

[Leonid]

MSK : "I will monitor for posting guidelines, though. Please observe them."

Double plus clear. Do you need telescreen?

[Leonid]

Adonis

You have posted very long presentation but have said very little. So my response will be short.

In regard to plan dalet-it was as you said a plan. It never had been executed.

In regard to racism: in this long article you posted I couldn't find one single evidence of State discrimination against Ethiopian Jews. Provera is very effective contraceptive with minimal side effects. As medical doctor who is practicing in South Africa for the last twenty years I can testify that provera is most common contraceptive used in the government family planning clinics Does it mean that black ANC government is also racist? Problems of absorption and cultural clashes existed in each and every ethnic group in Israel. This is only natural that people with so different background need time to learn how to live together. This is not racism.

About rights to build: in Israel nobody can close a balcony in his own home without government permission, let alone to build. I don't approve on it, this is clear infringement of property rights but this has nothing to do with ethnicity. Illegal buildings of Jews are destroyed by government as quick as those of Arabs. Settlers don't build on the stolen land; they use government land on which government of Israel became custodian as result of defensive wars against Arab aggression. Illegal settlements are promptly removed by Israeli Army. Now I want to make this point very clear: I'm against government-sponsored settlements. Settlers should be able to buy land on the willing seller-willing buyer basis. For their own sake they should own land by right and not by government permission, since government who grants such a permission could also revoke it anytime and dismantle settlements-as it already happened many times. But Palestinian law prohibits land sale to Jews. This is pure racism. That means that I can buy land in Australia or South Africa but not in Judea! Apropos settlements: I'd like to ask you why any Palestinian in his right mind should object to Jewish presence? Settlements mean development, better infrastructure, better roads, better medical care and education, more jobs, more trade, business opportunities etc...To reject all this in the name of tribe or religion is unforgivable act of sacrifice, typical example of mystical collectivist mentality.

Finally I'd like to thank you for bringing citations from the lecture of Ilan Pappe. Unwillingly you gave heavy support to my claim that Israel is the freest country in the Middle East and therefore has moral superiority. When you will be able to cite a lecture from Birzeit University in Ramalla about Palestinian crimes committed against Israeli civilian population, I would know that this is the time for peace.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Leonid

[Leonid]

Adonis-About 3 questions

Let me start from the beginning: Ahmadinejad calls to wipe out Israel and he IS Holocaust denialist. I even don't want to quote him-you can look it up yourself. Hope, MSK will be satisfied by my sources this time around.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/21/ahmadinejad-holocaust-den_n_293083.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/800098.html

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Iranian-President-Renews-Holocaust-Denial.html

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/09/19/85462.html

However, while talking on CNN, before American and world audience he adopted milder position which I for the lack of other term call Holocaust agnosticism. (HA) By no means Ahmadinejad invented this approach. He simply copied it from other Holocaust denialists in America and Europe. The idea beyond HA is quite simple-since Holocaust denial is unacceptable by the most of civilized people and in many places is plain illegal, denialists changed their claim to agnosticism in regard to Holocaust. After 65 years of painful meticulous research, examination of millions of documents, questioning of thousands of witnesses, after Nuremberg and Adolph Eichmann trail they claim that they don't know whether Holocaust is ever took place. They demand more studies, more investigations, more proofs. This is of course sham, feigned claim. If existent evidences don't persuade them, nothing ever will. Any new evidence they always could reject as Zionist conspiracy. In my opinion however, there is no difference between plain Holocaust denial and pretense of Holocaust agnosticism. If you agree with the questioning of Holocaust, then you are Holocaust denialist.

[Leonid]

Adam: "obscure use of the word orient to orient it to what most folks would understand the word as representing."

Does " most folks" includes Agatha Christie, who used the word " orient" in the same "obscure" way as I did? Obviously not. She was famous writer and knew how to use English language, but she was British after all. Not only she implicated that "Orient" means Middle East, she even used to write "lift" instead elevator. Unforgivable!

Adam: "What is obvious is that you should have a real conversation with yourself someday. If you did, you would obviously be extremely shocked as to how you project yourself."

Is it a joke? Tell me when to laugh. People who talk to themselves usually require special treatment. I'm not that crazy. Why couldn't you simply admit that you are plain wrong on this minor issue. It would be much better than this piece of cheap folk psychology you've posted.

No problem. You were more right than I was on a minor issue.

Adam

joker jock

[jeffrey smith]

About rights to build: in Israel nobody can close a balcony in his own home without government permission, let alone to build. I don't approve on it, this is clear infringement of property rights but this has nothing to do with ethnicity. Illegal buildings of Jews are destroyed by government as quick as those of Arabs. Settlers don't build on the stolen land; they use government land on which government of Israel became custodian as result of defensive wars against Arab aggression. Illegal settlements are promptly removed by Israeli Army. Now I want to make this point very clear: I'm against government-sponsored settlements. Settlers should be able to buy land on the willing seller-willing buyer basis. For their own sake they should own land by right and not by government permission, since government who grants such a permission could also revoke it anytime and dismantle settlements-as it already happened many times. But Palestinian law prohibits land sale to Jews. This is pure racism. That means that I can buy land in Australia or South Africa but not in Judea! Apropos settlements: I'd like to ask you why any Palestinian in his right mind should object to Jewish presence? Settlements mean development, better infrastructure, better roads, better medical care and education, more jobs, more trade, business opportunities etc...To reject all this in the name of tribe or religion is unforgivable act of sacrifice, typical example of mystical collectivist mentality.

I'm going to interject here because on this particular point, Leonid is wrong on several counts; and in fact, of all the facets of this problem, the Israeli settlement policy in general is a grave abuse of Palestinian rights, and on this particular issue, Palestinians have a legitimate reason to be outraged.

First off, it's not accurate to say that illegal Jewish settlements are promptly removed by the Army. There are numerous instances where illegal building has been allowed to develop and indeed expand. A number of the West Bank settlements are in fact illegal settlements which were made legal after the fact. And this must be contrasted against the problems Palestinians encounter in attempting to legitimately build on their own property, problems which Jewish Israelis don't usually encounter in similar situations.

Second, if the Israeli government is the custodian of land abandoned in 1948 and 1967, then it has the obligation to act as trustee for the legal owners--the Palestinian individuals who have title to those properties; or else it needs to overtly expropriate the land. Simply allowing settlers to take over the land satisfied neither alternative. Moreover, much settlement activity has taken place on land owned by Palestinians who did not leave--instead, they are on land which has been expropriated, whether formally or not, from Palestinian residing on the land.

Finally, settlements whose roads are built to be inaccessible to Palestinians, where jobs are not given to Palestinians, where the schools and other facilities are meant to be for the use of the settlers and intended to be closed to the neighboring Palestinians population, can not be thought of as being economically beneficial for Palestinians. And that's not even taking into account that many of these settlers are religious-motivated Zionists who intentionally cause problems (and sometimes physically attack) neighboring Arabs. They are people who have forgotten the words of King Solomon regarding the Torah: "Her ways are ways of pleasantness".

Jeffrey S.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis :"Iran's position on Weapons of Mass Destruction has been the same since 1979, Khomeini made the first fatwa and Khamanei reaffirmed it.. The use of all WMD's are forbidden in Islam."

This is relief.They're apparently going to use 20% enriched uranium as a fertilizer.

http://newsx.com/node/72010

They'll use it like any other country that has peaceful nuclear ambitions will.. It's funny how those of European background get so intimidated when non Europeans who are independent of them seek technological advancement.

The fact is that throughout history Persians have always been interested in the sciences and excelled at them.

Iran showing fastest scientific growth of any country

* 12:52 18 February 2010 by Debora MacKenzie

* For similar stories, visit the US national issues Topic Guide

It might be the Chinese year of the tiger, but scientifically, 2010 is looking like Iran's year.

Scientific output has grown 11 times faster in Iran than the world average, faster than any other country. A survey of the number of scientific publications listed in the Web of Science database shows that growth in the Middle East – mostly in Turkey and Iran – is nearly four times faster than the world average.

Science-Metrix, a data-analysis company in Montreal, Canada, has published a detailed report (PDF) on "geopolitical shifts in knowledge creation" since 1980. "Asia is catching up even more rapidly than previously thought, Europe is holding its position more than most would expect, and the Middle East is a region to watch," says the report's author, Eric Archambault.

World scientific output grew steadily, from 450,000 papers a year in 1980 to 1,500,000 in 2009. Asia as a whole surpassed North America last year.

Nuclear, nuclear, nuclear

Archambaut notes that Iran's publications have emphasised inorganic and nuclear chemistry, nuclear and particle physics and nuclear engineering. Publications in nuclear engineering grew 250 times faster than the world average – although medical and agricultural research also increased.

Science-Metrix also predicts that this year, China will publish as many peer-reviewed papers in natural sciences and engineering as the US. If current trends continue, by 2015 China will match the US across all disciplines – although the US may publish more in the life and social sciences until 2030.

China's prominence in world science is known to have been growing, but Science-Metrix has discovered that its output of peer-reviewed papers has been growing more than five times faster than that of the US.

Euro-puddings

Meanwhile, "European attitudes towards collaboration are bearing fruit", writes Archambaut. While Asia's growth in output was mirrored by North America's fall, Europe, which invests heavily in cross-border scientific collaboration, held its own, and now produces over a third of the world's science, the largest regional share. Asia produces 29 per cent and North America 28 per cent.

Scientific output fell in the former Soviet Union after its collapse in 1991 and only began to recover in 2006. Latin America and the Caribbean together grew fastest of any region, although its share of world science is still small. Growth in Oceania, Europe and Africa has stayed at about the same rate over the past 30 years. Only North American scientific output has grown "considerably slower" than the world as a whole.

"The number of papers is a first-order metric that doesn't capture quality," admits Archambaut. There are measures for quality, such as the number of times papers are cited, and "Asian science does tend to be less cited overall".

But dismissing the Asian surge on this basis is risky, he feels. "In the 1960s, when Japanese cars started entering the US market, US manufacturers dismissed their advance based on their quality" – but then lost a massive market share to Japan. The important message, he says, is that "Asia is becoming the world leader in science, with North America progressively left behind".

Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18546-iran-showing-fastest-scientific-growth-of-any-country.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

[Leonid]

Adonis :They'll use it like any other country that has peaceful nuclear ambitions will.."

For that 3.5% enrichment would be more than enough. Besides, Iran is 4th world producer of oil and doesn't need nuclear energy. They are after bomb.

[Leonid]

Jeffrey “First off, it's not accurate to say that illegal Jewish settlements are promptly removed by the Army."

HAVAT MAON, West Bank (CNN) -- Some groups are praising Israel for its forcible evacuation of Jewish settlers from a West Bank outpost. Others are calling the move a form of "ethnic cleansing."

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9911/10/mideast.settlements.03/index.html

Last Updated: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 | 11:03 AM ET Comments189Recommend36

CBC News

The Israeli military is reportedly planning to evacuate 23 unauthorized outposts in West Bank all at once, as anger rises among some Jewish settlers over the removal of settlements.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/21/settlements-olive-trees-settlements.html?ref=rss#ixzz0g1Dap3Os

See also

http://cpt.org/gallery/album228/07_11_15_Israeli_police_forcible_remove_settler_youth_from_Palestinian_owned_field

http://cpt.org/gallery/album228?page=2

Jeffrey: "There are numerous instances where illegal building has been allowed to develop and indeed expand."

This is also true in regard to Arabs.

"(IsraelNN.com) The Jerusalem Mayor's decision to retroactively legalize 95% of illegal Arab construction in the Shiloach (Silwan) neighborhood will lead to a catastrophe, land activist Aryeh King said Wednesday. King said the decision is a surrender that gives a prize to criminals."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/136067

Jeffrey: "Second, if the Israeli government is the custodian of land abandoned in 1948 and 1967, then it has the obligation to act as trustee for the legal owners--the Palestinian individuals who have title to those properties; or else it needs to overtly expropriate the land."

Firstly, the legal status of this land is highly controversial. See argument in favor of settlements which is based on UNSC resolution 242.

Arguments based on UNSC Resolution 242 and the British Mandate

Rostow and others further argue that UN Security Council Resolution 242 (which Rostow helped draft) mandates Israeli control of the territories, and that the original British Mandate of Palestine still applies, allowing Jewish settlement there.[45][47][54][71] In Rostow's view

The British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to "close settlement" in the whole of the Mandated territory. It was provided that local conditions might require Great Britain to "postpone" or "withhold" Jewish settlement in what is now Jordan. This was done in 1922. But the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan River, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, "the Palestine article," which provides that "nothing in the Charter shall be construed ... to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments...."[71]… Indeed, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht and others have argued that, because of the disorder in Palestine at the time, the territorial framework of the 1947 Partition Plan did not come into effect in such a way as to ipso jure grant Israel sovereignty over the territory allocated to the Jewish state under that plan. [73] Stone agrees with Lauterpacht's analysis, and his view that sovereignty was acquired through other means:

Lauterpacht has offered a cogent legal analysis leading to the conclusion that sovereignty over Jerusalem has already vested in Israel. His view is that when the partition proposals were immediately rejected and aborted by Arab armed aggression, those proposals could not, both because of their inherent nature and because of the terms in which they were framed operate as an effective legal re-disposition of the sovereign title. They might (he thinks) have been transformed by agreement of the parties concerned into a consensual root of title, but this never happened. And he points out that the idea that some kind of title remained in the United Nations is quite at odds, both with the absence of any evidence of vesting, and with complete United Nations silence on this aspect of the matter from 1950 to 1967?… In these circumstances, that writer is led to the view that there was, following the British withdrawal and the abortion of the partition proposals, a lapse or vacancy or vacuum of sovereignty. In this situation of sovereignty vacuum, he thinks, sovereignty could be forthwith acquired by any state that was in a position to assert effective and stable control without resort to unlawful means. [53]

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

Secondly-Taking possession of abandoned property in the absence of the owner for the reasonable period of time is common legal practice.

Jeffrey: " Finally, settlements whose roads are built to be inaccessible to Palestinians, where jobs are not given to Palestinians, where the schools and other facilities are meant to be for the use of the settlers and intended to be closed to the neighboring Palestinians population,"-as result of Palestinian hostile activities, their numerous intifadas, suicide bombing, kassam missiles etc...From my personal experience I can testify that before 1982 the situation was quite different. More than 200000 Palestinians used to cross to Israel every day to work, all Israeli medical and educational facilities were wide open to them; many Israelis used to travel to territories for the bargain shopping, cheap and good dental service, penal beating service, secondhand cars, or simply as tourists.

Jeffrey: "And that's not even taking into account that many of these settlers are religious-motivated Zionists who intentionally cause problems (and sometimes physically attack) neighboring Arabs."

Thugs and criminals exist in any society. Please view Photo Album and see how Israeli police treats them.

http://cpt.org/gallery/album228?page=2

Jeffrey: "They are people who have forgotten the words of King Solomon regarding the Torah: "Her ways are ways of pleasantness".

Some people have forgotten the words of Pirkey Avot " The one who is merciful to the cruels becomes cruel to the mercifuls"

Edited February 19, 2010 by Leonid

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis :They'll use it like any other country that has peaceful nuclear ambitions will.."

For that 3.5% enrichment would be more than enough. Besides, Iran is 4th world producer of oil and doesn't need nuclear energy. They are after bomb.

So simply because Iran's enrichment level is now at 20% they are developing nuclear bombs? Oh please.. There's also a lot of nuclear research that can be done with nuclear technology that requires a higher level of enrichment.. Nuclear weapons level enrichment is 90% but even if Iran goes to that level and still complies with the IAEA then they can develop technologies at this level.. Who are you or anyone else to tell another country not to develop nuclear technology because of their oil supply. They can use their resources as they wish and if they want to preserve oil by going into nuclear power then so be it.. They aren't dogs that are supposed to submit to your whims just because you feel insecure about what might happen..

The fact is that everyone is afraid of Iran becoming a superpower because that would completely ruin US military superiority in the region. Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons to become a superpower though, it's current progress in the fields of science and technology in addition to their military will bring them to that..

However, whilst I do believe that nuclear weapons are stupid and should be completely banned I understand that's unlikely to happen.

Therefore, I believe that if Israel refuses to abandon its nuclear weapons program and completely destroy its nuclear weapons stockpile of more than 200 wareheads then Iran should also develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent so that the Israelis are aware that if Israel was to dare use nuclear weapons against Iran, Iran will respond in turn thus guaranteeing Mutually Assured Destruction as a deterrent from such an action... That is just what the US and Soviet Union did and whilst it is not ideal, it is the only choice to guarantee Iran's safety..

The reason for this is because Israel has a history of being the aggressor in war including in 1956 and 1967 when they attacked their neighbors and they have constantly threatened to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran and demonstrated the intent to do so by practicing such bombing runs near Greece with huge numbers of F-15 and F-16 fighters and bombers in addition to dispatching warships including submarines capable of carrying nuclear warheads to the region.

If anyone here disagrees with that then I couldn't care less. Iran has no interest in attacking Israel and they aren't that stupid.. Israel however doesn't appear to care about consequences..

[Selene]

Adonis:

My understanding is that Iran is not complying with the IAEA.

Adam

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis:

My understanding is that Iran is not complying with the IAEA.

Adam

I think they are cooperating in terms of fulfilling their obligations, the IAEA has access to Iranian facilities and can see documentation that they request, but if they believe that they can order Iran to halt production then it's wishful thinking, Iran has as much right as any other country to have nuclear technology and requires 20% production for their medical research.

Like I said, Israel has nuclear weapons. Let there be some equality first to ensure that the Middle East stays nuclear free to ensure the security of not only Israel, but Iran also.

[jeffrey smith]

Like I said, Israel has nuclear weapons. Let there be some equality first to ensure that the Middle East stays nuclear free to ensure the security of not only Israel, but Iran also.

Adonis, perhaps I've missed something.

Leaders of Iran are on record as saying Israel has no right to exist. No leaders of Israel have ever said that Iran has no right to exist, or called for the destruction of Iran. Or any other country.

Which means that while Israel has a legitimate reason to believe that Iran--who after all funds Hezbollah--would use nuclear weapons against Israel if it had the capability, Iran has no reason to believe that Israel would use nuclear weapons against it. (And your claim that Israel would use nuclear weapons against Iran is seriously undercut by the fact that Israel would be reacting in response to a perceived threat from Iran.)

Jeffrey S.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis, perhaps I've missed something.

Leaders of Iran are on record as saying Israel has no right to exist. No leaders of Israel have ever said that Iran has no right to exist, or called for the destruction of Iran. Or any other country.

Which means that while Israel has a legitimate reason to believe that Iran--who after all funds Hezbollah--would use nuclear weapons against Israel if it had the capability, Iran has no reason to believe that Israel would use nuclear weapons against it. (And your claim that Israel would use nuclear weapons against Iran is seriously undercut by the fact that Israel would be reacting in response to a perceived threat from Iran.)

Jeffrey S.

Yes, Iran has said that Israel has no right to exist but it hasn't gone out and threatened to invade or attack Israel, they're not stupid enough to go and get themselves in a huge nuclear war over it and their impression is that Israel's own policies will cause it to collapse unless Israel comes to some agreement with the Palestinians. War in particular nuclear war is against Iran's interests and it'll never happen.

However I do believe that if Israel refuses to give up the nuclear weapons that it has then Iran should also procure nuclear weapons to prevent Israel from using such nuclear weapons on Iran without having the possible consequence nuclear retaliation by Iran and thus Mutually Assured Destruction. This is exactly what happened between the US and Soviet Union.

Is that ideal and what the world wants? No.. The fact is that no nation should have these types of weapons but Israel won't give up theirs.. No one should expect Iran or any other nation to stand by and not arm themselves similarly as those who threaten them. Especially when it comes to weapons that would ensure the death of millions of its citizens. If Iran owning nuclear weapons serves as a deterrent to Israel or any other nation demonstrating the intent to attack Iran from doing so then good.. Iran shouldn't be attacked and has every right to have security.

What you are saying is that Israel may act simply because it perceives a threat from Iran, but the fact is that such an idea is ridiculous many things can be made a perceived threat. Last year, Israel ran through drills to do long range bombing runs into Iran attacking its nuclear installations, that is also a perceived threat and judging by Israel's history in the Suez Crisis and 6 Day War we know that Israel does these types of preparations when attacks are imminent. The US Military has also run through similar maneuvers off of the coast of Iran which are also threatening. These are very real threats and Iran has not responded by pre-emptive strikes against Israel or the US Warships, it has no interest in such a war.. It appears though that the only two nations out of the three in this instance have used excuses of threats to launch pre emptive wars, that is the US and Israel, Iran has not.

Also, regarding Hezbollah, Israel currently occupies parts of Southern Lebanon and holds thousands of Lebanese civilians prisoner in their jails, many of whom have not been charged with crimes nor given a trial and therefore Hezbollah fights to liberate those lands, that is precisely why they are recognized by their government as the Moqawma or the National Resistance against the Israeli occupation of their lands..

Let's not forget that the Soviet Union and Chinese helped the North Vietnamese against the US while the US was in Vietnam and the US helped the Afghan Mujahideen against the Soviet Union during the occupation of Afghanistan in the 80's, did either country use nuclear weapons as a result?

No.. Yet you assume the Iranians would not do similar because you think they're crazy savages who're hell bent on blowing Israel to pieces.. The Iranians aren't barbarians that would endanger their own country and people by making such a move but if Israel were to attack Iran then Iran will respond..

The bottom line is that you, like many others believe that the sole right to pre-emptive war lay in the hands of the US and Israel and that Iran doesn't have such a right.

That's your own perversions.. I don't believe anyone has the right to launch pre-emptive wars..

[Leonid]

Adonis: “Therefore, I believe that if Israel refuses to abandon its nuclear weapons program and completely destroy its nuclear weapons stockpile of more than 200 warheads then Iran should also develop nuclear weapons"

And what about fatwa you cited before? ":"Iran's position on Weapons of Mass Destruction has been the same since 1979, Khomeini made the first fatwa and Khamanei reaffirmed it... The use of all WMD's are forbidden in Islam."

Are you contradicting opinion of two great Islamic scholars, or you disqualify them as well? How you justify possession of nuclear weapon by the country which openly and explicitly proclaimed that its political goal is to wipe out another country. "Thanks to people's wishes and God's will the trend for the existence of the Zionist regime is [headed] downwards and this is what God has promised and what all nations want," he said.

"Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out," he added.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/800098.html

As far as I know Israel never made such a statements in regard to Iran or any other country. Israel has not slightest intention to attack Iran. What Israel possible could gain by that? Territories for settlers? However pre-emptive strike by definition is an action of self-defense. Your statement that “Israel has a history of being the aggressor in war including in 1956 and 1967" contradicts every factual evidence and common sense.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Leonid

[Libertarian Muslim]

And what about fatwa you cited before? ":"Iran's position on Weapons of Mass Destruction has been the same since 1979, Khomeini made the first fatwa and Khamanei reaffirmed it... The use of all WMD's are forbidden in Islam."

Are you contradicting opinion of two great Islamic scholars, or you disqualify them as well? How you justify possession of nuclear weapon by the country which openly and explicitly proclaimed that its political goal is to wipe out another country. "Thanks to people's wishes and God's will the trend for the existence of the Zionist regime is [headed] downwards and this is what God has promised and what all nations want," he said.

No I'm not advocating the use of Nuclear weapons, however I do believe in equality and deterrents and if Iran possessing nuclear weapons would deter Israel from using nuclear weapons against Iran then I believe that Iran should procure them. In addition to that, Iran hasn't proclaimed that it's political goal is to wipe out Israel. At least in the sense of using its military to do so. It has only stated that it would respond to attacks by Israel or the USA.

"Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out," he added.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/800098.html

As far as I know Israel never made such a statements in regard to Iran or any other country. Israel has not slightest intention to attack Iran. What Israel possible could gain by that? Territories for settlers? However pre-emptive strike by definition is an action of self-defense.

How did the Soviet Union cease to exist? Was it wiped out? Or did its own internal policies cause it to collapse? The Iranian government knows that the policies of Israel will lead to its own demise unless it changes from its dangerous course. That's what the Iranians were talking about.

Pre-emption must be preceded by clear threats of imminent war and the demonstration of the intent to attack you. Iran has demonstrated none of that, Israel however in addition to the US have. It's funny, in the world you're pretty much alone with the US and the Nazis with your doctrine of pre-emptive war.

Your statement that “Israel has a history of being the aggressor in war including in 1956 and 1967" contradicts every factual evidence and common sense.

Actually, factual evidence supports my claims shows clearly that it was the Israelis that first attacked in 1956 and in 1967 and were practicing for years up until these wars for them in a similar fashion to what Israel is doing now with their bombing run tests..

[Leonid]

It’s clear that possession of nuclear weapons by the current Iranian regime of oppressive, aggressive medieval theocracy would pose clear and present danger not only to Israel but to the whole world. This is you, who are pretty much alone in your support of Islamofascists. For example Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi compares Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's to Hitler. "We must watch out .We've already had one such madman in history”.

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2010/02/italian-pm-berlusconi-compares-ahmadinejad-to-hitler.html

As result of its policy Iran is going to face worldwide political sanctions and economical embargo which even its old friend, Russia, now supports.

Adonis-“Actually, factual evidence supports my claims shows clearly that it was the Israelis that first attacked in 1956 and in 1967”

I even don’t want to appeal to the factual evidences of Arab aggression against Israel in 1956 and 1967. The facts like daily feddauyn raids, threats to throw Jews to Mediterranean sea, closure of Tirana strait, removal of UN observers and deployment of Egyptian Army in demilitarized zone of Sinai peninsula-are well known and freely available to any unbiased person. I’d like to appeal to your common sense ( or to whatever left of it). Suppose for the sake of argument that you are right and Israel committed act of aggression against Arab countries in 1956 and 1967. What would be the reason beyond such an act? Say, Israel wanted to occupy West Bank. In such a case Israel had to attack Jordan. As a matter of fact Israel implored King Hussein to stay away from the conflict. Suppose “aggressive” Israel wanted to annex Golan Heights. In this case Israel had to attack Syria first. Actually Israel turned to Syria only in the end of the war, after defeating Egypt. So can you explain, what in your opinion prompted Israel to attack Egypt, the biggest and the strongest Arab country with population about ten times bigger than that of Israel; country which at that time enjoyed full unconditional military and political support of such a superpower as Soviet Union? Remember that at that time the only Israeli ally was France which immediately imposed embargo on Israel. Could it be the case that Israel wanted so badly to annex Sinai, the piece of barren desert, that it risked its own existence? The only possible logical conclusion which follows from your premises is that Israeli action was a result of the sudden fit of madness. This is obviously was not a case. Israel acted in self-defense, in the face of clear and present danger of elimination. Israel will always act in such a way until all Ahmadinejads of the world will finally understand that any attempt to wipe it off is completely futile

Edited February 20, 2010 by Leonid

[Leonid]

Adonis: "Also, regarding Hezbollah, Israel currently occupies parts of Southern Lebanon "

Can you please clarify-exactly which part of Southern Lebanon Israel occupies?

[BaalChatzaf]

Guys! Guys! Stop arguing morality. This is war, not morality. What is going to happen is either most of the Israelis will die, most the Palestinians will die, or both. And if the Israelis come out on top, the local Muslim counties will attack Israel which will respond with nuclear weapons and WW3 will be on. In this war, the U.S. will attack the Muslim domains and most of the Muslims not in North America and not in Asia will die.

No matter how that ends, most people will blame the Jews because it is customary to blame the Jews for plagues, droughts and ants at the picnic.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited February 20, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[Leonid]

Ba'al Chatzaf ""In this war, the U.S. will attack the Muslim domains and most of the Muslims not in North America and not in Asia will die.”-

- and the Russians will attack Americans as retaliation and the China will attack Russia because it always wanted to, and nobody will blame Jews because everybody would be pretty much dead, except giant mutated ants and cockroaches. And the ants will call cockroaches “Jews” like in "Borat" the movie and the history will repeat itself.

BTW, here is the song which Adonis and his Iranian, Hamas and Fatach friends will just love:

Edited February 20, 2010 by Leonid