The Israeli-Palestinian issue

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think Israel is being set up big time to start a mess for others to finish, with lots of really dirty tricks in the wings on all fronts.

I don't see Islam or Judaism at the root of the set-up, either. I believe those behind the scenes are cashing in on the regional fears and hatreds and don't really give a damn about about the quarrels.

Michael

[jeffrey smith]

Meanwhile, there's these folks engaged in calm discussion. Not.

In the phrase "From the river to the sea" "river" means the Jordan and "sea" means the Mediterranean, which, in concert with the slogan calling for genocide, should give you an idea of what these folks think about a two state solution. Or even a one state solution in which Jews and Arabs live peacefully together.

http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/2685

A speech by Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon, on Monday was disrupted by protestors. Legitimate protest is one thing - but what transpired in Union revealed the underbelly of some very ugly politics.

The Jewish Chronicle reports:

Antisemitic and anti-Israel abuse was shouted throughout Danny Ayalon's speech on Monday evening, with students causing numerous disruptions to the event.

[...]

As many as 10 others, carrying Palestinian flags, made attempts to attack Mr Ayalon but were intercepted and removed by security.

Outside the hall protesters chanted: "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free."

Most outrageous were the comments made by one Arab member of the audience who

ran towards Mr Ayalon shouting the Arabic phrase "Itbah Al-Yahud" [slaughter the Jews].

That student has now been identified as Noor Rashid. The JC reports:

Several eyewitnesses said they heard Mr Rashid shout: "Itbah Al-Yahud", an Arabic phrase meaning "Slaughter the Jews". Mr Ayalon translated the phrase with this meaning.

But Mr Rashid claimed that he had in fact shouted "Khaybar ya Yahod", a classic Arabic battle cry referring to a seventh-century attack by Mohammed on the Jewish community in Khaybar where the Jews were conquered and made to pay half of their income to the Muslim population.

The blog post continues with some information on who exactly Mr. Rashid is.

The Jewish Chronicle article links to a video of this episode.

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/26967/oxford-student-israeli-minister-kill-jews

And there is also this (on the Jewish Chronicle)

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/28188/deputy-israeli-ambassador-cancels-uni-talk

Deputy Israeli ambassador Talya Lador-Fresher has cancelled a talk at Manchester University within the last hour amid rising security “threats” from protesters.

Ms Lador-Fresher was due to speak at 3pm to the politics society of Manchester University Students Union. But after 300 protesters were expected to turn out, organised by another student society Action Palestine, the embassy cancelled her visit.

Politics Society president Jonathan Ridge, who was to chair today's event, says the cancellation is disappointing for freedom of speech, especially since controversial speakers like Dr Azzam Tamimi had been allowed to speak unhampered at the Palestine Conference held at Manchester University on Saturday.

“There has been a clear lack of equality and it's problematic for freedom of speech at higher-education institutions. It's much better to have a policy of engagement rather than pass up the opportunity to question and hear what they have to say - that's the entire point of university - to hear different viewpoints.”

Mr Ridge, whose personal email account has been bombarded with spam mail protesting against the talk, also said the embassy had been concerned about protesters storming the meeting with banners and items they claim are banned from the West Bank, whilst more serious threats from fringe protesters had also been feared. “I'm not going to blame Action Palestine for any particular threats but their attitude has not been helpful, let's just say that,” he added.

About Azzam Tamimi

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/27106/calls-destruction-israel-soas-lecture

Other than suicide bombing, he and Adonis seem to be in complete agreement.

But I think it says something when the people on one side of an issue go to these lengths to try to make sure the other side is not heard. Perhaps because they know that if the other side is heard, the other side will win the argument.

Edited February 22, 2010 by jeffrey smith

[Leonid]

MSK " I believe those behind the scenes are cashing in on the regional fears and hatreds and don't really give a damn about about the quarrels."

It would be helpful if you can clarify who are those behind the scenes and what could be their possible motive?

[Libertarian Muslim]

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

 

1. Iran doesn't have any interest in procuring nuclear weapons. So whatever rubbish you posted has no relevance.

2. In 1956 Israel colluded with France and Britain to launch a war on Egypt to gain control of the Suez Canal which Egypt had nationalized, it was a secret deal called the Protocol of Sevres and the British, French and Israelis sent more than 250,000 troops to fight against the Egyptians for no reason other than trying to gain control of Egypt's sovereign territory, there was no right to do it.. And you wonder then why the Egyptians and other neighbors of Israel from then on always massed troops on the border, it's because the Israelis have a history of launching wars of aggression on her neighbors.

In 1967, the Israelis again attacked their neighbors, contrary to what many Israelis like to say, it wasn't so many neighbors attacking Israel after colluding like the Israelis did with the British and French in the Suez Canal war, rather it was Israel attacking each country, one by one beginning with Egypt, then Jordan, then Syria and occupying their territories. Those nations did not attack Egypt first..

Israel is the country that pre-emptively attacks other nations. Iran isn't Israel.

[jeffrey smith]

1. Iran doesn't have any interest in procuring nuclear weapons. So whatever rubbish you posted has no relevance.

That is simply a statement of belief. There is no evidence which absolutely contradicts the idea that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and there is a good deal of evidence which supports such an idea. So, unless you have documentation no one else has--in which case you'd be much better off trying to publicize it in the world media than simply here on OL--you have no right to make such a statement. As it is, it is merely wishful thinking on your part. Your logic boils down simply to this : Israel is bad, therefore Iran is good. Iran is good, therefore Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons. You want to believe Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons, so you apparently are ignoring all the evidence that is contrary to that idea. The evidence is not conclusive, but it doesn't allow the blithe dismissal you are making.

2. In 1956 Israel colluded with France and Britain to launch a war on Egypt to gain control of the Suez Canal which Egypt had nationalized, it was a secret deal called the Protocol of Sevres and the British, French and Israelis sent more than 250,000 troops to fight against the Egyptians for no reason other than trying to gain control of Egypt's sovereign territory, there was no right to do it..

To tbe best of my knowledge, the above is an accurate summary. But then you deviate back into propaganda--

And you wonder then why the Egyptians and other neighbors of Israel from then on always massed troops on the border, it's because the Israelis have a history of launching wars of aggression on her neighbors.

We will of course leave out the part about the Arab nations massing their armies on the border in 1948 and attacking Israel, which was a war of aggression on their part.

In 1967, the Israelis again attacked their neighbors, contrary to what many Israelis like to say, it wasn't so many neighbors attacking Israel after colluding like the Israelis did with the British and French in the Suez Canal war, rather it was Israel attacking each country, one by one beginning with Egypt, then Jordan, then Syria and occupying their territories. Those nations did not attack Egypt first..

That's ignoring a lot of aggression on the part of the Arabs, and some serious facts, such as the fact that Syria and Jordan attacked Israel well before Israeli forces crossed into the West Bank.

The article is much too long and too detailed for me to excerpt any quotes in a satisfactory manner, but Wikipedia gives all the gory details, including the build up of hostilities in the pre-war period, in which both Israel and the Arabs participated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

Israel is the country that pre-emptively attacks other nations. Iran isn't Israel.

Well, yes it is quite true that Iran isn't Israel. Israel is not a theocratic dictatorship calling for the destruction of another country and bankrolling terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah which use aggressive force to maintain their position in an undemocratic manner contrary to the way Lebanese democracy is supposed to work.

It is in fact, rather odd, that a supposed libertarian like yourself, Adonis, is arguing on behalf of the two entities most opposed to civil rights and democracy in the Middle East other than AlQaeda itself--Iran and Hezbollah.

Odd enough that it should make you want to sit down and check your premises, and decide if you are a supporter of Iran/Hezbollah or a supporter of democracy.

As a reminder (from Wikipedia)

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

Hezbollah alongside with Amal is one of two major political parties in Lebanon that represent the Shiite Muslims. It holds 14 of the 128 seats in Lebanon's Parliament and is a member of the Resistance and Development Bloc. According to Daniel L. Byman, it's "the most powerful single political movement in Lebanon."[83]

Hezbollah, along with the Amal Movement, represents most of Lebanese Shi'a.[84] However, unlike Amal, Hezbollah has not disarmed. Hezbollah participates in the Parliament of Lebanon. In the general election of 2005, it won 10.9% of parliamentary seats. The Resistance and Development Bloc, of which Hezbollah is a member, won all 23 seats in Southern Lebanon, and in total, 35 seats, or 27.3% of parliamentary seats nationwide.[85] When municipal elections were held in the first half of 2004, Hezbollah won control of 21% of the municipalities.[24]

Hezbollah has been one the main parties of March 8 Alliance since polarization of political atmosphere of Lebanon in March 2005. Although Hezbollah had joined the new government in 2005, it remained staunchly opposed to the March 14 Alliance.[86] In November 2006, Hezbollah, the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), and the Amal Movement jointly demanded the establishment of a "national unity government",[87][88] in which they demanded early elections and one third of the Cabinet seats; effectively, veto power.[89][90] When negotiations with the ruling coalition failed, five Cabinet Ministers from Hezbollah and Amal resigned their positions. On December 1, 2006, these groups began the 2006–2008 Lebanese political protests, an ongoing series of protests and sit-ins in opposition to the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.[15][91] Finally, on May 7, 2008 Lebanon's 17-month long political crisis spiraled out of control. The fighting was sparked by a government move to shut down Hezbollah's telecommunication network and remove Beirut Airport's security chief over alleged ties to Hezbollah. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said the government's decision to declare the group's military telecommunications network illegal was a "declaration of war" on the organization, and demanded that the government revoke it.[92][93] Hezbollah-led opposition fighters seized control of several West Beirut neighborhoods from Future Movement militiamen loyal to the American-backed government, in street battles that left 11 dead and 30 wounded. The opposition-seized areas were then handed over to the Lebanese Army.[16] The army also pledged to resolve the dispute and has reversed the decisions of the government by letting Hezbollah preserve its telecoms network and re-instating the airport's security chief.[94][95] At the end, rival Lebanese leaders reached consensus over Doha Agreement on May 21, 2008, to end the 18-month political feud that exploded into fighting and nearly drove the country to a new civil war.[96] On the basis of this agreement, Hezbollah was granted veto power in Lebanon's parliament. At the end of the conflicts, National unity government was formed by Fouad Siniora on July 11, 2008 and Hezbollah has one minister and controls eleven of thirty seats in the cabinet.[4][17]

Jeffrey S.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Israeli official doubts Iran would strike

By ROBERT BURNS

The Associated Press

Friday, February 26, 2010; 2:09 PM

WASHINGTON -- Israel's defense minister said Friday a nuclear-armed Iran would be unlikely to strike the Jewish state but would use its arsenal to intimidate adversaries across the Middle East.

"I don't think the Iranians, even if they got the bomb, (would) drop it in the neighborhood," Ehud Barak said. "They fully understand what might follow. They are radical but not totally crazy. They have a quite sophisticated decision-making process, and they understand reality."

Barak was not more explicit about the consequences of an Iranian strike, but he appeared to allude to Israeli retaliation. Israel is widely believed to have its own nuclear arms but has never publicly acknowledged it.

Israel is key to the U.S. approach on Iran because of the prospect of an Israeli airstrike to pre-empt Iran's obtaining a nuclear weapon. The U.S. has sought to dissuade Israel from striking, at least while there remains a possibility that international sanctions could prompt a shift in Iranian behavior.

Iran insists that its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes.

Barak was in Washington for a series of meetings with top Obama administration officials amid intensified U.S. efforts to pressure Iran following a year of failed efforts to engage Tehran in nuclear negotiations. Barak also was consulting on efforts to relaunch peace talks with the Palestinians.

He was meeting Friday with Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. On Thursday, he held talks at the Pentagon with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Speaking at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Barak endorsed President Barack Obama's efforts to gain international support for a new set of U.N. sanctions against Tehran, although he expressed doubt that sanctions would achieve their aim of compelling Iran to limit its nuclear program.

"What is really needed is significant sanctions, effective ones, within a time limit," Barak said. He credited the administration with making a strong effort on sanctions. "We appreciate it, and we hope it will be successful," he said. "But we also should carry a certain skepticism and think thoroughly and in a constructive manner about what should happen if - against our hopes and wishes - it won't work."

Later at the State Department, Barak told reporters before meeting with Clinton that U.N. sanctions should be "consequential" and keep in mind "the possibility that in spite of all effort, it will not lead to Iran accepting the international norms" with regard to limits on its nuclear program.

In his speech, Barak said Iran is undergoing a tumultuous period of internal dissent, but he added that the rest of the world should not assume the clerical regime there will collapse or reform before it manages to get a nuclear weapon.

"We see that the grip of the regime on its own people, and even the cohesion of the leading group of ayatollahs are both being cracked," he said. "And probably the countdown toward their collapse has started."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/26/AR2010022603338.html

[Leonid]

The whole idea of nuclear war in the Middle East is complete madness. Since this region is relatively small, no country could use nuclear weapons without to cause severe irreparable damage to itself even without nuclear retaliation. Radioactive fall-out will wipe off all life in the region as Chernobyl disaster proved. Israel isn’t mad. However I'm not sure about Iran. The dominant philosophy of this country, Islam, values death more than life. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a speech: "It is the zenith of honor for a man, a young person, boy or girl, to be prepared to sacrifice his life in order to serve the interests of his nation and his religion". Sheik Feiz Mohammed, leader of the Global Islamic Youth Center in Sydney, Australia, preached: "We want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam. Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid." "We are going to win, because they love life and we love death," said Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah.

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs in return is the garden of Paradise: they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him us truth…" (Koran, Sura 9:111)

http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/newman/religion_of_death.html

With this system of beliefs nothing could prevent Iran to turn the whole region to the radioactive desert, except pre-emptive strike in order to destroy its nuclear facilities.

[Libertarian Muslim]

The whole idea of nuclear war in the Middle East is complete madness. Since this region is relatively small, no country could use nuclear weapons without to cause severe irreparable damage to itself even without nuclear retaliation. Radioactive fall-out will wipe off all life in the region as Chernobyl disaster proved. Israel isn’t mad. However I'm not sure about Iran. The dominant philosophy of this country, Islam, values death more than life. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a speech: "It is the zenith of honor for a man, a young person, boy or girl, to be prepared to sacrifice his life in order to serve the interests of his nation and his religion". Sheik Feiz Mohammed, leader of the Global Islamic Youth Center in Sydney, Australia, preached: "We want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam. Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid." "We are going to win, because they love life and we love death," said Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah.

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs in return is the garden of Paradise: they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him us truth…" (Koran, Sura 9:111)

http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/newman/religion_of_death.html

With this system of beliefs nothing could prevent Iran to turn the whole region to the radioactive desert, except pre-emptive strike in order to destroy its nuclear facilities.

I think you'll find that in Islam we have a great respect and love for life, however at the same time we're not afraid to die if necessary to defend our rights and the rights of others..

Ali Khamanei was referring particularly to the events of the Iran-Iraq war where young males, teenagers went and fought and died to defend their nation against Saddam's US backed forces..

Sheikh Feiz is crazy, he's a Takfiri which is worse than a Wahhabi... He has barely anyone supporting him and has been condemned all over Australia which is why he now lives in Lebanon.

Regarding the verse in the Qur'an, I don't see anything wrong with that verse..

Your problem is and always has been that you are a bigot.. You think that Muslims are crazy and so radical that we lack logic and common sense.. As if we're not human or something and would rather kill all of our children and live in a nuclear wasteland than lose.. I'm sorry but you're wrong.. We're human beings and want the best for our children..

It's Israel that would use the nuclear weapons.. It's called the Samson Option where Israel would turn the whole Middle East into a radioactive desert with its 200+ nuclear weapons if it was being overrun rather than lose it to other nations.

[Mike11]

I think Israel is being set up big time to start a mess for others to finish, with lots of really dirty tricks in the wings on all fronts.

Michael

I'm curious as to what this means.

[Mike11]

....

Israel isn’t mad. However I'm not sure about Iran. The dominant philosophy of this country, Islam, values death more than life.....

Your problem is and always has been that you are a bigot.. You think that Muslims are crazy and so radical that we lack logic and common sense.. As if we're not human or something and would rather kill all of our children and live in a nuclear wasteland than lose.. I'm sorry but you're wrong.. We're human beings and want the best for our children..

It's Israel that would use the nuclear weapons..

Race War - side effects include bipartisan irony.

A question more for Leonid than Adonis - What evidence could you accept that the average Muslim rejects the radicals' claims of Death being better than Life? What evidence could disprove that Muslims are barbarians who hate the good for being the good (etc etc)? I would very much like to hear your answer.

[BaalChatzaf]

....

Israel isn't mad. However I'm not sure about Iran. The dominant philosophy of this country, Islam, values death more than life.....

Your problem is and always has been that you are a bigot.. You think that Muslims are crazy and so radical that we lack logic and common sense.. As if we're not human or something and would rather kill all of our children and live in a nuclear wasteland than lose.. I'm sorry but you're wrong.. We're human beings and want the best for our children..

It's Israel that would use the nuclear weapons..

Race War - side effects include bipartisan irony.

A question more for Leonid than Adonis - What evidence could you accept that the average Muslim rejects the radicals' claims of Death being better than Life? What evidence could disprove that Muslims are barbarians who hate the good for being the good (etc etc)? I would very much like to hear your answer.

The devout Muslims love their god so much they hate their lives and our lives. That is what makes them dangerous. You will never hear a religious Muslim raise a toast --- L'Chayim. Not ever.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Leonid]

Joel Mac Donald "A question more for Leonid than Adonis - What evidence could you accept that the average Muslim rejects the radicals' claims of Death being better than Life?"

And who is the average Muslim? There is no such a thing. There are different Muslims with different ideas. In any case your "average Muslims" don't define the political course of Muslim countries. Their political and religious leaders do.

Joel Mac Donald “What evidence could disprove that Muslims are barbarians who hate the good for being the good (etc etc)? I would very much like to hear your answer."

Your statement is obvious overgeneralization. Who could speak for all 1.5 billion Muslims? Note, I didn't claim that all Muslims prefer death over life; I claimed that their religious and political leaders do so citing Islam as the basis for such a claim.( see sura 9.111 above). But not all Muslims take their religion that seriously. To disprove it is very easy-they have explicitly to reject it. But more importantly, they have to stop hostilities and the practice to educate their children as the future shahids and mujahids.(see my post below.)

Edited March 1, 2010 by Leonid

[Leonid]

Adonis "Your problem is and always has been that you are a bigot...”

If acknowledgement of facts and explicitly expressed ideas is a bigotry, than so be it. I, however, call it the recognition of reality. You have very convenient habit to disqualify any Muslim religious leader who disproves your position. But you contradict yourself. For example you said "Sheikh Feiz is crazy, he's a Takfiri which is worse than a Wahhabi... He has barely anyone supporting him and has been condemned all over Australia which is why he now lives in Lebanon." No wonder. Australia isn't Muslim country. From your statement follows that he has been supported in Lebanon, the country of Hassan Nasrallah, an Iranian stooge who thinks exactly as Sheikh Feiz and who (and not Israel) in fact occupies South Lebanon.

Adonis "I think you'll find that in Islam we have a great respect and love for life,"-the onus of proof is on you. In any case, deeds speak louder than words.

Adonis "We're human beings and want the best for our children...”- Depends what one considers the best. For example that what some Palestinian mothers consider the best for their children.

"PA TV news report:

Mother upon news of son’s death in an IDF airstrike: “We had always hoped for his [my son’s] Martyrdom (Shahada), knowing he wanted to die as a Martyr (Shahid). Every time he went out, we would say to him, ‘May Allah be with you.’ We knew that he wanted to die as a Martyr. Praise to Allah, he sought Martyrdom, and he achieved it. My message to every mother is to sacrifice her child for Palestine.

Another woman: “By Allah, we welcome every Martyr as if he were a groom among us."..."PATV interview:

Sana Aida, Official of PA Ministry Social Affairs: "Any woman who is told, 'Your son was run over and died,' is shocked, grieves, cries, gets sick, and has a nervous breakdown. But if we tell her, 'Your son became a Shahid (Martyr),' she makes sounds of joy, [meaning:] 'Don't comfort me; bless me, give out drinks.' They consider him a groom."

PA TV Host: "He is a groom."

Sana Aida: "This is the Palestinian mother. She passes it on. If you say to little girls, 'Your brother is a Shahid,' they will say, 'He is a groom.' She passes it on to her children, daughters and granddaughters."

http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=565

Listen to other Palestinian mother who can teach you thing or two about what she thinks is the best for her children. Than prove that she values life over death. Prove that her attitude is not deeply rooted in the culture of Islam.

No single religious or political leader in the world of Islam never denounced or rejected claim of martyrdom and suicide in the name of Allah. Nobody ever objected to the proclamation of Nasralla "They love life and we love death." So your task to prove me wrong could be the difficult one. Anyway, you're invited to do so.

Prove that sura 9.111 "they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain" is not Islamic justification of the violence and the martyrdom. Prove that mainstream leading scholars of Islam disapprove on Nasrallah, Sheikh Feiz and the like. Prove that they object the education of children as future shahids and celebration of their death by their mothers. Prove that it's un-Islamic to use children as human shields in the name of Allah. Prove that Qur'an encourages peace and relation of trust and friendship with the "People of Book". If you can prove all these that you can prove the improvable.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Leonid

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

MSK " I believe those behind the scenes are cashing in on the regional fears and hatreds and don't really give a damn about about the quarrels."

It would be helpful if you can clarify who are those behind the scenes and what could be their possible motive?

I think Israel is being set up big time to start a mess for others to finish, with lots of really dirty tricks in the wings on all fronts.

Michael

I'm curious as to what this means.

I have left this discussion for a while because it has turned unproductive for me. The numbers show that it is basically being read by a very small number of people. And the arguments are pretty much circular: This side is evil. No, that side is evil.

And that is where it stays.

(yawn)

Once I have had time to examine more material, like the official peace proposals and the documentaries I said I will watch, I might rejoin.

Meanwhile, here is part of the answer to what I mentioned, but especially see the lecture by G. Edward Griffin: MAD - Too Big to Fail.

All you have to do is simply look at who is in the wings and ask, what would this person or that gain if hostilities erupted between Iran and Israel?

With the exception of Iran, Israel and the Palestinians, if there could be war and this thing would not spiral into WWIII, almost all of the onlookers stand to gain, irrespective of who wins.

On the side of the Rhodes structure Griffin mentioned, I like the way he put it as regards the USA (and I paraphrase): the Democrats want to negotiate peace in the Middle East and the Republicans want to attain it by war. But both want the United Nations to oversee it.

The disagreement is over the losers (Israel, Iran and the Palestinians), not the winners (the ones behind the UN). With respect to the winners, there is total agreement. It's like a saying I used to hear in the underworld in São Paul, Brazil, in my bad days: in any war between bandits, there is only one winner, the police.

And who and what is behind the UN? Well, there is the Rhodes structure. But there are the communists, also. And there are individual countries or small blocks of countries, all of whom stand to gain a lot from watching two nations try to destroy each other.

What are the gains? With the financial interconnection the world is presently in (if one country goes down, it takes others with it), and the dirty way international finance is run, a war like that could be a huge write-off for debts that have nothing to do with it. There is war profiteering for those who like such things (especially ordnance manufacturers the world over). There also would be the global markets Iran and Israel now supply that would open up. And the propaganda machine would have an enormous amount of grist for the mill for all kinds of local benefits to all kinds of politicians and governments. Propaganda-wise, fundamentalist Islamists, for instance, would love this. What a recruiting tool! There are many other benefits and I have only scratched the surface.

None of this has anything to do with the values held by Israelis, Palestinians or Iranians. And none of this could happen if the USA made a preemptive strike against Iran. It has to be Israel. Otherwise WWIII actually might break out.

On the Islamic side, I don't see anything but hypocrisy, either. None of the other major Islamic countries want to take Iran's place. Especially because they know the Israelis will kick butt big time if they feel their existence is threatened. But they all want the war. I am more than convinced that they want the benefits such a war would bring to them and they are more than happy to let Iran be the fall guy.

(I talk about leaders and the systems controlling the power structures, not normal citizens.)

So Israel has to be set up to attack Iran. There's a madman in power over in Iran right now. He loathes Israel (which, to him, is the Little Satan) with every fiber of his being. He says so happily if you ask him. And he is playing with building nukes and flaunting it to the world. That makes the timing right for this to happen.

The only losers in a war between Israel and Iran will be Israel and Iran, and probably the Palestinians since they essentially live in Israel in an unresolved situation. And, of course, anyone doing the actual fighting or caught between the crossfire. Everybody else will gain.

From what I see on looking at the big picture, lots of people in lots of high places the world over give lip-service to one side of the hostilities or the other, but they don't really give a damn about who wins or loses. They get theirs either way. All they are interested in is their own gains and most all of them stand to win big-time if war erupts.

Michael

[Mike11]

Well I see your point, the Western arms industry, more Western than Eastern has made huge profits from the situation in the Middle East for decades now, another war just fuels more spending.

[Leonid]

Another typical conspiracy theory with its pseudo-axiomatic premises,and oversimplification of conclusions ( everything is bad because greedy capitalists, communists, Jews, alliens ...make your pick.)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Leonid,

Actually it's not typical. My analysis includes many different interests ranging from single countries and multiple countries on up to multi-country movements like communism and leadership movements like the different Progressive one-world government movement structures.

And those interests are easily documented.

You might find it amazing, but the world outside the Jewish-Islamic hostilities doesn't really care about what Jews and Muslims think on anything at all. Most people just want the yelling to stop and other people try to see where they can use the situation to make gains for their own interests. Let the Jews and Muslims kill each other. That's OK by them. Just so long as there is an angle to play for a payoff.

Human beings tend to work that way.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that humanity is comprised of much, much more than Jews and Muslims. In fact, most of humanity is. I know that's a hard pill to swallow for someone invested in so much hatred as you have shown in your posts. Most people don't hate what you hate. They just don't care and they never will.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well I see your point, the Western arms industry, more Western than Eastern has made huge profits from the situation in the Middle East for decades now, another war just fuels more spending.

Joel,

That's just one payoff. There are many.

You wanna see something interesting? Keep your eye on Greece right now. It's sinking economically and starting to take other countries with it. Spain and Portugal, too. A domino thing is threatening to come, just like it did in the financial sector.

Watch and see if this situation doesn't end up involving the Iran-Israel standoff and other Middle East hostilities in some manner.

All very distant and proper, of course...

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Here’s something relevant I came across, though his comments about (all) Muslims don’t jibe with my experience.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx_8zqIOZU4&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx_8zqIOZU4&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx_8zqIOZU4&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Leonid]

Leonid,

Actually it's not typical. My analysis includes many different interests ranging from single countries and multiple countries on up to multi-country movements like communism and leadership movements like the different Progressive one-world government movement structures.

And those interests are easily documented.

You might find it amazing, but the world outside the Jewish-Islamic hostilities doesn't really care about what Jews and Muslims think on anything at all. Most people just want the yelling to stop and other people try to see where they can use the situation to make gains for their own interests. Let the Jews and Muslims kill each other. That's OK by them. Just so long as there is an angle to play for a payoff.

Human beings tend to work that way.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that humanity is comprised of much, much more than Jews and Muslims. In fact, most of humanity is. I know that's a hard pill to swallow for someone invested in so much hatred as you have shown in your posts. Most people don't hate what you hate. They just don't care and they never will.

Michael

[Leonid]

MSK "You might find it amazing, but the world outside the Jewish-Islamic hostilities doesn't really care about what Jews and Muslims think on anything at all."

That well may be true, but THIS thread is about Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"Most people don't hate what you hate. They just don't care and they never will."

"Fear not your foes. At the most they can kill you. Fear not your friends. At the most they can betray you. Fear the indifferent. Only with his silent approval the murder and the betrayal becomes possible." (Unknown author, perished in Gestapo during the WWII)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Leonid,

There is in insinuation in your last post that I want to address. I call it a form of bullying because it tries to blank out what a person stands for and impute him with another motive. The reason I have seen this be used most often is to intimidate a person into becoming a bigot.

The insinuation is that I. Michael, would stand idly by and let another Holocaust happen against Jews. That I would grant my "silent approval" for genocide.

The remedy, of course, is for me to agree that all Muslims are evil scum and Islam is a form of spite-filled insanity.

I will not.

I remind you I started this thread to discuss the hostilities involving Jews. So obviously I am not standing idly by. I am paying for the physical facilities for this to be discussed in public, precisely so another Holocaust will not happen. I can't stop major world events, but I can do a small part. And I am doing it.

This goes for any brutality against Palestinians, also.

But I will not become a bigot no matter how much you pressure with your blanket Muslim-hatred and twisting my own messages around to mean what I do not say and do not intend.

I am keeping this up so readers can see how it works and decide for themselves. If they want to be persuaded to become Muslim-hating bigots, that's their business.

But I am cutting down the bullying by exposing it. Let readers think with their own minds, not with your propaganda slogans and blind hatred.

The indifference I spoke of was indifference to your hatred, not indifference to human decency.

Michael

[Leonid]

Michael, I actually didn't refer to you personally, but to the people who, as you put it "just don't care and they never will." If you count yourself with them, then you have no business to feel insinuated. Let alone if you don't. If you somehow concluded that "The remedy, of course, is for me to agree that all Muslims are evil scum and Islam is a form of spite-filled insanity.” this is yours, not mine conclusion. I never referred to all 1.5 billion Muslims, only to Islamo-fascists, who represent only small minority of them. Islam IS a form of insanity like any other religion, but this is different topic.

"But I will not become a bigot no matter how much you pressure with your blanket Muslim-hatred"-you are very wrong on both accounts. (1).For you to pronounce the moral judgment in regard to Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to make a clear distinction between the victim and the agressor, between initiation of force and retaliation is a bigotry. You think that you are safe in your agnostic, neutral position. But you are not, since your failure to take a stand is also moral failure and a form of bigotry. (2). As result you consider my position as "blanket Muslim-hatred", which means you never read any of my posts and your conclusion is based on the pure prejudice. I do not hate Muslims, I only hate those, who made hatred their way of living, who hate good for being good, who seek to destroy the only country in the Middle East in which people live as proud, free human beings.

If you think that this is a bigotry to resist their efforts and to expose their philosophical roots, then I am a proud bigot.

Leonid

Edited March 7, 2010 by Leonid

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If you somehow concluded that "The remedy, of course, is for me to agree that all Muslims are evil scum and Islam is a form of spite-filled insanity." this is yours, not mine conclusion.

Leonid,

It comes through loud and clear through your posts. If that is not your intended message, I, for one, am letting you know that you are not communicating your message correctly.

Islam IS a form of insanity like any other religion, but this is different topic.

I have not perceived you consider Islam to be just like any other religion. On the contrary, you come off as one of those who thinks Islam ultimately leads to violent Islamism and can only lead there.

For you to pronounce the moral judgment in regard to Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a bigotry.

I did not pronounce moral judgment on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict other than to say I want it to end. I did, however, pronounce moral judgment on your hatred.

You think that you are safe in your agnostic, neutral position. But you are not, since your failure to take a stand is also moral failure and a form of bigotry.

This shows you have not read, or did not understand, a word I have written. I have taken a stand and a strong one. In favor of Israel, in fact. (But without the kind of bigotry I have read from your posts.) Your hatred of Muslims kept you from seeing it. Go back and reread if you are truly interested. If not, that's OK. I am making my case to the readers, not to you. But it's as clear as daylight.

As result you consider my position as "blanket Muslim-hatred", which means you never read any of my posts and your conclusion is based on the pure prejudice. I do not hate Muslims, I only hate whose, who made hatred their way of living, who hate good for being good, who seek to destroy the only country in the Middle East in which people live as proud, free human beings.

I have read them. I called you to task for not citing sources in your oversimplifications, for just one example of how I have read them.

If you think that this is bigotry to resist their efforts and to expose their philosophical roots, then I am proud bigot.

I do not think that exposing philosophical roots is bigotry, which is why I am on your case. I want the reader to be aware of the floating abstractions, misrepresentations, etc., you use in trying to show how Israel is the only country in the Middle East worthy of having people in it.

I am radically against Islamist fundamentalists. I think Ahmadinejad is a dangerous loon. I also think many things along these lines. I have made that clear in my posts.

I am also against bigotry in any form. Including bigotry from the Israeli side.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The Israeli-Palestinian issue is one thing. In the meantime the Afghan War is becoming the Afghan-Pakistani War which will eventually spill over into India.

In Iran the military is slowly displacing the Mullahs as the dominant, controlling political force.

World War III is just around the corner.

--Brant