a good article on this middle east mess...

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
Who is at fault?
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, July 14, 2006


WASHINGTON -- Next June will mark the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War. For four decades we have been told that the cause of the anger, violence and terror against Israel is its occupation of the territories seized in that war. End the occupation and the ``cycle of violence'' ceases.

The problem with this claim was that before Israel came into possession of the West Bank and Gaza in the Six Day War, every Arab state had rejected Israel's right to exist and declared Israel's pre-1967 borders -- now deemed sacred -- to be nothing more than the armistice lines suspending, and not ending, the 1948-49 war to exterminate Israel.


Israeli artillery soldiers are surrounded by smoke and dust as they fire across the border into southern Lebanon from a position on the frontier in Zaura, northern Israel, Wednesday, July 12, 2006. Hezbollah fighters launched a raid into Israel and captured two Israeli soldiers Wednesday, triggering an Israeli assault with warplanes, gunboats and ground troops in southern Lebanon to hunt for the captives. Seven Israeli soldiers and two Lebanese were killed in the violence. (AP Photo/Oded Balilty) But you don't have to be a historian to understand the intention of Israel's enemies. You only have to read today's newspapers.

Exhibit A: Gaza. Just last September, Israel evacuated Gaza completely. It declared the border between Israel and Gaza an international frontier, renouncing any claim to the territory. Gaza became the first independent Palestinian territory in history. Yet the Gazans continued the war. They turned Gaza into a base for launching rocket attacks against Israel and for digging tunnels under the border to conduct attacks like the one that killed two Israeli soldiers on June 25 and yielded a wounded hostage brought back to Gaza. Israeli tanks have now had to return to Gaza to try to rescue the hostage and suppress the rocket fire.

Exhibit B: South Lebanon. Two weeks later, on July 12, the Lebanese terror organization, Hezbollah, which has representation in the Lebanese parliament and in the Cabinet, launched an attack into Israel that killed eight soldiers and wounded two, who were brought back to Lebanon as hostages.

What's the grievance here? Israel withdrew from Lebanon completely in 2000. It was so scrupulous in making sure that not one square inch of Lebanon was left inadvertently occupied that it asked the U.N. to verify the exact frontier defining Lebanon's southern border and retreated behind it. This ``blue line'' was approved by the Security Council, which declared that Israel had fully complied with resolutions demanding its withdrawal from Lebanon.

Grievance satisfied. Yet what happens? Hezbollah has done to South Lebanon exactly what Hamas has done to Gaza: turn it into a military base and terrorist operations center from which to continue the war against Israel. South Lebanon bristles with Hezbollah's ten-thousand Katyusha rockets that put northern Israel under the gun. Fired in the first hours of fighting, just 85 of these killed two Israelis and wounded over 100 in Israel's northern towns.

Over the last six years, Hezbollah has launched periodic raids and rocket attacks into Israel. Israeli retaliation has led to the cessation of these provocations -- until the next time convenient for Hezbollah. Wednesday was such a time. One terror base located in fully unoccupied Arab territory (South Lebanon) attacks Israel in support of another terror base in another fully unoccupied Arab territory (Gaza).

Why? Because occupation was a mere excuse to persuade gullible and historically ignorant Westerners to support the Arab cause against Israel. The issue is, and has always been, Israel's existence. That is what is at stake.

It was Yasser Arafat's PLO that persuaded the world that the issue was occupation. Yet through all those years of pretense, Arafat's own group celebrated its annual Fatah Day on the anniversary of its first attack on Israel, the bombing of Israel's National Water Carrier -- on Jan. 1, 1965.

Note: 1965. Two years before the 1967 war. Two years before Gaza and the West Bank fell into Israeli hands. Two years before there were any ``occupied territories.''

But again, who needs history? As the Palestinian excuses for continuing their war disappear one by one, the rhetoric is becoming more bold and honest. Just last Tuesday, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, writing in The Washington Post, referred to Israel as ``a supposedly 'legitimate' state.''

He made clear what he wants done with this bastard entity. ``Contrary to popular depictions of the crisis in the American media,'' he writes, ``the dispute is not only about Gaza and the West Bank.'' It is about ``a wider national conflict'' that requires the vindication of ``Palestinian national rights.''

That, of course, means the right to all of Palestine, with no Jewish state. In the end, the fighting is about ``the core 1948 issues, rather than the secondary ones from 1967.''

In 1967, Israel acquired the ``occupied territories.'' In 1948, Israel acquired life. The fighting raging now in 2006 -- between Israel and the ``genocidal Islamism'' (to quote the writer Yossi Klein Halevi) of Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran behind them -- is about whether that life should and will continue to exist.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
It shows that sometimes this push for democracies can go backwards.
Folks have tried to tell Bush. It's just a word and good does not always come from it. The free elections and new democracies in Lebanon and Gaza are good examples. And I would not yet call Iraq a success.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
djv said:
It shows that sometimes this push for democracies can go backwards.
Folks have tried to tell Bush. It's just a word and good does not always come from it. The free elections and new democracies in Lebanon and Gaza are good examples. And I would not yet call Iraq a success.

Right. And not just go backwards, but never to have gone forward to begin with.

Let's face it, the 'democracies' that we like to take credit for in Palestine and Lebanon are an abortion. Both countries run by terrorist organizations.

The one in Iraq will almost certainly prove to be a Iranian puppet, once we leave. This 'democracy' will be run by a country that is basically pulling the strings in the world right now. Iran.

Iran should send us a thank you card, as we got rid of their most bitter enemy and we laid the way to get their friends elected. Iraq(now), Iran, Syria. That's a pretty good chunk of the ME being orchestrated by Iran.

You people that can't see this amaze me. Stay the course. lol

But hey, we're rebuilding the schools that we blew up in Iraq. And we're almost back to pre-war levels of electricity. That's the important thing for our security.
 

zoomer

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 20, 2000
2,623
123
0
Massapequa Park, NY USA
Kosar, we see eye to eye on this. When I see people refer to these puppet regimes as "Democracies" it makes me laugh. Hezbollah has free reign in Lebanon. ANYWHERE in Lebanon. The Capitol of this "Democracy" is in Damascus.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
kosar said:
Right. And not just go backwards, but never to have gone forward to begin with.

Let's face it, the 'democracies' that we like to take credit for in Palestine and Lebanon are an abortion. Both countries run by terrorist organizations.

The one in Iraq will almost certainly prove to be a Iranian puppet, once we leave. This 'democracy' will be run by a country that is basically pulling the strings in the world right now. Iran.

Iran should send us a thank you card, as we got rid of their most bitter enemy and we laid the way to get their friends elected. Iraq(now), Iran, Syria. That's a pretty good chunk of the ME being orchestrated by Iran.

You people that can't see this amaze me. Stay the course. lol

But hey, we're rebuilding the schools that we blew up in Iraq. And we're almost back to pre-war levels of electricity. That's the important thing for our security.


do you really think that there wouldn't be any problems if the u.s.wasn't in iraq ?

the problem is that the gov'ts.of these countries in the middle east have brainwashed their people to think that all of their problems are caused by the west & israel. these poor people don't stop & ask themselves why are all of the people poor while their gov'ts. live in splendor.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
an interesting editorial from the n.y. times..

an interesting editorial from the n.y. times..

Editorial

Playing Hamas?s Game


Published: July 15, 2006

With the circle of violence in the Middle East expanding alarmingly, it is important to be clear about not only who is responsible for the latest outbreak, but who stands to gain most from its continued escalation.

Both questions have the same answer: Hamas and Hezbollah. And Israel needs to be careful that its far-reaching military responses, however legally and morally justified, do not end up advancing the political agenda that Hamas and Hezbollah hard-liners had in mind when they conceived and executed the kidnappings of Israeli soldiers that detonated the fighting.

The Palestinian Authority, which Hamas controls, and the Lebanese government, in which Hezbollah is a minority participant, inexcusably failed to prevent or halt these incidents. Iran, which arms Hezbollah, and Syria, which shelters the most violent wing of Hamas, also share some responsibility.

Israel is fully justified in treating these two incidents as unacceptable acts of aggression. But it needs to better adapt its methods to the circumstances it now faces. The point is to weaken and isolate Hamas and Hezbollah, while denying them opportunities to rally broader Arab support. To that end, Israel must focus its fire much more directly at the leaders and fighters of these two groups, and do far more to minimize the damage to civilian bystanders.

Here?s why: The military chieftains of Hamas and Hezbollah fully understand that their primitively armed guerrillas and limited-range unguided missiles are no match for Israel?s world-class military forces. When they engage in provocative operations, like the recent kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and shelling of Israeli towns, they do not expect to win any kind of traditional military victory.

What they more realistically hope for is that the inevitably fierce and devastating Israeli military response will hand them an opportunity to radicalize Arab politics and thereby pressure moderate Arab leaders to distance themselves from Israel and embrace the guerrilla cause. That is a tactic that secular Palestinian guerrilla groups like Fatah pioneered decades ago, and that Islamist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah now use for similar ends.

This perverse dynamic is again coming into play after Israel?s wide-ranging forays into Gaza and Lebanon. Most Arabs are not blaming Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking these Israeli raids. They are blaming Israel for carrying them out.

That is not fair. But it is the way things work in the real world, and the provocateurs of Hamas and Hezbollah and their allies in Damascus and Tehran understand how to use it to their long-term advantage. Israel?s political and military leaders need to understand it too and not let themselves be drawn into the provocateurs? game.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
krauthamer`s a genius....

and let me add a little something....
this talk about israel targeting civillians really pisses me off...

hamas and hi(e)zbollah don’t have military bases....they plan, operate and attack from homes, where families are.....


the israelis, in order to retaliate,have to attack those homes, which always lead to women and children, who live in those houses, being at risk of becoming casualties...

if hamas and hezbollah don`t want civillians to die, don`t plan your attacks or launch your attacks near civillians......or from mosques....

but you know they do this on purpose, so it looks bad for israel whwn they, naturally,retaliate....


the israelis called the airport 1 hour before they hit it to have it evacuated, they warned all of southern beirut yesterday to take cover because they don’t want to kill them....

not hezbollah.....they fire non-guided missiles into israel and don`t give a rat`s ass who they hit.....

and somehow, they remain blameless in the arab and european mind.....

i honestly feel terrible for some of the people and leadership of lebanon.... i don`t think they expected hizbollah to hang them out to dry......or maybe they did...i`ll give them the benefit of the doubt...

they cross a border,attack and kill(and kidnap soldiers) and then scream “humanatarian crisis” when israel hits them back......


you get out of lebanon in 2000...then,you give them gaza....which they`ve been asking for since 1948......and they use it to fire missiles into your cities....

one thing that we know....as we see the stock market dive.....without any disruption of the oil supply....

imagine this scenario with a rogue islamic state in possession of wmd`s.....

not picking a fight..but,this is the crux of my iraq argument(as some know)..just saying that this is exactly the reason why you don`t play russian roulette in the middle east when it comes to nuclear weapons....


forget n.korea...the middle east is the issue for our times....

btw...the senate just voted to not fund the 370 mile fence with mexico....

i thought this was a done deal?.....

f-cking lying bastards in congress...republicans and democrats....

bastards....
 
Last edited:

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
AR182 said:
do you really think that there wouldn't be any problems if the u.s.wasn't in iraq ?

Of course i'm not saying that. Do you agree that as a result of our occupation in Iraq that Iran has had their major enemy deposed and now has a shia government (IE..pro Iranian) installed?

Jesus Christ- Iran now effecitvely runs Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.

Irans ONE natural enemy was taken out by America.

What i'm saying is that we delivered Iraq to Iran on a silver platter. Major enemy to a huge ally.

Not sure how anybody could disagree with that.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
"Christ- Iran now effecitvely runs Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine."


lol...they`re "running" iraq?...that`s a bit of a stretch there,partner..

and btw...hamas(the "gov`t" of palestine) is a sunni bunch...not shia...
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,486
165
63
Bowling Green Ky
Jesus Christ- Iran now effecitvely runs Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.

"Irans ONE natural enemy was taken out by America.

What i'm saying is that we delivered Iraq to Iran on a silver platter. Major enemy to a huge ally.

Not sure how anybody could disagree with that."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

you can't be serious Matt.

Lets get this straight--You think Iran loves us setting up bases on their door step--you think they love taliban out of control in Afgan--they love Pakistan-Egypt-Jordon-Saudi's all joining in fight on terrorist--the love Lybia-Yemen ect throwing inthe the towell.

I take it they and UBL Aqueda ect had utter distain when we stuck our head in the sand last admin--thinking somehow it would all magically take care of itself--and let them congregate-organize and plan unabated--I'm sure UBL is elated we canceled his frequent flyer and get out of jail free cards :)
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
I would think that UBL is pretty happy that so far he has cost us half a trillion dollars and the effects that will have on our economy. And that we have left our rail system undefended.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
kosar..

i agree with gw & dtb..iran doesn't run iraq. far from it....they failed stop every milestone that took place in iraq.

i will admit that the u.s. seems to be bogged down in iraq which has emboldened iran, n.k., & syria.again i'll say that if the "powell doctrine" was followed, theu.s. would have achieved their goals & their message would be alot stronger.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
DOGS THAT BARK said:
Jesus Christ- Iran now effecitvely runs Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.

"Irans ONE natural enemy was taken out by America.

What i'm saying is that we delivered Iraq to Iran on a silver platter. Major enemy to a huge ally.

Not sure how anybody could disagree with that."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

you can't be serious Matt.

Lets get this straight--You think Iran loves us setting up bases on their door step--you think they love taliban out of control in Afgan--they love Pakistan-Egypt-Jordon-Saudi's all joining in fight on terrorist--the love Lybia-Yemen ect throwing inthe the towell.

I take it they and UBL Aqueda ect had utter distain when we stuck our head in the sand last admin--thinking somehow it would all magically take care of itself--and let them congregate-organize and plan unabated--I'm sure UBL is elated we canceled his frequent flyer and get out of jail free cards :)

GW, Wayne, Al,


No, they are not literally 'running' Iraq at the moment, but once again we're ignoring the power of religion in that religion.

We won't be there forever, Wayne. And frankly, us setting us bases on their doorstep really doesn't seem to have bothered Iran very much. Why would it? We did them a huge favor.

Think about it. What a sweet set-up for the shia in Iraq and by proxy in Iran. Iraq, with 70% shia. Iran, led by islamofascist shia. We come in, sweep out the biggest threat and tormentor to the shia in saddam.

Not only that, we rebuild the country and pave the way for a shia majority government. We train their military and police force for the shia. All the while, they send death squads out to execute about a dozen sunnis a day. Revenge and all.

All this while they 'patiently' wait for us to finish getting them up to speed.

Once that happens, they will ask us to leave, and we will.

Exactly whose interests will we have served when all is said and done?

Surely not Americas, that I can promise you.

And if you guys really don't believe that Iraq will be overtly pro-Iran after we leave, then the 'last admin' wasn't the only group who 'had it's head in the sand.'

Religion, my friends. We still don't respect it's power it seems.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,486
165
63
Bowling Green Ky
"I would think that UBL is pretty happy that so far he has cost us half a trillion dollars and the effects that will have on our economy. And that we have left our rail system undefended."
______________________________________________

I think if money were his objective he'd turn himself in
that would be 25 million more:)

Cost of 911 on economy was estimated conservative 650 billion--top end over a trillion/3,000 + lives.

What would next episode cost?? Appears to me there was some monetary cost from doing nothing after 1st attack--you think?

and when was last time rail system was secure? I have little doubt (however inept) it's more secure now than after 1st time they attacked us here--what say you?
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
DOGS THAT BARK said:
I think if money were his objective he'd turn himself in
that would be 25 million more:)

Cost of 911 on economy was estimated conservative 650 billion--top end over a trillion/3,000 + lives.

What would next episode cost?? Appears to me there was some monetary cost from doing nothing after 1st attack--you think?

and when was last time rail system was secure? I have little doubt (however inept) it's more secure now than after 1st time they attacked us here--what say you?

What does any of that have to do with the 350 billion and counting spent on Iraq?

Are you saying if Clinton had gone into Afghanistan in 1993, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened? Even if he had the same 'success' as this admin in finding OBL?
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Going into Iraq any time in last 20 years would not stopped 9/11. Going in to Afgan in last 20 years would not have stopped it either. Iran gets good deal when we leave Iraq. More of there friends will be in power then ever before. Reagan did have reasons why he back Saddam. Even tho it was start of more hate from Arab world towards us. And was a failed policy in the end.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,486
165
63
Bowling Green Ky
I understand your intent Matt but who do you think Iran would rather have as a deterent next door--Saddams rag tag outfit or Uncle Sam-- I think having base in Iraq is stategical--and hope we have one there permanently.
However I think we can compromise and say best scenerio would have been for Iran/Iraq to go at and after the dust settled go in and try and fix things.

ouldn't it be facinating to know what all sides were planning right now--especially if Israel goes after syria or Iran.
Personally I'd like to see Israel and Iran go at it and everyone else stay outof it. Believe the little bearded fellow in Iran would lose some arrogance--and the Muslim world could see Allahs will 1st hand:)
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top