Isn't this illegal? Iran-Contra 2.0
 

http://alterx.blogspot.com/2008/03/iran-contra-20.html

The article goes on to call this "Iran-Contra 2.0".

If this is true, how can they possibly be getting away with this? Isn't supplying arms to overthrow a democratically elected regime something that should directly lead to a congressional investigation and impeachment? Are we just so tired of everything the Bush administration has done so far, and not been called on, that we don't care any more?

(Sorry, I know the rule on the politics board is to quote the entire article with no more than one sentence of commentary from myself. Apologies to everyone for the effort required to actually click on the link.)

I wish it came from somewhere more reputable than Vanity Fair. Hopefully we'll be hearing more about this in the days to come.

Yes, this is illegal. We're getting away with this because Palestine doesn't have strong allies and the UN Security Council is useless because the US can veto any actions they might take.

There's only one group that can stop this: the American people, and they don't care. Most of them believe the propaganda about Palestinians anyway.

I fear that the Palestinians may disappear in my lifetime.

I don't get what is so "illegal" about this. We are giving arms to Fatah, a party/faction of the Palestinian government that is (more) favorable to America, willing to work with Israel, and has actually made moves to reign in terrorist activity. Fatah is elected to the Palestinian government, it just so happens Hamas has more clout than them, the two share a brokered peace deal with the Palestinian President being a member of Fatah.

Also to say that these actions equate to America stoking a "Palestinian Civil War" are completely false and offbase. The two factions needed no help in fighting and running each other out of each others terrority akin to Iraqi sectarian violence where Hamas runs Gaza and Fatah runs the West Bank.

Also I don't see who this is an impeachable offense. We are supplying arms to the Palestinian government technically.

Yes, robot_parade, I do believe you've asked the wrong question.

Nice opening, got any examples of OPs fitting your description, or just posting in a sarcastic provocative vein?

Yes, if it is true, it does constitute hypocrisy and criminal abuse of office, crimes against humanity, etc.

Fatah, the political party, is who we apparently gave arms to, for the express purpose of overthrowing the Hamas-led (democratically elected) government. That's not giving the Palestinian government weapons. It's exactly the equivalent of if the French government sent of truckload of AK-47's from Mexico to the Democratic National Committee so they could drive the Republican-led government out of Washington. How could that be anything but stoking an American Civil War?

Yes. ;-)

I'd be interested to know how weapon aid constitution an abuse of office, or more importantly crimes against humanity, especially seeing how Fatah security would technically be under the umbrella of the government.

The big problem here is every time we have done this in the past it has come back to haunt us. we gave Osama weapons.... we gave Saddam weapons.....

We never gave Osama weapons, Pakistan did that for us.

But I agree with the bottom line, anytime America has backed a player it has almost always blown up in our face.

Supporting the overthrow of a DEMOCRATIC government is the illegal bit.

Of course, not that it's stopped us before.

It's never stopped us and I can't think of a time in modern history where it didn't eventually backfire on us BIG TIME.

It's not necessarily like our other "successful" instances in history of involvement.

Fatah is a part of this government, Abbas is the head, it is in fighting between two rival factions.

In this case I think helping Fatah, a far less radical entity which is actually willing to work with the US and Israel is better than letting Hamas, a radical group which is nothing more than a terrorist organization akin to the likes of Hezbollah.

What do you think would happen to the Palestinians if Hamas were to have free reign over the government? You know all these new incursions into Palestine recently? Yeah it's Hamas firing rockets at Israeli targets, you don't have that under Abbas' Fatah. Just think of the ramifications if Hamas, as acting head of state pulled this shit? There would be nothing to hold back Israel as it would be a belligerent act of the state, Palestine would be fucked.

Hell look at how the rest of the world reacted to their election... all foreign aid stopped because nobody wanted Hamas to be able to get their hands on the money because they wouldn't use it for the good of the Palestinian people, they would use it for their own agenda which is the destruction of Israel.

This all might be hypocritical because of how it relates to democracy and free elections, but that doesn't make it wrong or a bad play. America and the world at large are idiotic for not seeing this coming, but just because that is the case doesn't mean they should yield to the likes of Hamas.

We armed Afghanistan (including OBL) when they were occupied by the Soviet Union. We both armed and trained them and OBL was one of them.

Wrong, we funneled aid to insurgents through Pakistani intelligence to the tune of 3 billion dollars. All trainers we gave to the cause were sent to Pakistan, which is where they operated out of and called the tactical shots, not Afghanistan. They would train Pakistan agents, who were the go between. The Pakistans therefore had all the discretion, they could give the money/training/weapons to groups that they supported.

It was an Islamic/nationalist cause, they never would have directly accepted aid from America or the West, in most cases they had no idea the CIA was involved.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

I think there are some points there that are debatable. Anytime the CIA gets involved the truth is liquid at best. But the bottom line is they would not have had the assistance if it didn't come from the US. What channels it went through are of little note, IMO.

Mojo, are you familiar with the Afghani Mujahideen? If not, then you really should do your homework before calling people wrong.

Let's assume for a second that your article is correct. Then the US still supplied guns and training to Afghanistan. Do you claim that no US money or weapons wound up in Afghanistan? A middle man doesn't stop the chain of responsibility.

I think the key point is that regardless of the go-between, the intention was to support the Mujahideen... the Pakistanis were just window dressing.

What about the Palestinians? Have we forgotten about them again?

Palestinians are screwed. They are better off with an American backed Fatah government, but they voted for a terrorist organization that cannot work with Israel or the outside world.

It's their government, not ours. We don't get to choose their leadership.

Besides who the fuck are Americans to tell other people they voted the wrong person or people into office? We actually managed to elect Gomer Pyle. At least their leaders have some semblance of intellect. Our leader was almost assassinated by Wetzels Pretzels.

You are right. They probably would be better off with Fatah. That said, it is not the job of the US to support one faction over the other. As much as it might seem to be the right thing to do, these sorts of actions never amount to go and always end up causing more problems.

To my eyes, this is yet another attempt to find a quick and dirty solution to an issue that requires a long, slow game. The quick and dirty solutions almost never work.

I don't see how it is an issue of quick and dirty.

For starters, the article in the OP itself doesn't atest to American actions being illegal, so the title is moot.

Also there is no way of knowing, and I would say that the notion is false, that this infighting is a result of American string pulling. Their were problems from the get go between Fatah and Hamas, it started when Abbas used his powers to dissolve the parliament after weeks of instability and infighting.

I have no problem with the US backing the PA and Fatah, and I don't see how any of you here can either. For starters a lot of you always piss and moan about the plight of the Palestinian people, under Abbas and Fatah things were getting down and the road map was working. Their were no incursions, many check points were open, foreign aid was allowed to reach the people things were looking up. Hell until the last week the only real people killing Palestinians were other Palestinians, then Hamas started firing rockets off again.

The Palestinians had to do the dumbest possible thing and elect a terrorist organization into power. Every hardliner in Israel probably blew their load at the prospect.

Just because it is their right to vote as such, doesn't make it smart, and it doesn't mean we should have to stand for it. They are like little kids, they need the guidance because they obviously cannot figure this out for themselves. I mean unless they like living under martial law with the presence of Israeli tanks and soldiers on the whims of incursions.

ANd we do have a say in this because we are vested and the whole damn world seems to think it is our responsibilty to help them with it via some peace frame work.

I'm not going to comment on the legality of supplying weapons. I could care less about the legal ramifications.

I say it is quick and dirty more out of my thought that this is the typical solution sought by the US when they get involved. Topple a leader here. Support an opposition there. Throw money and arms at the problem and hope for the best.

I've always felt that the true way to bring about positive change is investment in infrastructure, education, training and business development. It sounds wishy-washy but it seems to be working for Iranians and Saudi "investors" in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Go to the madrases there and see that they have been sponsored by Saudi money.

Influence the education. Do business and increase trade with them. And you will make a partner.

Sponsor violent clashes, and you will win an enemy.

That said, I am not blind to the damages that Hamas is doing but you need to actively change the minds of those who voted them into power. You need to build both hope and self respect in the Palestinians. Something that is lacking.

there is no justification for what is happening in gaza.
there is no coherence to israeli policy choices. weaken hamas by isolating it and preventing it from carrying out services--in other words, respond to a democratic election with a siege--while selling yourself as a democracy.
a page right outta the american fo book (chile 1972 comes to mind for example)
the bush administration, of course, is worthless.
as a result--again---people die.

but hey, who cares..............>they're just palestinians.
we have geopolitical "concerns"--let em die while we debate the important stuff.
they don't matter.
clearly.
not in washington, not in tel aviv, not even here.

i cannot imagine anyone knowing what has been happening in gaza being able to justify it. so far as i am concerned, you justify the israeli/american supported actions, you do not know what you are justifying.

Yep just let them to rearm themselves and the hundreds of rockets that they fire during the year in to towns and city, leave Hamas alone. And when Israel comes in to defend they call out on tv, and the radio civilians come and be human shields and defend. They also took a note from Hezballah and keep weapons and fire rockets from peoples houses. But we should blame israel for trying to defend itself from the hundreds of rockets fired at it.

If we give weapons to fatah, there is a possibility of peace. If Hamas takes over, there is none. Should America be the ones to decide this, is a very valid question, but Israel can not help Fatah, since that would undermine Abbas. So if the world does not help Fatah, then just give up on peace until a new government is elected in the west bank.

circular argument, xazy.
same bankrupt logic that resulted in the siege.

what if---say---israel and the us had just sucked it up and accepted hamas in gaza, allowed them to govern under the assumption that the experience of power would moderate them?

of course, one cannot imagine the bush people thinking that clearly and it benefits the present status quo to maintain conflict on the one hand while deploring it on the other.

the present policy maintains a radicalized hamas--israel and the americans claim this is what they do not want--why pursue brutal colonial policies that you KNOW produce the outcome you do not want? AND they undermine your own position politically, ethically, etc. it makes no sense.

Not sure how it is a circular argument...

I do not care if Hamas controls Gaza or not, I just care if they attack their neighbor. If you are the government there and fire rockets in to your neighbor then you are being an aggressor and they should be able to respond. Awesome Israel also has the right to cutoff any trade / electricity with said aggressive nation.

I am all for it, let them become that nation, but if they attack a neighboring country they should have the right to defend itself. Personally i would prefer a peace partner.

you know, i was going to take you seriously too.
thanks for saving me the bother.

I am glad you are open minded, and try to see both sides.

Hamas does not recognize the state of Israel and calls for their destruction. If they was the government there, why would you have any type of open border with them? On top of that they are responsible for hundreds of rockets. They ordered the citizens to be human shields this past week during the fighting, and then cry to the world for every injured / killed citizen (which I think is sad and horrible, about the injuries, but I blame the terrorists who hide amongst them). They fire rockets from houses. I can go on about the hatred they teach to the children, etc... But unless Hamas changes their views drastically, I would fully support a closed border with any Hamas territory.

palestinians
keep shooting rockets at jews,
pavlov not impressed.

Regardless of what Hamas does, Israel should not get a "get-out-of-human-rights-free card."

i am not playing a game of standing blindly pro-israel political positions on their head, xazy---the whole framework gets nowhere. it has obviously gotten nowhere: look at what's happening. look at what's been happening. hamas is not a group of unproblematic folk--but they have traction BECAUSE of the occupation and increasingly its brutality JUSTIFIES their existence and EXTENDS their appeal. it's an entirely self-defeating situation. the americans and israelis made a bad bad choice when they decided to separate in their imaginations gaza from the west bank, purportedly to split fatah (another not entirely unproblematic organization) from hamas---the error was not allowing hamas to take power. power moderates: look at the history of israel itself for proof (who were the folk who assumed power after 1948 and what were they like politically before that?) if the same logic had been applied to israel itself that israel now applies to palestine, there'd be no israel. face it: it is a stupid, brutal policy that has been substituted for reason with reference to gaza, and its results brutalize ALL sides--though if you equate casualty rates on the israeli side to those of the palestinian population in gaza, you simply rule yourself out of serious conversation--this is not to say--and dont try to impute it to me---that israeli casualties are ok---but come on, be serious--massive palestinian casualties and everyday life in grinding miserable conditions PRODUCED by the israeli siege because the government is using the fact they dont like hamas to justify crushing the gaza population--that is not right..

fact is that the dynamic is foul beyond imagining. no-one wins. no-one can win. weak political regimes in the us and israel depend on this violence to prop themselves up.

what is happening in gaza is either among the most cynical policy choices i know of since--o--the war in iraq---or it is the result of a colossal fuck up, one of the biggest since---o--the war in iraq.

while the consequences of this incompetence unfold, FAR more palestinians die in FAR worse conditions every day in gaza than obtain ANYWHERE in israel. period.

justify that.
i cant.

What I find sad, is how everyone goes yes terrorism is bad, and the rocket firing is bad. But we do not talk about the terror and trauma, injuries, deaths that happen from the rockets fired in to Israel daily. Daily is shocking to a lot of people since we rarely even hear about it. And we demand that Israel just accept it, and not fire back at all, since when they do Hamas literally calls out on their tv / radio for their civilians to surround them. And if Israel tries any other possible solution including removing some electricity we yell at them. The way I picture it, is Hamas hiding behind a citizen with a rocket pointing at Israel give us everything, oh and we think you have no right to exist. It is a very basic picture of it, but it is very accurate. Now the people I feel sympathy are the people of sedrot, ashkalon, etc... and all the innocent Palestinians.

I have yet to hear a single reply (anywhere from anyone) how Israel, can stop the rocket firing and keep its citizens safe, without someone yelling about human rights.

if human rights are not your concern, then why are the rockets a problem?

Justify it? Easy. Their leaders would rather keep them miserable and fighting to extinguish Israel than accept Israel as a neighbor and have the populace thrive. This has been the tragedy of the Palestinians since, oh, 1920 and the importation of western-style nationalism after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. They'd rather keep their exterminationist dream alive, even if it means misery, than give up their hopes for a judenrein middle east. You're a nice person and can't understand that kind of hatred. Most westerners can't. But you're also lucky and don't have to deal with having it right next door.

If you look at Israeli public opinion, the sizable majority would walk away from the WB and Gaza in a millisecond and yes, abandon settlements, if they had any reason to think that would end the conflict - but they are convinced by the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah that it won't, because Hamas doesn't want to end it short of Israel disappearing. Again, a spot of research would bear this out without too much trouble. I think you owe Hamas the fundamental human respect of taking them at their word - they say they want to eliminate Israel, so I think we should believe them.

One other thing: yes, the Palis in Gaza live in squalor. But go have a look at the comments they made when they went to el-Arish and other Egyptian towns back when Hamas knocked down the wall at the Egyptian border and the Gazans went to Egypt to shop. I can dig up some of the articles if you like. The Gazans found that the non-occupied Egyptians lived in even more horrifying squalor than they did.

Comparing a first-world society like Israel to a third-world society like Gaza isn't a relevant comparison. Societies similar to the Palestinian Arabs produce squalor in abundance without being occupied or otherwise "oppressed"; what makes you think the Palestinians' living conditions wouldn't be squalid if the Israelis disappeared tomorrow?

uh---sounds like alot of posturing, loquitor.
how about the proposition that was at the center of my actual argument, which was that israel and the united states screwed up when they chose to prevent hamas from governing. they wanted to "undermine" hamas by adopting tactics that legitimated it. riddle me that.

and if the same line israel adopts toward hamas had been adopted toward israel in 1948, who would have governed?

two weight. two measures.
i'm starting to smell something foul beneath the veneer of these "arguments"

luckily, i have stuff to do this afternoon.
it's better.

Israel is justifying itself using the daily rocket attacks, the attempts at suicide bombers (they actually stop most of them, but they do happen still and rarely make our news), in order to defend itself. The casualties would not be as high if they did not call using their media for the citizens to surround them while they fire rockets, and use houses for ammo drops. Israel is not firing at the citizens rather at the terrorist, while Hamas fires rockets at civilian sites (not to mention suicide bombers attack civilians). In the first 2 months of 2008 there have been confirmed over 400 rocket attacks. Again I would love a real defense thought from anyone, for a government that has to protect its citizens, where the terrorists are the elected 'government' and will use their citizens as human shields.

Said thriving would be fully dependent on the axiom that Israel would simply stop fighting if the Palestinian leadership stopped antagonizing Israel. This is a false axiom. Maybe I should ask you this: how is Israel stopping terrorism by annexing land and bulldozing Palestinian homes? The obvious answer is they're not. No, I'd say that based on the actions of the Israeli state that their goal is not peace with the Palestinians but rather to simply remove them completely from Israel AND their lands. Based on that, if the Palestinians stopped fighting, they'd simply make it easier for the Israelis to remove them.

What can legitimize Hamas RB, when they insist on infighting with Fatah, and not renouncing terrorism?

I'm sure things were peachy for Israel at their inception, there was that whole being invaded by 9 neighboring armies when they declared independence.

I can maybe see a parallel in RB's point that Israel was founded partially as a result of terrorism. But comparing the Israeli's of then to Hamas is night and day. Why legitimize a group that doesn't want to work with you? The road map could be the worse thing ever, it probably won't work, I would argue it isn't Bush's fault, it never had a chance...; at any rate at least in Fatah there is a partner willing to work with the outside parties.

I cannot fathom this thought process, what is Israel's option then?

They have no means of redress because Palestine is at best an infant in terms of government/being a nation state. They are letting the Palestinians off easy when you consider daily aggressive actions taken against them. The Palestinians won't reign in their own militants, they vote them into a place of political power. Israeli's have the right to defend themselves, not only the right, but the repsonsibility.

Israel has stopped annexing land, as far as the bulldozing of homes, perhaps consider renouncing suicide bombings.

Israel has offered peace and concessions more times than it should've, the Arabs and the Palestinians only have themselves to blame for the current situation they are facing.

Israel gave complete withdrawal in 2005 at which point there was only 179 rocket attacks that year. They tried to make peace, but once they withdrew, the attacks went up to 946 rocket attacks in 2006 and 896 in 2007. And so far over 400 in 2008. Israel has given back land and offered to come to the table to make peace, but you need a partner to talk with. The bulldozing of houses occur in 2 different cases: First is if the person is a suicide bomber, they then bulldoze the house. Second is they have bulldozed strips of area where the rockets are being fired from. They do not keep this land after they just remove anything that is being used as cover for them to fire rockets from.

If they never put down their gun / rocket long enough to talk, they will never have peace. Since you can not have peace with terror.

How much did they give back?
Those two things aren't connected. Unless you're suggesting that the radical actions of a few extremists are being punished by destroying the homes of people that were not involved in any way in violence.

The bulldozing and annexing are clearly connected. Israel is trying to destroy Palestine, or rather finish the job that the British, League of Nations and UN started.
It's easy for a rich nation to offer peace to a subjugated people while attacking and antagonizing them. It's a PR campaign and has nothing to do with peace.

Yes they did give back land several parts of land, an example would be gush katef (not sure if spelled right in English). Gush had huge contract deals was amazing green houses, that produced ton of food exports to the states. First thing done after the transfer, they burnt them down to the ground.

For the bulldozing as I said above:

Swing and a miss. Israel fell back a bit in 2005, but a complete withdrawal isn't just the Gaza Strip.
Israel broke UN Resolution 242 in their annexations. Their withdrawal had to do with international pressures, not peace.
And what did Israel do in those times to provoke Palestine? Nothing? Were they building that wall as a decoration, to make the country more Feng Shui?
The demolition is illegal according to the UN Courts. Israel is a member of the UN and is therefore under the jurisdiction of their rulings. The UN can't do anything about it because Israel's big buddy the US sits on the security council, but it's still illegal, along with the wall and other human rights abuses.

BTW, in this story, and American is run over trying to protect a Palestinian home from being bulldozed. The family in the home was not connected to any terrorists and there hadn't been rocket attacks from the area. She died, btw.

Will, Israel hasn't annexed anything since the Golan back in (I think) 1981. But even if it has, since when is a political dispute - and that's what an argument over who gets to control a piece of land is - adequate justification for launching rockets into populated areas? Areas that, I might add, are at least in theory not contested?

Annexation, even if it took place, is negotiable and reversible. Killing and maiming isn't. A bit of perspective, please.

And the wall was put up to keep the bad guys out. The Palis wouldn't police their own so Israel had to do it for them.

http://www.btselem.org/English/Settl...dan_Valley.asp
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/ma...isra-m23.shtml
Flip flopper...
Since when? Since Israel starts building Israeli homes in the annexed territory so it's difficult to impossible to get completely back.
You're right. It's not as if Israelis are killing Palestinians. How silly of me. I'm so silly.
The wall is illegal.

They built the wall for defense nothing to do with looks. Since the Palestinian government will not stop suicide bombers, they have to defend themselves. And the story of Rachel Corrie is a tragedy. The military was there looking for explosives in the security area, and the autopsy report shows not that she was rundown but was hit by a hard object probably concrete. The house was not knocked down at the time (though I do not know why offhand, but it was destroyed later).

You can continue to say whatever about Israel having an upper hand and not really negotiating in good faith, but they are willing to come to the table and have shown by giving back land the desire for peace. But it has to be a two way street.

Wall is as illegal as terrorist, it is a border that keeps suicide bombers out. Since the UN seems unable to stop it, you have to do what you can to keep your citizens safe.

You really think I was serious about the Feng Shui comment? Hmm. Okay. I don't know about you, but I don't think this:
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/pre...7/45068195.JPG
is an effective tool in searching for explosives. Especially when it purposely knocks over a wall on a girl.
They have all the marbles. They have the big military, they have the WWII sympathy, they have the big, burly moron of a friend who backs them up whether they're right or wrong. They even have nukes! It seems as if people forget that Israel CAN negotiate.

What happens if Palestine negotiates a cease-fire, but because they lack infrastructure for proper police they can't stop some dumb kid from avenging the brutal murder of his older brother by Israeli soldiers? Simple: Israel is called a victim and Palestine is the evil terrorist aggressors in the media.

Now, multiply that by 1000.
Oh, so if someone is doing something illegal against you, you can do something illegal back. I'll be sure to remember that the next time I see someone change lanes without signaling. I'll start speeding or something.

State sovereignty supercedes any bullshit UN law.

I have yet to hear Israel really called the victim ever. Most attacks on Israel do not get reported at all.

And no one else has come up with a single solution or idea in how to stop them from coming across the border without the wall. It is not to be aggressive but defensive to defend themselves. And if you want to speed, I won't tell.

And the armored D9 Bulldozer from my recollection does not look like that.

The solution is radically simple: stop antagonizing, annexing, bombing, attacking, walling, and murdering Palestinians. Give them their territory (West Bank, the whole Gaza Strip, and Galilee, just as it was in Resolution 181), half of Jerusalem, and leave them to their own devices. Allow them to become an actual state.

Oh, and give the damn farms back to Lebanon. Stop giving Hezbollah a reason for attacking. Once that is gone, they're attacking for no reason and will lose much support (like they were losing support before the attacks in 2006).


Did you know that Israel has launched a major war on Arabs in every decade during the second half of the twentieth century?

... BECAUSE I SAID SO! SO THERE! :grumpy:


:rolleyes:

Israel has launched a war on Arabs every decade? Outside of Suez and the possibly the 6-day war (Which I'm sure wasn't stoked by Egyptian military buildup in the Sinai, Straits of Tiran, Jordanian military mobilization to the Jordan river), that is perhaps the most blatantly false revisionist history I have ever seen here.

Actually, it's called "Will knows history".
- October 29, 1956: Israel attacks Egypt, who was disputing the ownership of the Suez Canal
- June 5, 1967: Israel preemptively attacks Egypt, who had amazzed tanks on the boarder
- October 6, 1973: Israel was given the canal by the UN, and built up large military installations and fortifications, from which war could easily be waged or defended. In addition to this, Israel had solidified it's policy of preemptive attack. Knowing that an attack from Israel was eminent, the Egyptians and Syrians moved in. Israel took the opportunity to breach he UN imposed cease fire and drove farther South.
- June 6, 1982: Israel Defense forces invade Southern Lebanon.
- July 12, 2006: Israel invades Lebanon, again.

Sorry, I forgot the Israelis weren't officially in the coalition in 1992.

Wow a total perversion of historical detail, and your initial statement still false.

It's a good thing you put me in my place by correcting it... oh wait.

There's no perversion. It's all factual evidence, so unless you have something that contradicts this, don't talk about perversions. The only perversion is some people's unbreakable and illogical devotion to Israel. It's a political conflict. Read the facts and make a reasonable, dispassionate decision.

How is Yom Kippur an act of Israeli aggression, if Egypt and Syria did the exact same thing Israel did in the six day?

About Lebanon, I know you hold zero culpability to terrorists, in this case the PLO, so I don't know how I could justify to you in a million years Israel's moving into a destabilized country in the midst of a civil war which terrorists were using as a base to launch assaults against the country. But obviously the Israeli's were out of line as the Lebanese government, or any of the various muslim/christian factions were either in a position or willing to reign in said terrorists.

Israel in Lebanon in 06'. Yeah I'm sure cross border incursions by Hezbollah militants resulting in the death of 8 Israeli soldiers and kidnapping of two soldiers don't count as an act of war or aggression in your book, especially as Hezbollah in effectively an acting agent of the government, but in a reasonable world they do.

Will, it's not factual. It's cherry picked nonsense.

from today's news article about the shootings in a seminary cafeteria in Jerusalem (emphasis mine):And that tells you all you need to know about the morality play here. If you weren't so devoted to the left-wing narrative about supposedly oppressed peoples you'd see things a bit more clearly. Those people could have had their independence a long time ago. They don't want it if it means Israel lives. They'd rather be miserable and keep attacking than be prosperous and have Israel as a neighbor. I don't know how much more of this crap has to happen before you understand.

The late Golda Meir had it exactly right (this is a paraphrase): "the dispute will end when the Arabs decide that they love their children more than they hate us."

When one side bases its attacks on a reward system that includes the promise of banging 72 Virgins for all eternity once they kill themselves in an effort to kill others, I have to say that logic and reason are not on your side.

Exactly.

I always wondered if the 72 virgins got in to lesbianism after all you can only do so much with so many at a time.

In some situations there are two aggressors. In both situations both sides were building and planning for war. I hold them both equally responsible in each war. They were both aggressors.
That's a nice red herring you've got there. I think the Israelis prefer cod, though.
Why was the PLO in Lebanon? Answer that and you'll get your answer.
Hezbollah captures a few Israeli soldiers. Israel invades Lebanon. Thousands of Lebanese (and others) die, and hundreds of thousands are displaced. That's a war of aggression.

Now Hezbollah is stronger because Israel made them into maryters and heros. Where in early 2006, Hezbollah was losing power and support, they're now gaining in both.

BTW, I still haven't seen anything I posted proven as revisionist. Is that, perhaps, a red herring as well?

And you're an atheist? Or do you believe that a carpenter/demi-god is building you a mansion in heaven?

The 72 virgins appear no where in the Qur'an, btw. They're from the Hadith, which is disputed heavily in the Islamic faith.

More info on that here: http://www.citizensoldier.org/72virgins.html

pulled this because it was too typo-laden. I'll start over.

Yes, Will, I know. Israel should commit suicide to satisfy your moral sensibilities. Very nice.

Good point. I think if i were a jihadi, I would want to die with a video camera strapped around my neck.

Will, this was in that link you posted: Wow, you also get 80,000 slaves? I did not know that. So not only does it reiterate the 72 virgins bit, but it says the only way to get into heaven is through Jihad. Now how crazy is that: the only way into heaven is to kill, kill, KILL!

The Israeli settlements have no legal validity according to UN Resolutions 446, 452, 465 and 471. The EU has come forward to say that they're illegal. Even the Legal Adviser of the Department of State has said that they breach international law.

Can we please stop the horrendous red herrings please?
You're better than this.

Most Muslims don't believe that, PowerClown. That was the point that fell on deaf ears. Most Muslims don't believe in the slaves or the virgins. It's not in the Qur'an.

I noticed that in your blind attack on Islam, you forgot to respond to this:
Enjoy trying to explain the hypocrisy of attacking a religion because you believe that their beliefs are absurd while you yourself believe in the supernatural.

Just the few making all the headlines, the ones attacking Israel from every side. Why apologize for them? Even though they're not "most", why apologize for them, why do they get a free pass? (That was rhetorical.)

Very few suicide bombers actually believe that they're going to get 72 virgins. Most are out for vengeance, which is a somewhat more universal ideal.

And they don't get a free pass. I don't support any form of violence including but not limited to guerilla tactics ("terrorism"). The problem is that so many people are biased on the issue that I only end up talking about Israel and how many times they've fucked up. In a debate or conversation with someone objective, I'd probably end up condemning them equally, for different reasons. Palestine continues to fuck up royally. The problem is that they have no clue how to actually win independence. They're strategy is the same as Israel: you hit us, we'll hit you back. That only continues meaningless violence and blood-shed.

I would go back and read post #38 in this thread, first paragraph. It's right on the money. The Palestinians are pawns, and the Israelis too. Pawns in a game of "Spheres of Influence" in the region. I happen to believe more in the ideology of the players pulling the strings on the Israeli side than the Palestinian one, ie., separation of church and state, open societies, religious tolerance, higher education, etc.

In saying this, I think America has done a very poor job in the last 8 years of dealing with the situation. Less than poor, and it disturbs me frankly. The situation could spiral out of everyone's control at anytime, and lead to widescale conflict, including outside of the Middle East. I like what I hear from most of the presidential candidates on the matter, but its going to take much more of an intelligent, measured, open-minded committment than has been present from the past 8 years. It must acknowledge Arab interests more. It can be done, Clinton had the right idea.

You mean until the second intifada started.

We can continue to assume a culture raised on hatred of Jews and the glory of dying for Allah can be negotiated to a fair honest lasting compromise solution if you like.

Was that Clinton's fault, or Arafat's?

I agree with this. Things were very close. Israel had offered 95% of what the Palestinians wanted and instead of making a counter offer, the answer was Intifada 2.

The Arab League has offered to normalize relations with Israel if it can pull back to pre-67 borders. While Palestine is the one sending the rockets, it is the Arab League that is giving them the support (Iran too). Dialogue with the Arab League would be beneficial to Israel.

I've shared extensively in prior posts on this forum, the origins of US foreign policy in support of Israel in the late 1940's...the shift in the direction it has taken us to now, originated in the exchanges between Harry Truman and his former business partner, <a href="http://www.trumanlibrary.org/hstpaper/jacobson.htm">Edward Jacobson</a>, and it's progression into the influence on US policy from lobbying entities such as <a href="http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1061.html">JINSA</a> and <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2262025&highlight=aipac#post2262025">AIPAC.</a>

The information I have shared has shaped my opinion. I think my thinking is close to including Harry Truman's priorities in deciding what policy to pursue about whether to support the creation of the modern state of Israel, or not.

The posts in this forum showcase how we in the US today, as far as public opinion on relations between Israel and the Palestinians, are almost unanimous in our nearly unquestioning support for Israel, and condemnation of the actions and rhetoric of the Palestinians.

Truman was persuaded, with great reluctance, to start the US down the road towards unqualified support of Israel that we in the US have been immersed in since the 60s.

If Truman were able to read the comments posted on this forum, and post in reaction to them, do you think he would exhibit opinions closer to those of roachboy, willravel, and one or two others, or those of the rest of you?

Do those who disagree with roachboy and willravel satisfy themselves that their support for Israel as thoroughly takes into account what truly is in the interest of the US, as far as the degree of official policy in support for Israel, as Truman had to, before he acted on the advice of his friend, Edward Jacobson?

I know my support for Israel does, because I keep a leash on it. It isn't unqualified, and Truman's support wasn't either. He started from a point where he refused to lend US support to the creation of the modern state of Israel, at all. Truman reversed himself. I, too, support Israel's right to exist, it's right to defend itself. I also vehemently believe Israel must practice restraint commensurate with it's now collossal strategic and military force advantage.

I believe the US must distance itself, firmly from Israel, until Israel demonstrates that it will restrain itself in it's reaction to Palestinian attacks, and in it's efforts to influence US middle east policy. I think I describe Truman's reaction to what he "let out of the bottle", in a nutshell.

I cannot comprehend the vehemence behind most of your opinions. I don't see how your vehemence, since it has no accomodation for skepticism, is good for the US, but it is great for Israel, unless Israel is committed to mitigating the crisis in it's relationship with the Palestinians.

to my mind, there is a way in which this is simple. the words are simple anyway.

by this point, all slogans concerning israel's "right to exist" are nothing more than political slogans. they speak to alienation and a form of nostalgia for a life without colonial occupation. they are rhetorical devices. you know this. i know this. everyone fucking knows this.

by this point, it is obvious that if israel were to begin making serious moves toward ending the occupation that the frame of reference folk like to throw around as continuous since 1948 even though nothing is continuous since 1948 least of all israel itself, which is a regional military superpower in 2008 which is surely was not in 1948, but hey no mater, folk like to play historian when it is convenient for them, but they don't like to think too much when they do it. if you cant distinguish discontinuities and continuities then maybe playing historian is too much for you and you should simply watch more tv.

so the geo-political situation seems a variable not a fixed parameter.
the slogans of hamas etc. are slogans. bargaining chips.
israel could negociate seriously, i think they would find MORE THAN willing partners in it because if you imagine that ANYONE wins in the present degrading situation, you're delusional.

well except for one thing.
the problem comrades, is the settlements.
the problems that follow from this:

a. they are centers of extreme right politics.
likud needs the far right. so like any conservative party that has to give handjobs to neofascists, this has consequences. [[edit: i think the krach party, for example, is a neofascist organization.]]

b. i dont think the right has the stomach for what would be required to remove the settlements, now that they are there. i dont think the right can face the prospect of a de facto civil war, what would look like a civil war, what would generate the reality and image of division within a "national community" that is central to conservative political ideology.

edit: this would not only provide potentially very ugly tv footage but would also trigger a debate about what israel *is* inside of israel. i think that debate has already been a central feature of politics about israel--within zionism, there were multiple visions--and if you think about the range of political organizations within israel, has been a debate since 1948 as well. there are fundamental questions that would get raised again. personally, from the outside, i wouldn't see the problem in principle with that--but that is obviously a view from outside. i think that the political right would see itself as in a loose-loose situation were this to unfold.

so the situation with palestine is a giant political expedient.
nothing more, nothing less.
a coherent palestinian state presupposes the dismantling of the settlements--EVERYONE knows that these settlements are a problem--where they are, the tenuous claims they rest on, the often racist politics of the inhabitants---why it's not that different from the american west of the late 19th century and we all know how well that played out for the native americans. "the greater israel" is a form of "manifest destiny" which is a figleaf waved around to justify the erasure of the Other in the name of a nationalist hallucination. it is the pathology of nation at its most appalling.

all this is easy to say: but i havent any idea how one would go about addressing the problem of the settlements--which are STILL BEING BUILT. and so long as the settlements are STILL BEING BUILT, israel has **no**credibility as a negotiating partner--it is simply a brutal colonial occupation force that reaps what it sows in terms of violence.

but the issue of the settlements has to be moved into the center of the negociations--and the americans have to force this question--that this is **the**problem is no mystery. maybe a solution could be arrived at through negotiations. maybe a multinational force could be formed which included significant israeli co-operation to evacuate the settlements. but ehy have to go--they should not exist at all--they were, are and will remain illegal. their logic is annexation and it appears that any degree of brutalization of the palestinians is just OK as a consequence of this---they are the source of the cycle of occupation, the cause for why it is as it is. they have to go.

and they are sorta outside the israeli control, they are sorta outside in the way that any officially sanctioned annexation policy is, in the way that any national annexation policy is...

host, didn't you once say you unconditionally supported Israel back when they were the "underdog"?

Israel hasn't been the underdog since before my parents were born.

No, I don't think the issue is the settlements anymore. Well, it is insofar as it gives the Iranians and Palestinians an excuse to keep up their attacks. There was nothing but rocket fire from Gaza after Israel withdrew from that area. They took their new land, burnt down all the food and vegetable producing facilities, and built staging areas for rocket and mortar launchers.

I'm not faulting Clinton on it, but peace can only come when both want it.

My Palestinian friend I have mentioned said that peace is only used to gather strength to fight again. Apparently this sort of deceit is ok because its what Muhammad did to capture Mecca in the first place. He pretended to want to live in peace and when the time was right attacked. I don't know the validity of this story, but it is what is being taught to the Palestinian children.

This is part of why I see no hope for any sort of real negotiated peace in the near future. Peace is nothing but a tool, not a goal for many of them.

There is more than one group of Palestinians, Ustwo. Yes, there are indoctrinated ones (of course, I've never met someone who wasn't indoctrinated by something), but a majority of them simply want to live without the constant back and fourth between Palestinian militants and Israel. The only reason Hamas was elected was because the people are more scared of Israel than they are of Hamas. While they want peace, they don't believe that Israel is willing to stop. Is Israel willing to stop? I have no clue. There hasn't been enough time of real peace to see, frankly. There's enough hatred on both sides for either to spark the war again. Israel has sparked some battles and Palestinian militants have sparked some battles. Each believes that they are right and that they deserve justice for *insert attack by the other side here*.

Peace between Palestine and Israel? It's as simple as an end to unrighteous vengeance on both sides.

In no particular order:

Iran
Guatemala
Chile
Nicaragua
Granada
Panama
Angola
Argentina

That's just a few... you could easily treble or quadruple the number of countries involved and find a lot more information about such actions, many against democratically elected governments, governments about to come into power legitimately or popular revolutionary governments.

What exactly surprises you that leading governments - not just the US - secretly and illegally supply weapons, stage coups, raise insurrections, aid despots, train death squads, etc, etc, etc...

This type of behaviour is not random. It has ends. Your welfare is not one of them.