Is this even a realistic threat at all? If all of the Arabs converged in a '67 redux, they still would be blown back into the desert by the power of the Israeli/American alliance. Then you add in the fact that only fringe groups and Ahmedinejad want Israel's destruction, and the states are either unwilling to resist Israeli agression or simply desire to return to '67 borders, and we see that there really isnt much of a threat. This is just another figment of the neoconservative imagination in creating a threat that really isn't there.
LOL! I am sorry, but it's funny because I was about to tell Meowgi the same exact thing, "what's done is done. And I agree with MadMax, it's difficult for me to consider either side 'good' in this conflict.
Unfortuantely any sort of a threat will be enough for an excuse to exercise power. I just don't think the 67 borders are enough to end this.
I don't think Israel will 'go along' until Hamas is willing to recognize their legitimacy and denounce the violence. I'm not trying to justify the extent of israeli action...not the recklessness with which they seem to use force. But I think Hamas has explicitly stated that they continue to refuse a two-state solution. Just as Israel cannot expect complete disarmament before engaging in talks, Hamas cannot expect peace unless they are willing to accept it. I think Israel will be very cautious about giving up territory it sees as security buffer zones or about ignoring military build-ups of entities who continue to denounce their very existence. Didn't Sein Fein convince the IRA to peruse peaceful solutions? Those of you who justify/understand/rationalize (trying desperately for a neutral term here) Hezbolla / Hamas do you believe the ultimate solution includes Israel? If you are willing to start from the position that a workable peace begins there...then you are much further ahead of Hamas. If you think much of the issue revolves around whether there should even be an Israeli state, then you've inadvertently endorsed israel's heavy handed actions. And I know Israel is not on the verge of defeat here. Thanks to Uncle Sam they may well be the baddest on the block. But they've hardly been immune to attacks in the past. ANd if the US has gone bonkers over 911 you can't expect Israel to be complacent when some of its neighbours are calling for it to be gone. They're hardly the good guys here. But they may be the less bad. If Hamas would simply denounce violence, and acknowledge a two state solution, my allegiances would likely change pretty quick.
Actually, some Hamas leaders have made it clear that they're willing to recognize Israel's right to exist and renounce violence in exchange for the 1967 borders (i.e. the entire West Bank and Gaza territories). I know they're terrorists, but even terrorists have political objectives...Hamas is not Al-Qaeda fighting for an ideology or some utopian ideal, they have political objectives, and their views have evolved over time (much like Yasser Arafat and the PLO -- and later on his Fatah party -- had evolved from calling for the 'destruction of Israel' to establishing a Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel), and they continue to evolve. Lest we forget, terrorists have made 'peace' in the past when they saw it was in their best interests to do so. In fact, in the case of the Palestinians, there is no one who would be more qualified to make concessions on their behalf more than Hamas would, because in the eye of the average Palestinian no one has sacrificed more for them. I think they need to make the first move by recognizing Israel's right to exist, and then that might soften Israel's stance that "we won't negotiate with Hamas, period." IMO, to dismiss these people as 'irrational' (even if they're terrorists) or some ideologues carrying out violence for the sake of violence is dangerous, simply because it encourages both parties to remain locked in an endless cycle of violence with no end in sight...which is where the Israelis and the Palestinians find themselves today.
I'm glad to hear that. The reports I read (thanks to google) disputed this. They said that although Hamas was willing to discuss borders, they were specifically denying this implied acceptance of a two-state solution. I tried my best to find unbiased sources...but you know how that goes.
True,...but I'd rather have the good people of Israel exist than not exist. How about Israel and Lebanon co-existing sans hezbollah terrorists...?
No historical or factual basis? Are you kidding me? ARE YOU FREAKIN kidding me?......I dunno the same thing could be said of anyone but satan...I guess... But I believe evil exists...You may disagree and that is your right...when you commit to aspects of evil, I feel it is logical to in essence become: wholly evil. That may be "rhetoric" to you, but to me it is a distinction of a characterization which involves the Islamic fascist ideology and the results thereof... I mean gee whizzy. If you can't fathom that Islamic fascists (who are terrorists) are not wholly evil in their actions such as 9/11...such as suicide bombing, such as teaching to hate early on and the glory of suicide, and the mantras of hate to Hamas's charter which proclaim the reason for existance is to obliterate Israel and nothing but...I said it once and I'll say it again...there is a valid comparison to the w**** of BABYLON in symbolic and literal reasoning...I am religious and whether you agree with religion or not,...this issue is deep rooted, and until those innocent disallow rocket launchers in their homes, and the symbiosis of a state within a state, then I will affirm Lebanon is nothing but a w**** host...I believe that deconstructing the w**** of BABYLON is tantamount towards peace...
Israel promotes the threat because suicide bombers and terrorists greatly reduce the public's perception of safety. If Israel only blamed the actions of the terrorists, then the people could see government officials as inept in domestic law enforcement. Maintaining security is a foundation in keeping national borders. They do what they do to promote the perception.
You make it sound as if this evil is inherent in only "Islamic fascists" when it hasn't been any less present in the likes of Pope Urban II who sanctioned the streets of Jerusalem to be filled with Mozlem blood. Yes, even a blind man can see you have an agenda in this.
This actually is the most reasonable part of your post, but please realize the contention that ARAB STATES are breaching upon: Both Israel and her neighbors accept the legitimacy of 242, although the two sides interpret the resolution to mean quite different things. The two sides also disagree over the implementation of the resolution. Israel generally focuses on the latter part of the resolution first, which calls for the "termination of all states of belligerency" in the area. Thus, the refusal of the Arab states to end the state of war that exists represents a material and continuing breach of 242, making Israeli security control of the territories a continuing necessity ...Like I said, fulfillment of 1559 would dispute the above...FULFILL that first demmit! ....then,...peace...
I want to revisit a partial on what I posted on ..er.Monday. ... Enter the "w**** of Babylon"...A reference...A meaning...An implication...A warning...It can be whomever as well...Wording fortells the "w****" can be anyone and Babylon can be anywhere... However if I had to single someone out right now based on literalism and symbolism from the described wording which characterizes who the "w**** of Babylon" currently is,... then in my view it is clearly the Islamic facists, otherwise known as bonafide terrorists (i.e. Hezbollah) which best lends being cast as the w**** of Babylon in current times... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whore_of_Babylon
Resolution Man, maybe we should first examine all the UN Security Council Resolutions aimed at condemning Israel: * Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid". * Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people". * Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem". * Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions". * Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria". * Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control". * Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees". * Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan". * Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem". * Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250". * Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital". * Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation". * Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation". * Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport". * Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan". * Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem". * Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon". * Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem". * Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon". * Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon". * Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon". * Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem". * Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon". * Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon". * Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon". * Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon". * Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty". * Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon". * Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon". * Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon. * Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces". * Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention". * Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon". * Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories". * Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program". * Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon". * Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return". * Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians". * Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention". * Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'". * Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'". * Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors". * Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility". * Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith". * Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon". * Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops". * Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon". * Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in". * Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon". * Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon". * Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut". * Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters. Didn't your religion say Let him who is without sin cast the first stone? Last but not the least, why do you repeatedly ignore the fact that U.S. government and the whoring gangs in South Florida have been sheltering Cuban terrorist Luis Posada Carriles?
