Hezbollah night-vision gear manufactured in Britain

[headsplice]

Actually, I do think that's possible. Look at Lebanon in the past five years (I mean besides the past 5 weeks): they'd managed to almost completely rebuild the city and start to make it a major metropolitan center again.
So, where is the actual problem?
Lack of REAL US interest in the region. Specifically, this Administration's complete lack of involvement in anything that isn't killing people and blowing shit up. Progress was being made betweent the Palestinian's and the Israeli's before 2001. And then, *POOF!* no more US involvement (anyone remember the Roadmap for Peace? Where'd that go?). America might have not been everyone's favorite country, but at least we were respected enough for warring factions to listen to us when we sat them down at a table like the Camp David Accords.
So, could I tell you what the plan would actually be? I could give you a general idea: more aid to countries where terrorist groups with domestic political wings are thriving. Co-opt the domestic wing through direct, low-interest loans (since the domestic and foreign policies of these groups are often wildly different, Hamas and Hezbollah are great examples) and you'll tame the wilder, more militant foreign wing by undercutting their base of support.

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Take 2 Prozac and call me in the morning.

You're still an ass. I'm not sure if English isn't your first language or what, but I really wish you'd actually read what other people write before responding to it.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Maggie wouldnt wait for them to get past the word 'family', she'd have 'both guns drawn' and firing. Well, drawn at least.

Probably not even to the word "family".

Of course the analogy is false in multiple dimensions, as UT has enumerated.

[headsplice]

stupidity on my part...feel free to ignore.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by headsplice

So, could I tell you what the plan would actually be? I could give you a general idea: more aid to countries where terrorist groups with domestic political wings are thriving. Co-opt the domestic wing through direct, low-interest loans (since the domestic and foreign policies of these groups are often wildly different, Hamas and Hezbollah are great examples) and you'll tame the wilder, more militant foreign wing by undercutting their base of support.

Ah...so that would be the "give them enough US money and maybe they'll stop attacking Israel" plan? It's not clear to me that there's any amount of money that the enemies of Israel would take in return for abandoning their principles. Which apparently can be summarized as "Death to The Great Satan and The Little Satan".

But I wasn't asking for a "plan to make things better" (which always somehow seems to involve giving US money away)...I referred specifically to an end state meeting two criteria. Because if there is no such end state, all the rest of this is just political masturbation.

I do think the fact that you'd rather describe a plan to get somewhere rather than describing the actual destination is telling. "It's not the destination, it's the journey", of course...and it's no coincidence that every leg of the journey ( you know, the one that used to be called "the peace process") seem to have toll booths where the players get paid off on a regular basis.

So don't tell me how to get there (and how we haven't gotten there yet because not enough people have been paid off yet). Just describe the destination in a way that might convince me that there is such a place.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Good point, figure out where you want to go before you chose a map.

[9th Engineer]

Islamic moderates are either very weak (in the sense of ability to retain, control and direct political power) or very cowardly. The only way they can have any influence is if we fund the payrole of their country??? We already pay for half the hellhole dumps in the world so that the incompetant (must be)
moderates there don't get replaced by psychopaths. I suppose this is nothing supprising after watching all the peace loving Islamic institutions in the US balk at calling the 'fringe extremists' what they are. I want to see these people show some backbone before I'll give them any respect.

[Hippikos]

"complete strangers" - the Jews were already there and a substantial majority

Interesting how the Zionist propaganda can distort reality. There was no majority of Jews in Palestine when Herzl started the Zionist movement in 1896 with his book “Der Judenstaat”. During that time less than 5% of the population in Palestine was Jewish.

"would take over her house" - have the UN partition the area previously partitioned by everyone else because it was useless and unwanted

It certainly was not useless and unwanted for the people who lived there originally and see their land being giving away to strangers because of some improper feel of guilty.

"exiled her to the backyard shed" - because she refuses to share the area peacefully

What would you do if your land and house was taken away by strangers?

"and even there has to give up half of that living space" - after she unilaterally attacks them

Again, sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. You cannot invade and occupy land without risking action from the opposite party. But I understand that’s difficult to grasp for people whos land has never been occupied.

Zionist propaganda never stops to point out that the Arabs want to destroy the State of Israel using this as a tool to establish the Greater State of Israel.

Fact is that if Israel wants peace with its Arab neighbours then it can achieve it.

In 2003, Iran offered to negotiate all outstanding issues with the US, including nuclear issues and a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The offer was made by the moderate Khatami government, with the support of the hard-line "supreme leader" Ayatollah Khamenei. The Bush administration response was to censure the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer.

In June 2006, Khamenei issued an official declaration stating that Iran agrees with the Arab countries on the issue of Palestine, meaning that it accepts the 2002 Arab League call for full normalization of relations with Israel in a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus. The timing suggests that this might have been a reprimand to his subordinate Ahmadenijad, whose inflammatory statements are given wide publicity in the West, unlike the far more important declaration by his superior Khamenei. Just a few days ago, former Iranian diplomat Saddagh Kharazzi "reaffirmed that Iran would back a two-state solution if the Palestinians accepted" (Financial Times, July 26, 2006).

Peace can be achieved in the ME if Israel really wants. They and US are calling the shots but instead use every excuse to inflame the situation (Lebanon) even when it means that it foolishly hurt their own position.

This is what Israeli Zeev Maoz (Ha'aretz, July 24) wrote, the "wall-to-wall consensus in Israel that the war against the Hezbollah in Lebanon is a just and moral waris based on selective and short-term memory, on an introverted world view, and on double standards." The reasons include the Israeli practice of kidnapping and the almost daily violations of the Lebanese border for surveillance: "a border violation is a border violation." The reasons also include the historical record: the four earlier Israeli invasions since 1978, and their grim consequences for Lebanese. And we should also not forget the pretexts. The 1982 invasion was carried out after a year in which Israel repeatedly carried out bombing and other provocations in Lebanon, apparently trying to elicit some PLO violation of the 1981 truce, and when it failed, attacked anyway, on the pretext of the assassination attempt against Ambassador Argov (by Abu Nidal, who was at war with the PLO). The invasion was clearly intended, as virtually conceded, to end the embarrassing PLO initiatives for negotiation, a "veritable catastrophe" for Israel as Yehoshua Porat pointed out. It was, as described at the time, a "war for the West Bank." The later invasions also had shameful pretexts. In 1993, Hezbollah had violated "the rules of the game," Yitzhak Rabin announced: these Israeli rules permitted Israel to carry out terrorist attacks north of its illegally-held "security zone," but did not permit retaliation within Israel. Peres's 1996 invasion had no more credible pretexts. It is convenient to forget all of this, or to concoct tales about shelling of the Galilee in 1981, but it is not an attractive practice, nor a wise one.

Zionists always complains about violence, in the meantime being guilty of constant provocation, violence, brutalilty, racism and surpression themselves.

[MaggieL]

Clearly the two sides each have their own propiganda...I mean...versions of the history. No agreement will ever be reached on who are truly the aggrieved parties.

But again we're describing a desired process ("...if Israel really wants it...negotiation of all outstanding issues...stop inflaming the situation...") rather than that end state. And I think it's because there isn't one; there must always be an excuse to come back for yet another slice of the salami in 18-36 months.

And the purpose of "the process" seems to be "Tell us what tangible adavantage you will give us in return for finely-crafted words with escape clauses of equal workmanship? We promise absolutely the next group that attacks you will have a completely different name; after all, we cannot control the righteous anger of these people who have been wronged; they are acting on their own and we don't control them..." The shell game again....including "don't listen to Ahmadenijad, Khamenei is actually in charge".

Tell me...does that "full normalization" include "recognition of the right to exist"? If it does, why doesn't it say so? How about "two-state solution"? (two-states side by side with one bombing the other is not a "solution", no matter who you think "started it this time"...another shell game). Also "agreement with the Arab nations" or "international consensus"? Those include *everybody* leaving Israel in peace?

After you sell the same rug twenty or thirty times, everybody in the bazzar has seen it...

[Undertoad]

Interesting how the Zionist propaganda can distort reality. There was no majority of Jews in Palestine when Herzl started the Zionist movement in 1896 with his book “Der Judenstaat”. During that time less than 5% of the population in Palestine was Jewish.

And by 1947, a large majority.

Now gee. Where did all those Jews come from? I can't remember - was there some reason, during the first half of the last century, for Jews to leave their various countries and find someplace to live?

Care to tell us which European country you're from, H-kos?

Oh yes and you forgot your endline again

"...and that is why international terrorism is justified."

[xoxoxoBruce]

I don't know what country he's from but obviously living in Amsterdam...cheap, plentiful and legal.


The Jews, throughout history, have had some problems in Rome, Greece, Persia, Iberia, Russia, Poland, lots of places, for whatever reasons. Most likely, just being different was enough.
So after WWII, it sounded like a good idea to give them some worthless desert in the middle of nowhere. Out of sight, out of mind and out of everyone's hair.

Unfortunately, there probably isn't a worse place they could have created the Jewish State..... in the midst of the most unreasonable, intolerant, backward, oppressive, savages on Earth. A people that had obliterated their once thriving, prosperous civilization and wants to destroy everyone else's too.
The Jews would have been better off living among the cannibal headhunters in the South Pacific.
Ah, 20-20 hindsight...too late now, they are where they are and I doubt they would move willingly even of they had a place to move to.

How will it play out?
Will they be able to negotiate a true, live and let live, peace settlement ?

Will they reach a stalemate across a heavily guarded DMZ, like Korea?

Will it require the UN (or equivalent) to keep them apart permanently.

Will one side win, ie, eliminate the opposition?

Will it keep festering and spreading until the world is two armed camps?

Will this lead to the elimination of civilization, as we know it?

Should I hit on Joe's wife before the end comes?

[Hippikos]

The ones you started, or just the ones you regularly visit?

So, history starts in 1947? Before that it's a black hole? Even in 1947 the Jews were in minority (third of the population).

Now gee. Where did all those Jews come from? I can't remember - was there some reason, during the first half of the last century, for Jews to leave their various countries and find someplace to live?

Now gee, the Jews want their own country, lets steal it from somebody else. I wanna live your house UT, you let me? The planning of colonisation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine originated already before the Holocaust. Herzl and the "Der Judenstat", remember?

Care to tell us which European country you're from, H-kos?

A completely superfluous question UT and a nice way to divert the discussion. As a board owner you know perfectly well that I'm from the Netherlands, so we know how it is to be occupied.

"...and that is why international terrorism is justified."

NO terrorism is justified, from nobody, inc Israel. Soeme say one's freedom fighter ist the other's terrorist. Most of Israel's PM's started their carreer as terrorist.

Maggie, again, Israel can have perfectly peace if it wants to. But that means concessions and it don't want to give in a single square inch. Like in 1948, they want Pax Israel, putting the Palestians in bantustans deprived from every land source and governed by the politician Israel chooses. Would YOU accept that?

I don't know what country he's from but obviously living in Amsterdam...cheap, plentiful and legal.

Wow what an argument, resorting to your guts again, Brucey? Any relation with the Israel/Palestine conflict?

So after WWII, it sounded like a good idea to give them some worthless desert in the middle of nowhere. Out of sight, out of mind and out of everyone's hair.

Another victim of the Zionist propaganda. This was not a white spot on the map, people lived there, for centuries.

[Ibby]

I dont know what I believe is the ideal solution, I honestly don't know enough about the situation (I know a lot, but I dont know if ANYONE knows enough to say), but I think the practical solution at this point is for Palestine to give up and just move to Jordan or Lebanon or somewhere nearby. They wont like it, but they dont like it now anyway, eh?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Ibram

...but I think the practical solution at this point is for Palestine to give up and just move to Jordan...

Weren't they supposed to have done that before?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Maggie, again, Israel can have perfectly peace if it wants to. But that means concessions...

Again.

The price of peace is always "just a few concessions"...and then there's another war, with the next shell in the game.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat...

[Hippikos]

I never said "just a few consessions".

Israel has never made any serious attempt to make peace, except for Rabin, who was subsequently murdered by a religious Jewish fanatic, go figure...