Slag: "here, there, Nickhere. What part of "ALLY" dont' you understand? Joined at the hip? Yup, and at the heart and head and bank account. So? We all need friends. Hamas, Al Qaeda, the Infatada, etc. have hundreds of millions of friends, all co-joined at many, if not every point. And you want Israel to, uh, stand alone??"

Slag, of course I understand the term ALLY quite well. So we agree that Israel and the US are joined 'at the hip, heart, head and bank account' – good, no difference of opinion there. Britain is also a US ally, though a much more self-sufficient one than Israel. My point was (and still is) that the reason why Israel keeps popping up in discussions on the Middle East, Iraq, US warmongering and so on and so on is precisely because the US are Israel are joined at the hip (and also because of Israel's deplorable human rights record, see:    Finkelstein    for example) and not because of 'anti-Semitism' as some have spuriously tried to claim. I think people who make this claim are confusing 'Israeli' and 'Zionist' with 'Jewish'. There is a lot of overlap, but the terms are not synonymous, despite 'the right of return'. I note this same point being made by Yakov M.Rabkin of the University of Montreal. He found himself turned back at the doors of the synagogue by officials who didn't like his book "A threat from Within: a century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism". He added that for people like these officials, their 'Zionism seems to have eclipsed their Judaism" (see Irish Times, Dec 13th 2006). Your second point about Israel 'standing alone' can also be interpreted as an 'OK' for Iran to fund Hizbullah, for instance.

I looked around for some stuff on Posada I had on file. Unfortunately I didn't bookmark any pages or if I did, I must have deleted them. I did find some saved pages from the New York Times and Washington Post dealing with Posada. I have copied and pasted short phrases below and the date of publication. You can probably find more if you access the NY Times and W.Post websites. I would have pasted more but I wouldn't like to contravene any rules on copyright, so I kept the extracts short as possible.

Here's one:

NY Times, May 9th 2005 (headline: Cuban Exile Could Test US Definition of Terrorist)

"Mr. Posada, a Cuban exile, has long been a symbol for the armed anti-Castro movement in the United States. He remains a prime suspect in the bombing of a Cuban commercial airliner that killed 73 people in 1976. He has admitted to plotting attacks that damaged tourist spots in Havana and killed an Italian visitor there in 1997. He was convicted in Panama in a 2000 bomb plot against Mr. Castro. He is no longer welcome in his old Latin America haunts"

May 17th Washington Post, explains how he had been arrested by US immigration officials and whisked off to a secret location. But as to what charges, if any, might be pressed, there was little indication. Part of the reason might be found in this paragraph:

"But Posada's penchant for slipping out of tough jams seemed to run its course Tuesday in Miami, where the aging militant and vehement opponent of Cuban leader Fidel Castro was arrested by U.S. immigration officers, setting off an international diplomatic controversy. The arrest creates a dilemma for the Bush administration, which has taken a strong stand against terrorism in all forms but has also been reluctant to cross the politically potent Cuban exile community in South Florida, many of whom support Posada"

And the key dilemma he creates for the Bush administration is nicely summed up (NY Times, May 18th 2005)

"But Steven Schwadron, the chief of staff for Representative Bill Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat who has lobbied the Bush administration to expel Mr. Posada, said there was no excuse to keep him here. "You can't pick and choose the ideology of a particular terrorist without undermining the fundamental integrity of the global war on terror," Mr. Schwadron said. "Mr. Posada does not belong in the United States."

To date, to the best of my knowledge he has neither been extradited nor charged with anything. Neither have most of Guantanamo's inmates, but that hasn't prevented them being locked up these past 5 years. My guess is that US authorities will just keep him out of the way until some other big story comes along and he's forgotten about. That way there need be no public 'conflict of interest' for the White House.

Teribus, Teribus…. I really seem to have hit a sensitive nerve with you! You've fired a lot of questions at me, I'll do my best to give the courtesy of answering them.

1) Israel – Lebanon: you accuse me of giving no context and you cite as the key reasons for Israel's invasion of Lebanon a) 'indiscriminate' rocket attacks and b) capture of 2 Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah. As to the first: Hizbullah rockets are 'indiscriminate' because they are comparatively primitive. Most of them did very little damage (I'm not saying they didn't kill anyone, btw). I'm sure if they had weaponry as up-to-date as their opponents, they'd be far more discriminate – it makes more sense to hit military targets. Don't forget many Israeli military installations are located amongst civilian areas also – Hizbullah (or any country) are not alone in this. Indeed, even in my city there is a major military barracks. For their part, the Israelis used cluster bombs extensively (as was discussed on another thread here) an equally indiscriminate weapon, both for the range they cover and the number that remain unexploded after dropping. Even today civilians in Lebanon are being killed and injured by these cluster bombs, not to mention all those hardshipped because their farms etc., are no longer workable. The number of rockets fired at Israel increased enormously after Israel's invasion got under way. You also forget to mention that Israel was launching minor military operations into Lebanon for quite some time before the invasion and so there was already a de-facto state of belligerence, if not war, in existence. As to the second point, there is still some dispute as to whether the Israeli soldiers were captured inside Lebanon or Israel. Indeed there was an on-going tit-for-tat spate of kidnappings going on, of which the two Israeli soldiers were the final act in a long drama. I spoke to a member of the Israeli Army last summer who told me of how his unit had overrun Hizbullah positions in Southern Lebanon (near the Shaaba Farms / Golan Heights) and taken several prisoners – but this had happened before the invasion. Finally, if the purpose of the invasion was to get these two soldiers back, commonsense would tell you the blanket bombing of the region where they are probably being held is more of a danger than a help to them. They were simply an excuse to go into Lebanon, as even their angry families have claimed.

2) The UN – yes, it is a bit of a talk shop, stymied by many internal problems, not least of which is having a permanent 'security council' made up of the 5 of the biggest powers and arms traders in the world – conflict of interest or what? Moreover, Israel has ignored most of the UN resolutions regarding Palestine, so don't expect Syria to be in any hurry. Not that that is the correct state of affairs – I believe both sides should respect the UN Resolutions. Bad and all as the UN are, they are probably a better hope for peaceful resolutions. (As an aside, I DO concede that the NATO action helped end war in the Balkans, and did more good than harm. It may have been this success though that convinced US policy makers that instant results can be brought about by military action in every case). The UN has many internal problems that badly need sorting out, but the alternative is unilateralism and inevitable war.

3) Syria – You're right, I haven't criticized Syria, but for the record, I do so now. I don't agree at all with their meddling in Lebanon, as it seems to me an attempt to destabilize the state for nefarious ends. Though if Lebanon wobbles, Syria is unlikely to benefit as much as other Lebanese neighbours.

4) Israel's borders. Maybe I've been looking at the 'wrong' maps, but it seems even at a cursory glance that Israel has grown incrementally since 1948. Currently they are in occupation of Palestinian land – the West Bank, and exert tight control over Gaza. Along with the so-called security wall, it makes the West Bank the largest open-air prison in the world. For more, see:

West Bank Wall

Israeli troops would also be in Lebanon right up to their target – the Litani river, if Hizbullah had not pushed them out. It was relatively easy for Israel to observe the UN resolution calling on them to withdraw from southern Lebanon, as they did not have the walk-over victory they expected. Indeed, the Israeli army was shocked to find that Hizbullah was able to intercept and jam many of its communications. In the West Bank, where they are not up against such well-armed, well-trained and determined opponents, they are still present.

5) "The Right To Exist". Teribus quote: "On your "Right to Exist" babble you name two examples - Chile and Iraq. As far as I am aware the UN recognised sovereign states of both Chile and Iraq both still exist - True???"

The question is, what do you mean by the 'sovereign states' of Chile and Iraq? The Chile which was a dictatorship under Pinochet no longer exists, though geographically the boundaries have not changed. You are right about the UN-recognized Iraq, maybe more so than you realize. Since the UN did not sanction the war against Iraq, and it is illegal under international law, effectively the sovereign Baathist State under Saddam Hussein still exists officially. In fact that's the very defence Saddam tried to employ at his trial, for all the good it did him. He declared that since he was still the head of a sovereign state recognized under international law, his US-sponsored court had no right to try him. But for practical purposes, that state no longer exists. You also omitted to mention my example of South Africa: while its geographical boundaries and population have not changed, you surely would not argue that the State of South Africa is the same as that in existence thirty years ago?

On that note, people have commented on Iranian President Ahmadinejad's call for 'Israel to be wiped off the map'. In the Irish Times of Dec13th (p.14) the headline was "Ahmadinejad says Israel's days (are) numbered". It seemed the doomsayers were right – was Iran calling for the destruction of Israel? Then I went on to read the article and it turned out not to be quite the case. What Ahmadinejad had actually said was "The trend for the existence of the Zionist regime is downwards…just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out". As we all know no-one invaded or bombed the USSR for it to change, but it was forced into change from world conditions and its own internal failures. Ahmadinejad seems to be hoping for and expecting similar change in the Zionist regime. If someone in the US were to say that the Republican regime's days are numbered, and the trend for its existence is in a downward spiral, I don't think anyone would accuse them of some massive war conspiracy (though it does sound far from friendly!)


6) Yes, there are many people groaning under oppressive governments (just read up on Amnesty International's reports for some grim reading). Again, why did the US take such special interest in Iraq? You say it was because of "it had something to do with a security assessment made by the House and Senate Security Committee evaluation that Iraq posed the greatest threat to the USA" I think that line has been discredited for quite some time. Most analysts and even US admin officials now admit Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. Ironically, they are also saying that the invasion of Iraq has just given a boost to Al Qaeda. Remember that G.Bush interview, where the interviewer kept pestering him to explain what connection there was between Iraq and 9/11? Eventually, G.Bush. despite his best efforts to ignore this pesky interviewer, gave his trademark foolish-schoolboy-caught-out grin and said "Nothing. Nothing" So without risking to bore by repeating all the old reasons, here's a fun link for anyone who wishes to read up a bit more you could see the story in LA Times about "It's still about Oil in Iraq" article of December 11th, 2006 (sorry, can't make a link for this one, saved page only)

And about reshaping the map of the Middle East to suit American long-term interests:

Re-shaping the Middle East

7) Speaking of nukes, Ehud Olmert seems to have gotten himself into hot water back home with his (unintentional?) slip up implying Israel has nuclear weapons. His comments were made while on a visit to Germany.


Beardedbruce: "I am still waiting for the PALESTINIAN trials of terrorists to match the ones of Israelis who violated the law"

We have been through that one before. The story is that, being an up-front democracy and civilised state, everytime Israeli soldiers break the law by killing the 'wrong' people or shooting innocnet bystanders or killing kids with live rounds and rubber bullets, they are hauled before the courts and made an example of so it can never happen again?
Yet they contniue to do it again and again and again. So either they have no respect for their own courts and law and they are out of control (odd, for a professional army) or the courts actually give them a light slap on the wrist / acquit them everytime so it's just a formality to go through the courts except that it now all looks legal and above board to the casual observer. Joe Sacco in his book 'Palestine' has given a fairly good description of how that works, and of how Shin Bet (Israeli 'security service') acn exploit legal loopholes to use various forms of inhumane treatment and torture on detained Palestinians. If the Palestinian trials were to match Israeli ones, we should expect Hamas gunmen to get off with a 'now, now, don't be naughty!' from the Palestinian courts.