BS: The right to attack - what gall!

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 12:37 AM

Nickhere - 10 Dec 06 - 11:11 AM

"When Israel invaded Lebanon last summer", the reason for which was what exactly Nickhere? You seem to have omitted to mention the indiscrimate attacks on civilian targets within Israel (how many thousand unguided and indiscriminately targeted rockets were fired at Israeli towns were there Nickhere?) and the kidnapping of two Israeli Soldiers. Enshrined within the Charter of the United Nations is that every sovereign nation has a right to defend itself - Israel was doing no more, no less.

Now had that august body the United Nations done something about a Resolution that they had passed previously regarding Syria and Hezbollah, then maybe the reason for Israel's attacks on Southern Lebanon may have been eliminated. But what the hell Nickhere that august international body finds it eminently acceptable to sit around and do the square root of bugger all while hundreds of thousands of people are massacred and displaced, not once but twice while the current man in charge was "on watch", for christ's sake do not for one single moment think that that organisation has the power or will to do anything other than talk about anything, and even then only in the most apologetic and ineffectual manner that can be managed.

Israel and Lebanon, eh Nickhere, tell me Nick, you seem to have a problem about Israel getting concerned about what happens in Lebanon. Where were all your posts objecting to Syria's occupation of Lebanon? I can't believe that I ever read one single objection emanating from your unbiased and knowledgable take on the situation in the Levant about this outrage.

This War, this unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of a sovereign state, resulted in UN mediation. Tell me Nickhere, did Israel abide by the conditions laid down by the UN? Tell me Nickhere did Hezbollah, the Lebanon or Syria abide the conditions laid down by the UN?

So Israel can be as expansionist as it likes can it Nickhere? Can you then explain how, whilst being as expansionist as it likes, the borders of Israel have actually shrunk?

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???

According to Nickhere there are countless places in the world, "groaning under oppressive governments" (overly dramatic little beggar isn't he) but America takes a special interest in the Iraqi people? Nickhere believes that it all has to do with Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L). Eh no Nickhere 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 have asked in the past for somebody to demonstrate to me how America has benefited from all that Iraqi Oil. Nickhere quite rightly points out that the USA hasn't "grabbed Iraqi Oil", although for some strange reason Nickhere believes that the US wishes to make the Iraqi line of import secure and make sure that no-one else gets their hands on it. Unfortunately Nickhere, myself and anyone who can think logically about this, cannot fathom what you are driving at, you see for as long as sanctions have been lifted against the export of Iraqi oil, the Iraqi's have been shipping oil out all over the place - very little of it going to the USA. So could you please explain how exactly the USA is making sure that nobody else (other than the USA I believe) gets their hands on it? I mean it's not like the Americans are forcing the Iraqi's to store their oil in some secret location for the US to pick up at a later date is it? The Iraqi's are actually selling this oil on the open market - and horror of horrors people other than the US are actually buying it - most odd, particularly given your fervent belief in US hegemony.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Slag
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 01:20 AM

Ok Teribus, get ready... some one is about ready to breath the word "Halliburton!"

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: dianavan
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 02:53 AM

It isn't the oil itself, teribus, its the control of the flow of the oil and that means control of the pipeline and its infrastructure. Tell me that U.S. business interests have no interest in that.

Why do you think the U.S. is interested in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 06:31 AM

OK dianavan, tell us all exactly how the US is going to control the flow of oil? No major US company, or unit of it's military have anything whatsoever to do with ownership or operation of pipelines in Iraq. No major US company has an Operators Licence for any oilfield in Iraq - here are the people who do and the names of the fields they operate:

West Qurna Phase 2 (Lukoil - Russian); Majnoon (Total - French); Bin Umar (Zarubezhneft - Russian); Nasiriya (Eni - Italian, Repsol - Spanish); Halfaya (BHP - Australian, South Korean consortium, CNPC - Chinese, Agip - Italian); Ratawi (Shell - Netherlands); Tuba (ONGC - Indian, Sonatrach - BVI); Suba-Luhais (Slavneft - Russian); Gharaf (TPAO - ?, Japex - Japan); Al-Ahdab (CNPC - Chinese); Amara (PetroVietnam); Western Desert (ONGC - Indian, Pertamina - Indonesia, Stroitransgaz - Russian, Tatneft - Russian); Tawke 1 (DNO ASA - Norwegian)

Why the US is interested in Iraq is exactly for the reasons given by the Joint House Security Committee.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 01:24 PM

" because they are not allowed to by the non-proliferation treaties. "


Nope. UNLIKE Iran, Israel DID NOT sign the NNPT, and get the free technological hand up that Iran took advantage of. THAT is why Iran is in violation, and Israel is not- IRAN SIGNED A TREATY allowing the inspections and controls that it now refuses.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 01:30 PM

"You want one rule of judgement to apply to them now (no accountability for wrongdoing), and a different rule of judgement upon all other people (normal accountability for wrongdoing)."


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


I would be hapy if BOTH sides were held to the SAME accountability- as I have said, that would leave Israel in possession of the ENTIRE West bank, and the Palestinans residing in Jordan.


"Well, I don't buy it. I still say that both sides are wrong in this Middle East dispute...insofar as they both engage in unjustified violence and hatred and they have no respect or goodwill toward each other. "

So, you will agree that CANADA was EQUALLY quilty in WWII as Germany, since there were illegal actions by the Allies?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 01:42 PM

"Next question: Who opted for war in '48? The Arabs did, as far as I know.

(Note: I have never claimed the Arabs were completely innocent. I have never claimed that they do not have Israeli blood on their hands. I have never claimed that only Israel is a malefactor in the Middle East wars. I have, to the contrary, claimed that both sides are equally at fault in those wars, and that is what I continue to claim."


So the fact that the Arabs STARTED the war in 1948 means Israel is EQUALLY at fault? This is the logic that I find objectionable.

So, Iraq is equally at fault for the US invasion, and Canada is equally at fault for WWII.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 02:40 PM

In a litany of complaints from both sides that's a few miles long, in the wake of land robbery, terror attacks, and mutual accusations... ;-) Yes. I say that both sides are equally at fault. Why? Because they're equally stubborn and equally unwilling to respect the other as an equally valuable human being.

Sorry you have to have an official "bad guy" and an official "good guy" in that dispute to feel righteous. I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 03:33 PM

"Because they're equally stubborn and equally unwilling to respect the other as an equally valuable human beings"


Let me see....

Israel invited the Palestinians to stay, and many did,, and have their land and citizenship. Some chose to leave, and have little to nothing

Arabs drove out the Jews in their countries, and Israel accepted them as refugees.

The Arab countries refused to accept the Palestinians who left as refugees.


Yet you claim they are all the same. All EQUAL.

That makes You and the SS of WWII "Equally: guilty of the crimes of WWII. You do not respond to any of my comments, save to tell me how "Equal" the people who deliberatly target children and civilians are to those who target military targets and command personnel.


I have never complained about Palestinian attacks against MILITARY posts and headquarters- THERE IS A WAR ( since 1948) and THOSE are legitimate targets. But YOU have declared the children as equally valid targets- not by collateral damage, but for deliberate attack. THAT is what I find most objectionable about your "Equality"


That makes You and the SS of WWII "Equally" guilty of the crimes of WWII. You do not respond to any of my comments, save to tell me how "Equal" the people who deliberatly target children and civilians are to those who target military targets and command personnel.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 04:36 PM

Yeah, yeah...(*yawn*)

Why is it that I get the feeling you're just slightly biased in favor of Jewish/Israeli concerns when it comes to this issue? Could it have anything to do with your own family background?

I don't bother discussing alternative religious approaches with Jehovah's Witnesses either. It would be a waste of my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 04:45 PM

Why is it that I get the feeling you're just slightly biased against Jewish/Israeli concerns when it comes to this issue? Could it have anything to do with your own family background?


You continue to ignore my questions. You have stated an equivalance- Now either stand behind your statements, or admitt you have no basis in fact for them.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 05:22 PM

I am ignoring your questions because I don't really give a damn on this particular day. That may change. Or it may not. If I were you, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

My family background is atheist, middle-class, conventional, white. No particularly notable opinions about Jews one way or the other in my family...or Muslims either, for that matter. I was quite pro-Israel in the 1960's, used to collect their stamps, and thought they were really cool, but I gradually became disturbed about their land settlement policies and their military policies from about the mid-70's on. I do not agree with their land expansion or their military policies most of the time, insofar as I think they are overly aggressive, to put it mildly.

I do not agree with the policies of the Muslims who are attacking them either. I strenuously disgree with BOTH.

But I've made that plain over and over again. I don't care if you don't like my saying that they are both equally to blame. And I will not waste my time trying to justify it to a mind that is utterly incapable of being impartial on the matter.

I'm not a Muslim, BB. I'm not even a Christian. Are you a Jew? If so, I think that might be the crucial ingredient that causes us not to see things eye to eye when it comes to judging Israeli actions.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Nickhere
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 05:35 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 07:02 AM

Thank you very much for your reply Nickhere:

1) Israel – Lebanon: (Indiscriminate Attacks carried out by Hezbollah)

I appreciate your candour, in agreeing that the attacks were indiscriminate and that they targeted Israeli civilians. Thousands of these "Katyusha" rockets were fired. They were originally designed as a mass-barrage weapon to be used as the prelude to a massed infantry assault, the German's nickname for them was "Stalin Organs".

Your comment that – "Most of them did very little damage (I'm not saying they didn't kill anyone, btw)" – beggars belief. To your comment I would only add – It wasn't for the want of trying.

Your contention that if better armed, Hezbollah would be more discriminate, cannot be taken seriously, their track record goes against that. Example – Suicide bomber sent into an Israeli city. Does the suicide bomber look round for the largest group of IDF soldiers and go up to them to detonate his/her bomb – NO. The bomber goes to market places, to bus stations, to restaurants, to nightclubs – all places packed with civilians. Remember that the sworn and avowed goal of both Hezbollah and Hamas is the destruction of Israel and her population. Their aim is terror, nothing else.

Nickhere, from your comments regarding military installations, I would venture my opinion that you don't know what you are talking about. For instance in the centre of London you have barracks, but no-one would ever fight from them, they exist solely to house ceremonial troops of the Household Brigade for duty in the capitol, they are not operational bases, generally barracks are not operational bases because they are static and tend to be easy targets. The likes of Hezbollah and Hamas however ensure that their operational bases are surrounded by houses, schools, hospitals and mosques. It is a deliberate tactic employed to ensure maximum outrage at "civilian" casualties should anyone have the temerity to strike back at them. Basically they hide behind the people they purport to defend.

Incursions along the Israel/Lebanon border have been a fact of life for decades, since the Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon. Instances of Hezbollah attacks on Israel and incursions into Israel are matched by the IDF response that those attacks and incursions incur.

The Shaaba Farms area of south Lebanon, claimed by Christian Lebanese farmers who actually hold title deeds to the area, the same place that Syria claims to be theirs and the same place that Hezbollah is squatting on in order to launch missile attacks Israel. I can't really see any reason why Israel would be interested in a place like that, can you Nick?

As far as the two captured Israeli soldiers go Nick. It wouldn't matter a toss where they were when captured the track record in instances such as this has been that the IDF would want them back and would move heaven and earth to do that. Even Hezbollah admits now that it was a grave mistake considering the Israeli reaction.

On 27 August, Hassan Nasrallah apologised to the Lebanese people for the incident that sparked the war, saying "Had we known that the kidnapping of the soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not have done it."

But just for you Nick – this is how the incident unfolded:

ZAR'T-SHTULA INCIDENT
At around 9:00 AM local time (06:00 UTC), on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah initiated diversionary rocket attacks toward Israeli military positions near the coast and near the border village of Zar'it as well as on the Israeli town of Shlomi. At the same time, a ground contingent of Hezbollah crossed the border into Israeli territory and attacked two Israeli armoured Humvees patrolling on the Israeli side of the Israel-Lebanon border, near Zar'it, killing three, injuring two, and capturing two Israeli soldiers. Five more Israeli soldiers were killed later on the Lebanese side of the border during an attempt to rescue the two kidnapped soldiers.

Hezbollah named the attack "Operation Truthful Promise" after leader Hassan Nasrallah's public pledges over the prior year and a half to capture Israeli soldiers and swap them for convicted murderer Samir Kuntar, convicted spy Nasim Nisr, alleged terrorist Yahya Skaf who Hezbollah claims was arrested in Israel (Israel denies this), and Ali Faratan, who is being held for reasons unknown, among any other Lebanese prisoners incarcerated in Israel.

Cluster bombs are area denial weapons, their use has to be sanctioned at Staff or Divisional level. The Israeli's have admitted that some of these weapons were targeted at inappropriate locations and are carrying out an investigation and inquiry into what went wrong. How much faith anyone has regarding such investigations is a matter of opinion, but note the difference, a transgression by Israel results in an admission and an investigation, a transgression by Hezbollah (deliberate targeting of civilians) results in re-supply of weapons from Iran and Syria.


2) The UN – (Lebanese/Syrian failure to comply with requirements of UN Security Council Resolution)

There were two of them that can be applied to this situation (Please note UN Resolutions relating to Israel and Palestine are irrelevant – two wrongs do not make a right – besides these resolutions had nothing to do with the Israel/Palestine situation):

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 was a resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council on September 2, 2004. It called upon Lebanon to establish its sovereignty over all of its land and called upon "foreign forces" (generally interpreted as referring to Syria) to withdraw from Lebanon and to cease intervening in the internal politics of Lebanon. The resolution also called on all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias to disband and declared support for a "free and fair electoral process".

While the Syrians took their own sweet time in leaving, absolutely nothing was done to disband or disarm Hezbollah by either the Syrians or by the Lebanese Government.

On 11 August 2006, the United Nations Security Council unanimously approved UN Resolution 1701 in an effort to end the hostilities. The resolution, which was approved by both Lebanese and Israeli governments the following days, called for the disarming of Hezbollah, for Israel to withdraw, and for the deployment of Lebanese soldiers and an enlarged United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) force in southern Lebanon.

Now Israel complied fully with the requirements stated above as applied to them. Hezbollah have yet to be disbanded and disarmed, the UN force is present at reduced strength with express orders NOT to interfere with Hezbollah and the Lebanese Army has been allowed into the southern part of Lebanon by Hezbollah on the premise that, like the UN troops, they do not interfere with Hezbollah operations.

There was a UN embargo placed on weapons shipments to the area but Hezbollah has managed to replenish and increase its stockpile of rockets – these weapons being supplied by Iran and Syria.

3) Syria
Again Nick I thank you for your candour on this point. I would however disagree that Lebanon's other neighbours would benefit should "Lebanon wobble". Should Lebanon Wobble, as you put it, Syria would just annex it.

4) Israel's borders.
Israel's borders were at their most extensive after the "Six Day War" in 1967. Since the end of the Yom Kippur War in 1973 Israel has traded land for peace, since those deals have been struck, the borders of Israel have been reduced. If anybody thinks that Israel is going to revert to the borders proposed by the UN in 1948 that the Arabs originally rejected, then they are living in a dreamland. On that occasion the Arab League opted for war and lost – the consequences of that they have to learn to live with as has every nation in history, the boundaries of every state in Europe have been defined by war and by treaty.

5) "The Right To Exist" and Sovereign States.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the present Government of Iraq, and its Head of State, have both been duly recognized as the legitimate government of the Republic of Iraq by the United Nations.

The back-tracking and spinning of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's call for 'Israel to be wiped off the map', is nothing more than a rather desperate damage control exercise, considered necessary solely because of Iran's aspirations with regard to nuclear energy.


6)   Why did the US take such special interest in Iraq?
The US started taking special interest in Iraq during the first Clinton Administration when it became patently obvious that Saddam Hussein had absolutely no intention of complying with the terms of the Safwan ceasefire.

The US got even more interested in Iraq when in 1998, Iraqi interference with the activities of the UN's UNSCOM Inspectors was such that the Inspectors reported that they could no longer carry out their work. This resulted in the UNSCOM Inspectors being withdrawn and the prosecution of "Dessert Fox". The report delivered by the UNSCOM Inspectors to the UN Security Council in January 1999 formed the sole basis for the assumption that Iraq still possessed WMD. It was President Clinton who signed the Bill that called for Regime Change in Iraq in 1998.

After the attacks of 11th September, 2001. The House and Senate Security Committee and the combined Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America were tasked with identifying the greatest external threat to the United States.

Please note Nick – This evaluation has nothing whatsoever to with the attacks of 11th September, 2001. The USA having already been hit was looking to what could be viewed as worst case globally.

Findings identified worst possible case as being an a-symmetric attack by an international terrorist group using a weapon, or weapons, of mass destruction (Chemical; Biological or Nuclear), that weapon, material of support being supplied covertly by a rogue nation or regime.

Please note Nick – There are no specifics detailed in the above. That was what was seen as representing the greatest threat in general terms.

When evaluating potential rogue nations or regimes, who could possibly provide the technical support, material and possibly complete weapons. The committee came up with three prime candidates – North Korea; Iran and Iraq.

Please note Nick – This still has nothing whatsoever to do with 11th September, 2001. While all this is going on action is already being taken against those responsible for those attacks.

Specific evaluation of those three countries that were named as the "Axis of Evil" in the Presidents State of the Union Address of 29th January, 2002, by the Committee arrived at the following order:

Iraq:
-        Already in defiance of UN resolutions calling on it to disarm and to relinquish WMD
-        Track record as regional aggressor
-        Known sponsor of international terrorist groups
-        Saddam Hussein was the only world leader who openly applauded the events of 11th September, 2001

Iran:
-        Not in defiance of any UN Resolutions
-        Known sponsor of international terrorist groups
-        No known aggressive ambitions within the region
-        Publicly condemned the attacks of 11th September, 2001

North Korea:
-        Already in defiance of UN Resolutions calling on it to relinquish WMD (Nuclear)
-        Already engaged in six-party negotiations with respect WMD issue
-        Track record as regional aggressor but abiding by ceasefire conditions
-        Known supplier of material, technology and equipment to other rogue regimes and terrorist groups
-        Publicly condemned the attacks of 11th September, 2001

It is little wonder that Iraq came out of the evaluation top of the list.

Please note Nick - This has nothing whatsoever to do with 11th September, 2001.

Now with the Taleban routed in Afghanistan and Al-Queda very much on the run. The US addresses what has been identified as potentially its greatest threat. Does it launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq – No, the US goes to the United Nations. With the result that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 is passed, this gives Iraq one final chance to comply with undertakings it agreed to at Safwan in 1991. The US makes it abundantly clear to both the UN and to Iraq what the consequences of non-compliance will be.

Please note Nick - This still has nothing whatsoever to do with 11th September, 2001

7) On the subject of nukes and Israel:
Personally I'd be very surprised if they didn't have any, no reason why they shouldn't as they are not signatories of the Nuclear NPT. But there has never been any statement confirming that they possess such weapons. As such it is incorrect for anybody to state that they have. It is incorrect to state that Israel has threatened its neighbours with the use of such weapons.

As stated by yourself Nick, Ehud Olmert unintentionally(?) "implied" that Israel has nuclear weapons. That is not the same as the man openly stating that such weapons exist.

You never know, it could amount to being the greatest dissemination of false information ever.   If not Israel must have been hell of a close to using them over the past 30 years.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 07:13 AM

Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 10:16 AM

The term Axis of Evil is now being softened with the explanation that it was just the hyperbole of a speech writer who was over reaching.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 10:22 AM

Facts always seem to put some people to sleep...

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 10:30 AM

"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. "

Instead, we get public celebrations and parades for the killers of women and children. MY point was that the Palestinians are NOT being told 'now, now, don't be naughty!', but that they are doing a wonderful thing to kill children.


As for the borders,
http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/Graphics/Maps/PartitionforTransJordan.asp

It looks like the Arabs are the ones who have enlarged their borders.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Slag
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 04:13 AM

Gee Nickhere. How tedious. You reveal a bias a mile wide with your opening salvo. I'm just gonna hit a few highlights (lowlights) to demonstrate what I mean. In so doing, you discourage me and other rational persons from read the BULK ( and I do mean BULK) of your text.

First ASSumption: US warmongers. Look the word up. The US does NOT warmonger.

Second ASSumption: Israel has a deplorable human rights record. That's YOUR opinion: Compared to the rocketeers, the Kamekazi, bombers, the kidnappers, the cold blooded murders that are their enemies against whom the seek to defend their citizenry, Jew and Arab alike, they are saints and the model of restraint. Buy a vowel, get a clue.

Posada is a minor blip on the screen of world affairs. Go get him. Bring him to justice and a thousand others like him too. I'll applaud you. It'll give you something to do, focus your energies.

Your sense of proportion is sadly lacking. You don't see the conserted and coordinated effort to committ genecide against the Jewish people. How sad. You don't recognize the right of self-defense, how sad, foolish and dangerous, you don't recognize the right of a people to exist, how inhuman. You open your cyber-mouth and tell the world who and what you are. I can't change you. I don't really want to. It's like the old cautionery jingle about snakes: "red touches black, friendly jack. Red touches yellow, kill a fellow. " I just want to isentify you. That's all.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Slag
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 04:24 AM

PS. I DID read your Posada listing. He sounds like a very rare bird. One who has adopted the tactics of his enemy and turned it against them. Listen to all the little "Sieg Heilers" shout "FOUL!" I guess in your book, turn about is not fair play.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Nickhere
Date: 16 Dec 06 - 11:44 PM

Fair enough Slag, we'll agree to disagree. Sorry you find my posts tedious etc., etc., but if you had learned to read properly when you were in school, it wouldn't take you half as long. Don't like it when people make personal attacks? Then don't do it yourself: no need to, if you have a viable argument in the first place. You want to 'isentify' me? There doesn't appear to be any such word, but maybe it's your own private dialect and you are trying to say something like 'annoy'? If so, sorry to disappoint - I only get annoyed with myself when criticised by someone whose opinions I respect. You have plummted in this regard after your last post. I have no problem with someone saying I'm wrong and why, but it's a bit pathetic when they lose it and start making personal attacks - they've moved from hating the idea to hating the person that holds the idea, and that sums up your world view neatly. In this way it simply is not possible for you to be objective about any topic (and you accuse me of bias!!!) It's also as good as admitting you don't have a viable argument.

I was going to point out a few things about what your attitude to Posada / Israel / etc., says about you, but it'd just go straight over your head. So, like I said, we'll agree to disagree and end our dialogue here.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 06 - 03:47 AM

Having read through the posts on this thread Nickhere can you please point out where Slag has made any personal attack on you.

The "isentify" is obviously a typo and that the word was "identify"

Now please, instead of pussy-footing around typo's and accusing people of doing things that they completely innocent of, why don't you respond to some of the points put to you that run counter to what we must suppose to be your sincerely held beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Dec 06 - 09:24 AM

OK Teribus, I'm certainly not the one pussyfooting round anything. As you know whenever people put questions to me or critique what I write, I do my best to reply in detail. I could juts fire off a one-or-two sentence answer along the lines of "No, you're wrong and I'm right" as I often see on these threads, but I prefer to give people the courtesy of a considered response. That means nothing to Slag, all she can do is mock my style by saying 'gee...how tedious' Calling someone 'tedious' is a personal attack, it has nothing to do with the validity of the argument. She then proceeds to call me 'irrational' by saying that "she and other rational people...." (i.e I'm not in that group). She repeats her 'tedious' remark by saying "the BULK (and I do mean the BULK) of your post" Again, this is not an argument, but a personal comment. She continues by trying to make me and my arguments look foolish with a kind of semantic trick "ASSumption" (i.e you make an ASS of yourself when you say these things). But it doesn't make my arguments or me look foolish, as it is not an argument in itself. It is simply trying to say "you are an ASShole if you believe this" Well, I think that speaks for itself. The only ASShole is the one who has to resort to insults in order to try and bolster a weak argument. Ok, maybe it's a typo and she hasn't yet learned to manage upper and lower case letters or has the SHIFT button on half the time.....I doubt it.

Perhaps you're right and 'itentify' a typo, and she wants to 'identify' me. If so, it's an interesting comment in itself. If she wants to identify me it means she likes labels and wants to try and fit me in some category where things can be tidied up into neater shapes in her mind. She finds her category soon enough when she adds "Listen to all the little Seig Heilers cry FOUL!" So she is saying in effect that those who believe Posada is a terrorist (myself included, and she already knows this) are little Nazis. This is a personal attack. Originally a Nazi was someone who followed the Nazi ideology or was a member of that party. (I don't need to state, I hope, that following the Nazi ideology entailed genocide, racism, warmongering etc., etc., ) It no longer simply means a member of the Nazi party (which strictly speaking is the actual meaning) Now it has come to be a general term of abuse with a wide range of meaning, including 'racist, supremacist, intolerant, authoritarian, fascist, inhumane, narrow minded etc., etc., None of which is intended as a compliment, not surprisingly of course. Well, I am none of these things. Calling someone a Nazi doesn't win you the argument either, it just means you've run out of argument. It means Slag hates my ideas, and now she hates me, and her post reveals a level of Redneck chauvanism. If she could she would probably fly over, drop a bomb on me so she wouldn't be obliged to interact with my ideas anymore. She would think she had won the argument because I would be dead and no longer answering, and without the least sense of irony she would convince herself that I"M the fascist!

There are other insults such as 'when you open your cyber-mouth'. What's that supposed to mean? It is intended as an insult, as it is gratuituous and pointless. She also compares me to a poisonous snake, as a way of suggesting that I am one. She is the stereotype of the person who can't cope with people thinking differently to her and would prefer they didn't exist so there wopuld be no one to challenge her comfortable assumptions. She doesn't even read my posts properly. She says that 'I deny a people the rigth to exist' What total bollox. She doesn't specify which people, but you can bet she doesn't mean the Palestinians who are being forced out of their own land this very day, ethnically cleansed, in fact. I'll go out on a limb here and say she probably means 'Jewish people'. Go back and see if you can find anywhere where I said 'Jewish people' don't have the right to exist.

In relation to Posada, she challenges me to go out and bring him to jusice. She adds a gratuitous insult "it'll give you something to do, focus your energikes" She doesn't even know me. I have plenty to do, but trying to make me look like the idle tosser she is doesn't win her the argument. No, I challenge HER to do so, for all her talk about patriotism and terrorism. It would be interesting to see just how far she'll get with that in the Land of the Brave and Free, where there are 'Good terrorists' and 'Bad terrorists'. She says it all when she says he is a 'minor blip'. As you woould say, Teribus, this comment beggars belief. Posada is wanted for blowing up a Cuban airliner, for killing civilians in bombing hotels and resorts etc., Now if he'd done all that in the USA on behalf of Al-Qaeda, far from calling him a 'minor blip' Slag would be screaming about yet another example of "The Free World's enemies" (my emphasis). She is wrong about Israel, out of whose ass she thinks the sun shines. It is NOT simply 'my opinion' that Israel has a deplorable human rights record, it is also the opinion of Amnesty International, and Israeli Human Rights Watch (a group operating inside Israel). And before you say it, I know Amnesty has criticsed Hizbullah for its rocket attacks, and I agree - targeting civilians has become a nasty effect of modern warfare (though they were never titally immune from involvement - since war started, it has almost always touched civilian life, but now we are supposed to have rules, which is some progress at least). I would add Saudi Arabia to the deplorable Human Rights statement. But Saudi is a US ally, so they don't come in from any criticism from the White House. Despite the fact that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi and Saudi money funds a lot of terrorism , there was no question of invading or bombing Saudi Arabia. This is right up Slag's street, as I said there are 'Good terrorists' and 'Bad terrorists'. As Nicole Kidman put it in the movie, "The Others" 'your daddy was fighting on the side of the English, and so on the side of the Goodies'. All black and white. Since this is principally a folk forum, I might add Slag might benefit from listening to Bob Dylan's "With God on our side"

So, no, Slag is not 'totally innocent' as you put it, her post was a half-hearted reply to my previous posts and answer to her, but also a personal attack where she attacked the writer and not the ideas. Not the end of the world, of course, but since you suggested otherwise... But I think there is no point in me discussing any of this further with Slag, and I stand by that. The real waste of time is that I have to spend half an hour explaining the obvious - that Slag resorts to personal attack when she doesn't like your opinion - instead of having time to deal with the actual issues. So I hope this will be the last time I have to do so.

As regard your own posts, I will get back to answering asap, but being Xmas season, it's very busy here.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Nickhere
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 09:13 PM

Beardedbruce: from your post I gather that you accept that the Israelis don't really apply any legal pressure to stop assassinations and extra-judicial killings of Palestinian citizens, but you feel the Palestinians are worse because they celebrate. Perhaps the Palestinians do celebrate when Israeli civilians are killed, and I certainly don't approve of this, it is heartbreaking to see any civilians killed (and sometimes soldiers, too, though Jesus did say 'those who live by the sword will die by the sword"). But it seems difficult to decide which is worse objectively - people honestly showing their feelings, however dreadful those feelings are, or a state and people who pretend they are dignified and civilised but find a raft of rhetoric and legal-mumbo jumbo to try and hide their murderous nature from the world. Myself, I reckon one is as bad as the other at least, though the latter is also dishonest.
You will probably be interested in this article (from

Israel's High Court of Justice affirmed today (14 December 2006) the
> legality of the extrajudicial executions of Palestinian activists
> suspected of being "unlawful combatants."
>
> The taking of life based on suspicions against a person, represents a
> gross violation of fundamental principles of law and morality. It is a
> grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, and further, is defined as a war
> crime by the International Criminal Court. These legal-moral principles
> are applicable to every country, organization and person, whether or not
> they are an official party to these instruments.

For the rest of the article, cut / copy and paste this url into an address bar (I tried to make a link, but alas, no joy)



Teribus, I will only give a few short responses here (I can hear the sighs of relief!) as time is pressing.

Regarding Hizbullah locating their military around civilians: As I have pointed out on another thread already, Hizbullah did not arrive from outer space into a previously untroubled Eden whose citizens liked nothing better than to lead simple, untroubled lives until Hizbullah arrived to upset them. Hizbullah originated back in the 1970s as a response to Israeli bombing raids into Lebanon. It draws its support from Lebanon's southern Shia Muslim population. As such, those citizens among whom it has (and with whose consent it has) its military bases, are the families, friends, cousins, neighbours etc., etc., of the Hizbullah fighters, apart from the obvious few who hail from outside Lebanon. Thus when you speak of "It is a deliberate tactic employed to ensure maximum outrage at "civilian" casualties should anyone have the temerity to strike back at them. Basically they hide behind the people they purport to defend" you should bear in mind who these civilians actually are. I have had this fact confirmed to me also by Dr.Ibrahim Mousawi, a director of Al-Manar TV (Hizbullah's TV station) who I had the opportunity to speak to at some length at a conference last Autumn. He added that many of these people were evacutaed by Hizbullah before Israeli airstrikes where possible (naturally, they would try and save their families) and found them accomodation in quieter areas. Currently they are paying many of the displaced people's rents while rebuiliding as much of Southern Lebanon as they can.
If Hizbullah had penetrated deep into Israel (as opposed to vice versa) then the Israeli army would be fighting from among its own civilian population, as Hizbullah were obliged to do last summer. Would we then say with the same nonchalance that the Israeli army hides behind its civilian population? In addition, the distinction between civilian and military in Israel is more blurred than in most countries (except perhaps Switrzerland, where they operate a similar system) as ALL Israeli adults, men and women, are expected to do a number of years military training and operations, and are then on reserve for much of the remainder of their adult life (except, as I mentioned previosuly, Palestinian Israelis, who are barred from military service).

Regarding Ehud Olmert, that was an aside, but evidently his own governement back home thought his remarks sufficently close to the bone to be incensed with his carelessness.

Regarding UN resolution 1441, you will recall that Hans Blix stated that Iraq was complying, grudgingly, but doing so. He said he and his team needed more time to finish the job, in accordance with the remit of resolution 1441. The US decided they weren't going to wait and just went ahead with the invasion anyway, so in the end, resolution 1441 was redundant and might as well not have been bothered with. Hans Blix expressed his frustration and sense of being undermined at the time quite publicly. In the end, no WMD were ever found, apart from a few rocket heads that might once have contained some nerve gas, but were long since rusted. The fact remains that 9/11 was the perfect opportunity for certain elements within the White House (no prizes for guessing who) to puruse an agenda they'd been planning for quite some time (as reveals). Then there was that dossier, based on an out-of-date Phd paper, 'sexed up' to make Iraq look like the biggest new threat on the planet. Sorry, but it was a sack of lies from the beginning. Saddam was quite antagonistic to Al-Qaeda. He was no Islamic fundamentalist, but a good-old-fashioned-Mesopotamian-tyrant. Now Iraq is wide open to Al-Qaeda, and the threat level has gone way up.

As regards the list of 'known sponsors of international terrorism' there is at least one glaring omission: the USA itself. But it doesn't define its own operations as terrorism so it doesn't appear on its own list.

Regarding Human rights in the Middle East. I have already pointed to Saudi Arabia as a country witha poor rights record, but you could add Egypt (also a US ally and a place to where many have been flown by the USA so they can be torture without upsetting the US public) and a number of other countries. I would also add Iran, though surprisingly, not the worst. Iran has been presented as an intolerant, anti-semitic country in the western media. But Iran's Jewish member of parliament had this to say about it:

"Mr Motamed represents Iran's 25,000-strong Jewish community, the largest such group in the Middle East outside Israel. Since 1906 Iran's constitution has guaranteed the Jewish community one seat in the Majlis. The Armenian, Assyrian and Zoroastrian minorities together hold a further four seats.

Although he took on Mr Ahmadinejad about the Holocaust, Mr Motamed supports the president on other issues, including the standoff with the US, Europe and Israel over the country's nuclear programme. "I am an Iranian first and a Jew second," he said.

He acknowledged there were problems with being a Jew in Iran, as there were for the country's other minorities. But he said that Iran was relatively tolerant. "There is no pressure on the synagogues, no problems of desecration. I think the problem in Europe is worse than here. There is a lot of anti-semitism in other countries."
(Source: Guardian newspaper (UK), Wednesday June 8th 2006).

In case you think I don't pursue Human Rights in other middle eastern countries apart from Israel, you couldn't be more wrong. Currently I am lobbying the Iranian government to free a wrongly jailed trade union leader, an act which I consider a gross breach of human rights. If you wish to help out, you can do so at:

a href="http://www.labourstart.org/cgi-bin/solidarityforever/show_campaign.cgi?c=167">Petition to free jailed

It just so happens that Israel is one of the worse offenders in the region when it comes to ceratin categories of people (e.g Palestinians). Here is a letter that appeared in a newspaper in Ireland by a Jewish member of the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign explaining why he had joined that campaign:

8 July 2006
Unfounded allegations were levelled against Ireland Palestine group
IT WAS with indignation and great concern that I read Dr Steven King's column (Irish Examiner, July 5) baseless accusations against the Ireland
Palestine Solidarity Campaign (ISPC), which in turn gives reason for great concern
over your newspaper's decision to publish the column.
I am a Jew who was born and raised in Israel and who served in its
military forces, just like Corporal Shalit for whose wellbeing we all pray.
It is my convictions as a Jew and as a human being that led me to join
the IPSC over a year ago.
Through IPSC activities, I have met Israelis who are constantly active
in trying to get the Israeli government to change its policies towards
Palestinians in Israel and towards the Palestinian Authority itself. Most notably, one of the bravest and most outspoken of these people isDr Pappe of Haifa University whom I met when he attended one of the IPSC's functions as a guest speaker. I fail to see how any of this might lead anyone to believe the IPSCharbours any anti-semitic sentiment. Dr King's unfounded and outrageous allegations against the IPSC are matched only by his patent ignorance regarding the state of Israel and its affairs. Having spent more than 25 years living there, I cannot imagine what would lead him to make his claim regarding Israel's "open-mindedness". A simple example to contradict this would be Israel's 'Law of Return' which grants automatic citizenship to Jews wishing to settle there, but does not make such allowance for Palestinians (Muslim and Christian) whose families hold keys to homes in that land. Racism is a dangerous card to play, particularly in relation to anti-semitism in Europe. Playing this card is tantamount to playing with matches in a highly flammable environment. Dr King would be wise to consider this before making further accusations.
Jonathan Sugarman
Dublin

I could paste far more material, but I am trying to keep this post short. The organisation to which Jonathan Sugarman refers can be found at:
Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign

You say you admire my candour in stating that Syria meddles in lebanon, and I thank you. Can you now show the same candour by stating Israel has a rotten record on human rights, especially in relation to Palestinians?

Regarding the 1948 war and the Palestinian refugees. It has often been said (on this forum as well) that the Arab nations decided to invade Israel the day after it was formed under UN mandate in 1948. They advised the Palestinians to flee on the basis that they'd come back once the Jews had been 'pushed into the sea' to use an oft-quoted phrase. It paints a picture of conniving, greedy and treacherous Palestinians, willing to see their Jewish neighbours sacrificed so they could get their lands and possessions. I think if you reflect on it, you might form a different opinion as to why some Palestinians left (some didn't, and many were expelled by Jews). You get a warning that several armies are about to invade. There will be trouble and slaughter. Would you hang around? Personally I would run for the hills, if I had hills to run to. Whether or not you like your Jewish neighbours will be immaterial if soldiers from both sides are concentrated in your town shooting anyone they think is a threat. On the same topic, here is an interesting letter from the Irish Independent:

Arabs had neither five nor six 'armies'
Irish Independent    15th Aug 2006

CONOR Cruise O'Brien (Irish Independent, August 12) repeats his fantastic story on the birth of Isreal. This time he alleges that Israel was "invaded by six Arab armies". Approximately one month ago the same claim was made in this column with just five armies. Next time will it be seven?
The truth of the matter is very different. The war between Israel and the Arabs did not begin with the founding of the state of Israel. A civil war between the Israeli forces (Irgun, Hagannah, Stern gang etc) and the local Arabs had been underway for eight months already.
This war was going Israel's way without any effective Arab resistance. By the time of the formal founding date Israel had already expanded her territory outside of the original areas granted to it by the UN. The neighbouring Arab countries were swollen with masses of refugees who had fled from the fighting or had been forced out in the brutal ethnic cleansing which accompanied the Israeli aggression.
It was in response to this that the neighbouring Arab countries were forced to send forces to contain Israel's expansion.
The term of "five (or six) Arab armies" sounds impressive indeed. The reality was very different. These were not well equipped, experienced, battle hardened warriors as you imply. They were exactly the opposite. Lebanon sent an "army" of all of 1,000 men. The Iraqis withdrew without firing a shot in anger and abandoned the field.
The truth is that the Arab countries adjoining Israel wanted to avoid a war they felt they would not win and they were correct.
There was no unified command, no co-ordination or even communication. They didn't even have the means to effectively resupply their forces. The Jordanians wanted the West Bank and the Holy City and were more worried that the Egyptians might grab it first than in helping their Arab brothers.
The only real set piece battle between Arab and Israeli forces took place when the Israelis failed to take Jerusalem which was defended by the British trained Arab legion.
Not one "invading" Arab soldier set one foot once inside the Israeli zones earmarked by the UN. In fact, by the end of the war the Israelis had an army in the field of approxiamtely 95,000 men. The Arabs had about half that number.

Seamus O'Ceallaigh,
Hamriyah, Dubai,


Two final points - I gather that it was the Israelis who rejected the last Roadmap to Peace, which had been endorsed by the Pan Arab League, consigning the region to further bloodshed.
I haven't had time to check it out for myself, but I accept anyway your statement that Iraq's new government is now recognised by the UN. But I don't think it invalidates my point, as I also mentioned South Africa, and Chile under Pinochet, both of which are radically different and better countries now than before. Plus, the invasion of Iraq was still illegal under international law.

Well, I'd better leave it at that for the moment, as I promised a short post, and well....!

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Nickhere
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 09:29 PM

It seems that some of the links I pasted didn't paste into the text properly. In addition, some phrases magically disappeared. Most weird. I'll try again. The link for the petition to the Iranian government to free the jailed trade union leader:

href="http://www.labourstart.org/cgi-bin/solidarityforever/show_campaign.cgi?c=167">Iranian trade union leader

another link I tried to make was to 'projectforanewamericancentury.org' but not only is the page notoriously difficult to load, the very words "project...." disappeared from the text of my post. Ah well. Gremlins again.

Teribus: here's one further intersting article by Jimmy Carter on Israel:

a href="http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-commentarycarter1210.artdec10,0,748744.story">Carter's article

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Nickhere
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 09:31 PM

Oh well! Cut n' paste.