[Winstonm]

Impact, on Feb 16 2007, 12:35 AM, said:

Don't cast me as the whitewasher for Israel.

There are a lot of nuances to the conflict(s) in the Middle East.

Don't confuse support for any particular cause or its inherent appeal, with support for the methods.

Your original point was the appellation of "terrorist" or "terrorism".

My comment referred to that.

If you happen to support the Palestinians - so be it.

However an attempt to suggest that Hezbollah and/or Hamas are not terrorist organisations because effectively you support hteir aims is both disingenuous and beneath you.

Note, I am not exculpating Israel or vilifying Palestinians. I just want you to accept that the unpalatable word "terrorist" happens to be an appropriate descriptor for both Hezbollah and Hamas (which is not to say that they can also perform other "civic" work).

The other matter from your various posts appears to be an on-going rejection of Western government utterances, combined with a flagellation of the West which appears to amount to almost paranoia on conspiracies. It is one thing to be an iconoclast but it takes judgement to determine the battles which should be fought.

While  it is approriate to have some scepticism as to self-serving press releases, and utterances from politicians and journalists as representing a factual state, I do think it is taking that attitude too far to automatically assume "not A" when "A" is declared.

I apologize if I misstated your intent - that is why I used the phrase "beliefs that seem to be your own". I did not mean that as a castigation but as leaving open the possibility that I misunderstood your views.

As for me, I do not 100% support Israel without question, nor do I 100% support Palestinians without question.

I do not support the use of terrorism as a tactic; however, I do not believe this term can be used in lieu of tribal grievances, national disagreements, war crimes, genocide, and other apt terms.

In this sense I cannot view Hezbollah as a total terrorist organization - a total enemy of Israel no doubt. In this sense I believe Russia actually has it right - they do not classify Hezbollah as a terror organization because they see no threat to Russia from this group.

Whether the sustaining Israel is of equal importance and equivalent of U.S. national interest is another question; whether Hezbollah would attack the U.S. is an unknown; whether Hezbollah is a direct enemy of the U.S. and therefore should be on the U.S. terror list is not clear cut, at least to me.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Feb 16 2007, 02:04 AM, said:

BTW I assume you can be a non Jew and be a citizen in Israel.
I assume being a non Jew is pretty tough though.
Are all babies born there citizens?
I do not know.

My limited understanding of this problem is that Israel still houses a large number of Palestinians and their treatment by the Israelis is a cause of dissent.

[Winstonm]

I guess turnabout is fair play - seems which side of the fence you are on determines what you believe.

Edited for brevity:

Quote

Reuters
Friday, February 16, 2007

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has arrested some 65 men suspected of being behind a deadly bombing that killed members of the elite Revolutionary Guards in a southeastern border province, the student news agency ISNA said on Friday.

It quoted the local police chief as saying the suspects had clear links to U.S. and British intelligence services. The claim comes at a time when the United States has accused Iranian groups of involvement in the war in Iraq.

A booby-trapped car blew up a bus owned by the Guards on Wednesday, killing at least 11 people in the city of Zahedan, the capital of the Sistan-Baluchestan province which has been the center of low-level unrest over the past months.

Iran has accused Britain and the United States of supporting ethnic minority rebels operating in the sensitive border areas to destabilize the country.
"Our investigations clearly shows their connection to American and British intelligence organizations and also to groups opposed to the Islamic republic," Ghafari said.

Iran's official IRNA news agency quoted an unnamed official on Friday as saying those behind the bombing had received training from the United States to create ethnic divisions in Iran.

Iran's semi-official Fars news agency also quoted an unnamed official as saying that "explosives used by the terrorists in Zahedan were American made".

[jtfanclub]

mike777, on Feb 16 2007, 02:04 AM, said:

BTW I assume you can be a non Jew and be a citizen in Israel.
I assume being a non Jew is pretty tough though.
Are all babies born there citizens?
I do not know.

Any person living in Israel (not Gaza or the West Bank) may become an Israeli citizen. There is a test, but it's no tougher than our citizenship test. You aren't required to become a Jew, of course, but you do have to promise to obey Israel's laws, etc. etc.

The Druse, which is a Muslim sect, have not had any problems in Israel and in fact fight in their military. I don't know how non-Druse Muslims who are Israeli citizens fare. I assume their is discrimination, but they do have full rights, including voting rights.

[mike777]

funny enough you can be a born usa citizen and promise nothing on date of birth..I rest my case.

You can worship Satin...Devil....etc.......

It sounds like in Israel there is some pass/fail test?

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on Feb 17 2007, 03:31 AM, said:

funny enough you can be a born usa citizen and promise nothing on date of birth..I rest my case.

You can worship Satin...Devil....etc.......

Well, that explains Bush and Cheney...

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Feb 17 2007, 11:31 AM, said:

funny enough you can be a born usa citizen and promise nothing on date of birth..I rest my case.

You can worship Satin...Devil....etc.......

It sounds like in Israel there is some pass/fail test?

The following web site documents requirements for attaining Israeli Nationality:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_...i%20Nationality

A quick scan indicates that there are a number of possible avenues by which one can attain citizenship. The one that seems most germane to this discussion is

"Acquisition of by Residence: Special provision is made in the Nationality Law for former citizens of British Mandatory Palestine. Those who remained in Israel from the establishment of the State in 1948 until the enactment of the Nationality Law of 1952 became Israeli citizens by residence or by return.

According to an amendment (1980), further possibilities to acquire citizenship by residence were included in the law."

Significant numbers of Arab's became Israeli citizens in 1948. Some of these we're Muslims, others were Christians. I'm sure that there were aethists and Ba'hai and what have you mixed in as well.

Its worth noting that there is some debate about these principles taking place in Israel right now. Avigdor Lieberman currently serves as the Minster of Strategic Affairs in the Olmert government. He is quite vocal about his desire to expell Arab's from Israel. My impression is that no one takes him particularly seriously and that he is only part of the government because Israel's system of proportional representation often allows minor parties to act like Kingmakers...

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Feb 17 2007, 09:57 AM, said:

"Acquisition of by Residence:  Special provision is made in the Nationality Law for former citizens of British Mandatory Palestine. Those who remained in Israel from the establishment of the State in 1948 until the enactment of the Nationality Law of 1952 became Israeli citizens by residence or by return.

And the children of Israeli citizens, including Arab Israelis.

I don't know how many countries make the child of two illegal immigrants a citizen. I'm not sure I think it's the greatest of ideas for this country, but it seems better than the alternative.

[Winstonm]

jtfanclub, on Feb 17 2007, 12:31 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 17 2007, 09:57 AM, said:

"Acquisition of by Residence:  Special provision is made in the Nationality Law for former citizens of British Mandatory Palestine. Those who remained in Israel from the establishment of the State in 1948 until the enactment of the Nationality Law of 1952 became Israeli citizens by residence or by return.

And the children of Israeli citizens, including Arab Israelis.

I don't know how many countries make the child of two illegal immigrants a citizen. I'm not sure I think it's the greatest of ideas for this country, but it seems better than the alternative.

If all this is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt its voracity, and there are both Arab and Palestinian citizens of Israel, it makes it seem more evident to me that the conflict with Israel basically revolves around the control of holy sites and holy cities - which is in keeping with the concept of a "holy war", to free those areas from "infadel" control.

I'm biased, I know, but the logic to me suggests again that there is no world-wide mandate for Islamic dominancy and the threats and terror actions all revolve around distinct territorial disputes. To paint the Bushian picture of an world-wide, ideologically-driven war with radical Islamics seems incredibly naive on Bush's part, or an oversimplification of the problems by narrowing the world from vast shades of gray to simple black and white.

I do not mean to cast aspersions here, and do not mean to imply that many in religious groups do not or cannot have open minds and hear other opinions, but at the same time, in my life I have seen more examples of this black and white mentality with fundamentalist religious groups than with more liberal or unaffiliated persons.

There is personal psychological comfort in reducing a chaotic world into simple terms of black and white; but that does not make it right or even realistic.

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Feb 17 2007, 09:43 PM, said:

If all this is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt its voracity, and there are both Arab and Palestinian citizens of Israel, it makes it seem more evident to me that the conflict with Israel basically revolves around the control of holy sites and holy cities - which is in keeping with the concept of a "holy war", to free those areas from "infadel" control.

Hi Winston,

I think that you're making a dramatic over-simplification and over-emphasizing the role that religion plays in this conflict.

While Judism is undoubtedly a religion, its also a culture and an ethnicity. Personally, I believe that a Jewish identity can exist seperate and distinct from the religious identification. I certainly have a large number of friends who self identify as being Jewish who aren't religiously observant in any way, shape or form. In a similar fashion, I believe that Zionism can exist seperately from religious identity. There has been a long standing tradition of so-called secular Zionism.

I think that the conflict in Israel is rooted in something much more simple: Property rights and pride:

Zionists have long believer that the Jewish people require their own home land. To some extent, this is a simple extension of the "Romantic Nationalism" that gripped Europe in the 19th century and 20th century. Everyone and their brother was suddenly demanding their own homeland. Germans, Finns, Serbians, Basques, ... You name the ethnic group, I can probably find an equivalent irridentist movement.

In the case of Jewish people, I think that one can argue that they have a special claim to their own country. Christian Europe as well as its colonies (IE the United States) treated Jews in a complete reprehensible manner. The Holocaust rates are one of the greatest crimes ever perpetrated by humanity. However, above and beyond the Holocaust the long tradition of pogroms, explusions, property confiscation is horrifying to comtemplate in its own right. Many countries like the United States didn't have organized pogroms, however, we refused to accept Jewish immigrants who were attempting to flee the Holocaust. In short, I think that Jews can make a valid claim that past history demonstrates that they need to control their own destiny. Trusting the good intentions of the gentiles has played out too well...

Unfortunately for everyone, the the Allies really botched the job of creating a Jewish homeland at the close of World War II. The state of Israel is the last of the great European colonies. Horrific injustices were commited against the Jewish people, but this can't justify seizing land from the native Arabs who inhabited the territories that we now call Israel, the West Bank, Jordan, etc. I think that we all agree that there had to have been a better way to handle this. I really wish that a fraction of the funds that the US had devoted to the Marshall plan has been used to purchase property in the Middle East. The root cause of these troubles are related to the fact that the Palestinians beleive that they were forcible dispossed from their territory. A little money would have a long way in avoiding all these cycles of back and forth violence.

Unfortunately, now we seem to be stuck. The Israeli's have set up shop and seem to have no intention of ever leaving. The Palestinians believe that their lands have been stolen. Both sides seem to thoroughly hate and fear one another. I worry that things are going to continue until one side or the other annihilates the other.

[Winstonm]

Richard,

Thank you for the information. I am not a scholar and must rely on current reading and the use of logic to try to interpret meanings. You are most likely correct that I have oversimplified - and it is certainly accurate that the term Jewish encompasses more than a religion. Years ago, when I lived in Norman, Oklahoma, site of the University of Oklahoma, I dated a Jewish girl and at the same time had a friend who was from Iran - pointing this out only to show I don't feel I am biased for or against either group. I try my best not to take extreme sides without confirmation of correctness of that viewpoint, realizing that in many conflicts no one is lying but simply telling the truth from their perspective.

I have terrific sympathy for the Jewish people and their suffering; I do not fault any Jewish person or the state of Israel for feeling that they must indeed take care of their own - that would be a natural reaction of any group of peoples; at the same time, I'm not willing to demonize Arabs/Islamics, because to them, their concept of reality is that their lands were in essence stolen, nor am I willing to automatically issue a free pass to Israel when, IMO, they overstep simple concern over self-defense.

This is probably the reason behind the extreme difficulty in in arriving at any meaningful compromise, that the problem is pride, land, and some religion thrown in just to complicate it more.

But, again, I appreciate the knowledge you have supplied.

[Winstonm]

Here is something else that has me baffled: seems as if everything I hear or read about Iran's threat to world peace has to do with its president - but in Iran, the president has no control over the military and cannot declare war or peace. The president is actually an elected official, but is second in command to the Supreme Leader, who is the commander-in-chief of the armies, controls the intelligence, and can declare war.

Iran may well have elected a madman as its president, but unless he is no more than a mouthpiece for the Supreme Leader, his threats are hollow. He has no power to act.

[Al_U_Card]

Every time I have heard Ahmadinejad speak, he seems as lucid as any other educated arab/head of state/individual with a specific point of view and upbringing as well as having a religious background.

Why characterize him as a "madman"...to vilify him? I call W "little dick" but that is for obvious satirical effect.....it is clear that he is a (reasonably) well-educated politician.

If you give credence to the posturings and pandering of the administration and its journalistic puppets....people will start to take it as fact.

The man was not selected from a lunatic asylum to lead a country, whether he has CIC powers or not.

[pbleighton]

"Why characterize him as a "madman"...to vilify him?"

As an excuse not to deal with Iran.

He's not mad.

He's bad, though.

Peter

[Winstonm]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 18 2007, 03:41 PM, said:

Every time I have heard Ahmadinejad speak, he seems as lucid as any other educated arab/head of state/individual with a specific point of view and upbringing as well as having a religious background.

Why characterize him as a "madman"...to vilify him?  I call W "little dick" but that is for obvious satirical effect.....it is clear that he is a (reasonably) well-educated politician.

If you give credence to the posturings and pandering of the administration and its journalistic puppets....people will start to take it as fact. 

The man was not selected from a lunatic asylum to lead a country, whether he has CIC powers or not.

I only say "may have elected a madman" because that is how he is being portrayed in most accounts. My point being that even if this is so, why point a finger at him when it is the Supreme Leader who holds the key to the military on/off switch?

If Hitler had held no power to order the German army into Poland, how much threat would he have been?

[Winstonm]

It just gets better and better, doesn' it?

Quote

Julian Borger
London Guardian
Thursday, February 22, 2007 

Much of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by US spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, diplomatic sources in Vienna said today.

The claims, reminiscent of the intelligence fiasco surrounding the Iraq war, coincided with a sharp increase in international tension as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was defying a UN security council ultimatum to freeze its nuclear programme.

That report, delivered to the security council by the IAEA director general, Mohammed ElBaradei, sets the stage for a fierce international debate on the imposition of stricter sanctions on Iran and raises the possibility that the US could resort to military action against Iranian nuclear sites.

At the heart of the debate are accusations - spearheaded by the US - that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons.
However, most of the tip-offs about supposed secret weapons sites provided by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have led to dead ends when investigated by IAEA inspectors, according to informed sources in Vienna.

"Most of it has turned out to be incorrect," a diplomat at the IAEA with detailed knowledge of the agency's investigations said.

"They gave us a paper with a list of sites. [The inspectors] did some follow-up, they went to some military sites, but there was no sign of [banned nuclear] activities.

"Now [the inspectors] don't go in blindly. Only if it passes a credibility test."

One particularly contentious issue was records of plans to build a nuclear warhead, which the CIA said it found on a stolen laptop computer supplied by an informant inside Iran.

In July 2005, US intelligence officials showed printed versions of the material to IAEA officials, who judged it to be sufficiently specific to confront Iran.

Tehran rejected the material as forged, and there are still reservations within the IAEA about its authenticity, according to officials with knowledge of the internal debate in the agency.

"First of all, if you have a clandestine programme, you don't put it on laptops which can walk away," one official said. "The data is all in English which may be reasonable for some of the technical matters, but at some point you'd have thought there would be at least some notes in Farsi. So there is some doubt over the provenance of the computer."

IAEA officials do not comment on intelligence passed to the watchdog agency by foreign governments, saying all such assistance is confidential.

A western counter-proliferation official accepted that intelligence on Iran had sometimes been patchy, but argued that the essential point was Tehran's failure to live up to its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty.

"I take on board on what they're saying, but the bottom line is that for nearly 20 years [the Iranians] were violating safeguards agreements," the official said. "There is a confidence deficit here about the regime's true intentions."That deficit will be deepened by yesterday's IAEA report, which concluded bluntly that "Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities", in defiance of a December UN ultimatum to stop.

Don't you love that last paragraph? Sounds exactly like Iran - first, it's an imminent danger, but now it's because of a 20 year history of violating safeguard agreements.... and next, it will be to bring freedom to the Iranian people....

[Winstonm]

Here is an interesting tidbit - two OPEC countries threatened to switch to the Euro from the dollar as the international currency of choice for the oil trade. One of these countries made the switch while the other has been threatening to make the switch.

What countries are these? Iraq made the switch in 2000; Iran is threatening.

[mike777]

Not sure why you use such a loaded word as threaten.

I assume they will do whatever is in their best interests.
Just as China will do whatever is in their best interests. If it is too not loan money to the USA and buy Treasuries, so be it.

[Winstonm]

The fine art of taking out of context. You can pull out this quote and make the words sound very different: "If the Holocaust took place".

Quote

From Letter to President Bush, May 9, 2006

[…] Well, then we have stirred up a very concrete discussion. We are posing two very clear questions. The first is: Did the Holocaust actually take place? You answer this question in the affirmative. So, the second question is: Whose fault was it? The answer to that has to be found in Europe and not in Palestine. It is perfectly clear: If the Holocaust took place in Europe, one also has to find the answer to it in Europe. […]

When you place the words in context, all you have is a coherent argument that Europe and not the Middle East should have paid the land price for the creation of Israel.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Not sure why you use such a loaded word as threaten.

I assume they will do whatever is in their best interests

That is the point, is it not? Iraq made the switch and was invaded. Will Iran be allowed to do whatever is in their best interests, or would such a switch place them on the invade list, too?

The impact of a major switch of oil trade currency would have devastating impact on the U.S. enonomy - and that is the threatening part. It is an interesting note that the two countries predominantly advocating such a switch are in the "war" spotlight.