The Christian Science Monitor of Thursday carries my column on what to do about Lebanon (also here.) The editors there titled it For a lasting Middle East peace, look back to 1967 UN plan. That’s not quite how I would have titled it, but I guess it’s okay…
In the most operational part of the column I write:
- Israel’s government and people need to find a way other than coercive military force to build a relationship that is sustainable over the long term with these neighbors [i.e., the Lebanese and Palestinian peoples] and thus to enjoy at last the sense of security that they (and all the peoples of the region) so deeply crave. And Americans, who have a long and close relationship with Israel and aspire to have good relations with the Lebanese and Palestinians, should understand that the region’s most urgent needs are to win a complete and fully monitored cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon (and, if possible, between Israel and the militants in Gaza), and to link that cease-fire to an explicit plan to have the United Nations convene an authoritative peace conference within, say, two weeks that aims to find a speedy resolution to all the unresolved strands of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
In the draft I sent to my editor there Monday, I had the “plan” part there organized under two separate “bullet points”. But I guess that space considerations prompted her to consolidate the lines of text. So what I would have preferred is this:
- the region’s most urgent needs are:
* to win a complete and fully monitored cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon (and, if possible, between Israel and the militants in Gaza), and
* to link that cease-fire to an explicit plan to have the United Nations convene an authoritative peace conference within, say, two weeks that aims to find a speedy resolution to all the unresolved strands of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Is this pie-in-the-sky? I think not. It strikes me firstly that it would be infinitely preferable to the endless prolongation of the violent conflicts between Israel and the Palestinians, and between Israel and the Lebanese, and secondly– as I argue in the column– that nailing down final peace agreements on all three remaining fronts really is quite do-able once you get your head around the possibility.
Think how close the Israelis and Syrians– and therefore also Israel and the Lebanese– came to resolving their conflict back in 1996 or 2000. (You can read my 2000 book about much of that diplomacy, to get all the fascinating details.) Or think how close the Israelis and Palestinians came in late 2000. Nailing down these agreements really is a much closer proposition than it might appear… and nearly everyone realizes what– if they are to be sustainable over the long term– they would look like… That is, very close to a total “land for peace” deal on all fronts. Which, yes, was indeed the content of the security Council’s famous resolution 242 of 1967.
So what I am arguing is Yes, let’s go for the very speedy, very complete ceasefire, as called for in the Siniora plan. But let’s tie that ceasefire not just to a promise to resolve the Lebanon issue– an issue that, quite frankly, is just about impossible to resolve sustainably on its own, given the country’s chronic political fragility… But let’s tie it instead to a firm promise to resolve the Syria-Israel dispute and the Palestine-Israel dispute as well as the Lebanon-Israel dispute. Why not pursue such a bold vision?
What on earth is there to stop all these strands of the Arab-Israeli conflict from being resolved in very short order???
Back in 1991, an earlier round of very committed diplomats and world leaders pledged themselves to just that goal. (And yes, before that, in 1973, as well… though with– on Henry Kissinger’s part– notably less sincerity.) The diplomacy that flowed from the Madrid Peace conference of 1991 did not succeed, it is true, in resolving all outstanding strands of the Arab-Israeli dispute. But it did resolve the Jordanian-Israeli dispute; and, as noted above, the post-Madrid diplomacy laid a considerable amount of the groundwork for a final peace settlement on both the Palestinian and the Syrian fronts, too.
I assure you: If the Syrian-Israeli conflict is resolved and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is resolved, Lebanon will make peace with Israel in a jiffy.
So okay, maybe you have concerns with my approach. You may say, “Wouldn’t it overload the Lebanese ceasefire to have it organically linked (as per my formulation above) to the promise to convene a speedy conference dedicated to negotiating a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace?” Yes, it might– a little. But right now, the ceasefire doesn’t look as though it’s going to be happening terrifically soon, anyway. So as we sit out the agonzing wait for it, why not start planning how it can be tied to an effort to build a really worthwhile regional peace, rather than a Lebanon-only stabilization effort that– especially in the absence of any incentives for the Syrians– is anyway almost certainly doomed to be short-lived?
You may say, “Wouldn’t promising a speedy and comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace effort somehow reward the Hizbullah and Hamas militants for their intransigence and use of violence, and reward Syria for having supported them?”
I would say a couple of things to this: First: the real hardliners in Hamas and Hizbullah would certainly not feel “rewarded” by such a peace effort. These are the people who hate the idea of any peace that leaves a thriving Israel in place at all, and would want to fight to the end. But the majority of supporters and fighters within these organizations could be won over to supporting a regional peace effort– provided it were sufficiently balanced to give independent Palestine and independent lebanon a real chance to thrive (alongside the thriving Israel.)
Surely, the idea should be to try to structure the incentives so that as many Palestinians, lebanese, and Syrians as possible want to make peace, rather than to continue to fight??
Secondly, I’d say we have to get completely away from the idea that securing a comprehensive Israeli-Arab peace is something that is only in the interests of the Arabs. Of course it is not! It is something that’s in the interests of the vast majority of Israelis, as well. Yes, some proportion of those Israelis who have been living as (illegal) settlers on occupied Arab land, whether in Golan or the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, would have to be prepared to see those homes coming under (or, in the case of Golan, returning to) the soveriengty of an Arab state. The fate of all those settlers would certainly be part of the peace negotiations… But all those issues have already been extensively negotiated before, back in the 1990s… No need to re-invent the wheel there…
Anyway, that’s the big outline of my argument. A few other people– Brent Scowcroft, Jimmy Carter, etc– have already started to argue in the US discourse that this current crisis should prompt the world to renew its search for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. I applaud the boldness of their vision and willingness to speak out and articulate it! I think that what I add to the argument is the idea that the promise of the very rapid convening of the regnional peace conference should be embedded within the ceasefire resolution itself.
Oh, and I also make the point in the column that the US faces quite enough challenges elsewhere in the world right now– including in Iraq and Afghanistan– that surely it should welcome any move that promises the speedy de-escalation of Arab-Israeli tensions… Plus, I draw out an extended comparison of the current crisis, as it faces the US, with the Suez crisis of 1956, as it affected Britain. I don’t recall that either Scowcroft or Jimmy Carter did that…
Anyway, I’m off to California in the wee hours of tomorrow morning. Tell me (courteously, as always!) what you think of the column.
I completely agree that we should be trying to encourage peace talks. Adopt the U.S.-France proposal immediately to allow for a sustainable cease fire, and encourage the parties to sit down and talk.
A great way to encourage the parties to sit down and talk would be for Arab and Muslim states with no territorial claims against Israel to immediately normalize relations with it. Don’t you agree Helena? Because it has been a remarkable 21,271 days since Israel declared its independence and the overwhelming majority of Arab and Muslim nations have refused to recognize that country’s right to exist in peace.
I would guess that if, say, Qatar, UAE, Tunisia, Morocco, and Oman sent their ambassadors, that would be a great first step. And can you imagine if Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia got on board?
There would be peace in almost no time. A true win win win for all involved.
“the real hardliners in Hamas and Hizbullah would certainly not feel “rewarded” by such a peace effort. These are the people who hate the idea of any peace that leaves a thriving Israel in place at all, and would want to fight to the end.”
Have you been brainwashed? What’s happening here? You used to be a reliable person, to whom one could go for something other than the finger-pointing “these are the people who hate”.
Colonialism and peace are like oil and water. Why can’t you see it after all these years? Is it going to take you Quakers a hundred years like it took you a hundred years to realise that peace and slavery could not go together?
It is the Israeli colonialists who have smashed up the possibility of the two state solution, not the “Arabs”. Why are you now using the “Arabs” term? You who are more able than practically anybody to know the weasely nature of that rotten generalisation? Don’t you know the odium of such terms? When you are in Africa, do you talk of “natives”?
I admire your sincerity and compassion, but I think your proposal omits one key factor: what if there are significant parts of the Arab-Iranian world that sincerely consider the very existence of Israel a humiliating violation of the Arab-Muslim world and of God’s order? Grudging un-war with part of the Arab-Iranian world would be of some benefit to Israel but it would not be the same thing as genuine peace with all Israel’s neighbors and almost neighbors (such as Iran). That would be a true blessing to Israel, but has never really been on the table.
The Arab part of our human world has had a very difficult time with the transition into the modern world. The Arab nations and societies are run in a defensive way that stifles the creativity and basic desires of the Arab people and deprives all of us of much of what they could contribute to the world. The rest of the world, be it the US, Europe, China, India, or Japan, is willing to go along with this stultification of human development in Arab nations as long as we can get cheap fossil fuel from them.
None of this is Israel’s fault, none of it is within the capacity of Israel to fix. And until this changes, the function of Israel as a diversion from the real problems of the Arab world will be something Arab governments can not let go of.
I admire your sincerity and compassion, but I think your proposal omits one key factor: what if there are significant parts of the Arab-Iranian world that sincerely consider the very existence of Israel a humiliating violation of the Arab-Muslim world and of God’s order? Grudging un-war with part of the Arab-Iranian world would be of some benefit to Israel but it would not be the same thing as genuine peace with all Israel’s neighbors and almost neighbors (such as Iran). That would be a true blessing to Israel, but has never really been on the table.
The Arab part of our human world has had a very difficult time with the transition into the modern world. The Arab nations and societies are run in a defensive way that stifles the creativity and basic desires of the Arab people and deprives all of us of much of what they could contribute to the world. The rest of the world, be it the US, Europe, China, India, or Japan, is willing to go along with this stultification of human development in Arab nations as long as we can get cheap fossil fuel from them.
None of this is Israel’s fault, none of it is within the capacity of Israel to fix. And until this changes, the function of Israel as a diversion from the real problems of the Arab world will be something Arab governments can not let go of.
Sorry about the double posting.
Technical glitch
My problem with your argument is that it assumes that, since peace and cooperation would be much better for everyone involved, the relevant leaders in the end will be able to see that and change course. There may be a lot of “if’s”, a lot of conditions that have to be met before a proposal like yours could be implemented, but the benefits are so obvious and the alternatives so disastrous, that in the end rationality must prevail. The “if’s” would disappear, instead of being obstacles to peace.
But I think that the “if’s” are the core of the problem, not merely conditions that have to be met. What are those “if’s”? Those “if’s” are the attitudes, goals and ambitions of the two main causers of the present situation, Israel and the USA. “If” Israel and the US would change their attitudes, goals and ambitions, a plan like yours would be feasible. But as far as we know, neither Israel, nor the US has the slightest intention of changing it’s ways.
If Israel would be prepared to deal on an equal footing with the subject populations it represses so brutally in the Westbank and Gaza , if it would be prepared to engage in serious negotiations with them about the creation of a real, viable, sovereign, independent Palestinian state in the Westbank and Gaza, without settlement blocks, Jewish settlers, Walls, economic exploitation, military presence, and Israeli interference, the conditions would be met for proposals like the one you presented.
But at the moment there’s no way in which Israel would accept anything like this. The relationship between Israel and the Arabs around it, especially in the Westbank and Gaza, is akin to a colonial one, a relationship with psychological consequenties for everyone involved. Israel has, so to speak, the psychological state of mind that colonial masters have vis-à-vis the subject populations in their spheres of influence, and I doubt that it is capable of changing, without being forced to do so by external factors. The change needed would be of the magnitude of a “shift of paradigm”, a total change of worldview. Such shifts can only be brought about by long episodes of rebellion or war in which the colonial power is defeated, by external pressure, or by a combination of both. In the case of Israel pressure by the USA would have to be the main factor (the world will follow, as it always does).
So a change in the American attitude towards the Middle East is even more important. But at the moment, that seems not likely to happen any time soon. The Democrats seem even more subservient to the Israel lobby than Bush himself, so whether a possible Democratic successor of Bush would be much of an improvement, remains to be seen.
What about Hamas and Hizbullah? In their present form they represent the situation as it is, a situation in which the Israeli attitude is a main factor. For them to change fundamentally, the situation would have to be changed fundamentally first, and that won’t happen as long as the Israeli’s won’t change their attitude. Only if that happens, a new situation can emerge, and groups like Hamas and Hizbullah will undoubtedly adapt, though no one can predict in what way exactly.
Zionists do not want peace. They want disruption and confusion, as the means to perpetuate their drive to expand Israel’s influence and territory.
Zionism in the US is the kiss of death to stability and rationality in US foreign policy. Those in the US that pursue and cheer on the politics of Zionism are political enemies of those Americans who oppose war. The Zionist agenda in the US is the domestic “root cause” of our troubles, its politics gave us 9/11, gave us Iraq, they gave us Lebanon, and will give us untold future misery until it is regarded with the abhorrence it deserves.
All good Americans must learn how to confront and defeat the politics of Zionism here in the US. Only then will we have peace. Until then, we will suffer and pay for the pro-war Zionist politics within our shores, Congress and the Executive.
TimothyL,
Perhaps you can have that tirade printed on a couple of those sandwich boards and wear them in Times Square. I’m sure that you would be doing a great service to the world.
I reluctantly must agree with Timothyl. Zionism and their fellow travelers, Zionist Christians, and the military industrial complex, want and promote war. Christian Zionists encourage Jewish aggression and territorial expansion inorder to create the conditions for a wider war. The boggie man of “islamofascism” is raised as a threat and as the excuse for aggression and militarism. Meanwhile, the aggression, and basic injustice, causes the Islamic militancy they so fear and the cycle continues. In the US the Jewish Lobby basically controlls the government and demands that the US support Israeli aggression with money and weapons. Unfortunately, any US poltician who opposes the Jewish Lobby is faced with unfavorable media and an opponent, recruited and funded by the Jewish Lobby, in their next campaign. Zionism is truly the third rail of American politics. Until we touch it and change our policies towards Israel, we will continue to be at war.
JES, if you need someplace to live I can clear some space out in my garage. I don’t think Jews are allowed on Timothy L and Sylvia’s compound, otherwise I’m sure they’d make the same offer.
Silvia and Timothy, thanks for sharing. Peace. And congratulations to Helena on her new book!
Good stuff, Helena.
Red letter day today. Because Jennifer Lowenstein’s also got a seminal piece up at http://www.counterpunch.org.
The Quaker-Jewish one-two punch – you gotta love it.
Timothy wrote :
“Zionists do not want peace. They want disruption and confusion, as the means to perpetuate their drive to expand Israel’s influence and territory.”
I’m uncomfortable with what you wrote. I don’t think that the Jews neither Sionism is the cause of all the US/neocons aggressive and bullying behavior. You are forgetting the oil. And it’s somewhat easy to put all the fault on a single group. You are forgetting US/neocons’ thirst of power. They want to rule over the entire world and exploit it to their liking. Right now they are allied with the Israeli, because it suits their geostrategic goals in ME and because hawks go with hawks, the Israelians uses the US but the US uses the Israelians as well. I’m not sure that the US isn’t encouraging the hawkish attitude of the Israelians right now, because it suits their immediate goals, aka going after Iran and Syria.
But the way you put things smells of underlying racism, the Jewish plot isn’t far away. Don’t confuse the needed criticism of the hawkish and criminal decisions of the Israelian government toward Lebanon and Palestine with the stigmatizing of a whole group.
Brilliant. Lump all grievances of every Arab in the Middle East and solve it in a synchronized way. Maybe throw in the Moahammed cartoon grievance, the Iranian clash with the West, and whatever is prompting British born Pakistanis to blow up Londoners in subways and now in airplanes.
Whatever prompts you to think that maximalists, radicals, and intransigents like the Ahmadinejads, Nasrallahs, or Dominics of the world would suddenly switch to knitting or some other hobby has to be a mix of naivete, ignorance, and malice in equal parts.
My 2cents.
Christiane,
Well done Christiane, I am totally in agreement with your views.
Thanks for your very brief enlightenments
Is TimothyL Mel Gibson’s username?
JES: There is hope to improve the world. I encourage all to read and study the warring and violent tenets of Zionist politics. American voters are past all the “anti-Semitism” BS and are coming to grips with the fact that opposing war means opposing Zionist politics as such. AIPAC and other “Israeli lobby” organizations should be, and will rightly be, regarded as “Typhoid Marys” to healthy and peaceful US politics which serves the interests of all good Americans.
For historical proof of Zionism’s venemous character, read: http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=510
“Well done Christiane, I am totally in agreement with your views.”
I’ll second that. Fomenting hatred of the “other” is the tool of real fascism. We all need to remember that.
By the way, for those of you who may not be closely following US politics, Joe Lieberman’s defeat by a political neophyte (that’s neophyte, not neocon) in the Connecticut Democratic primary was a HUGE event. The winds are changing . . .
TymothyL,
Reality is forcing people to chose sides. Actually terrorism a la Madrid, Bali, and London is meant to force people to chose sides. No more hiding behind neutrality. The usual Euro-cowards have caved in just like they caved in to the Nazis with the pretext of saving Paris. The Spaniards have also bent over after 3/11. So far Britain is showing their tardemarked stoicism and standing up to the escalating terrorism they are being subjected to. Today I am proud of them. But if the US caves in it is time to turn off the lights. I see no evidence of that. American moslems are complaining about the backlash, not about American sympathy. Eight Egyptians on student visas just came through JFK and didn’t show up at their colleges. The FBI published their names and pictures right away. If you read that US behavior as sympathy and support for your cause you are a lunatic.
“Reality is forcing people to chose sides.”
No Davis, fanatics are trying to force people to choose sides. We should refuse. The old WWII appeasement argument is wearing really thin. Of all people, the Jews should be the least taken in by any comparison of Nazi Germany with stateless Islamic terrorists.
“The winds are changing . . .”
I would not get out the pompoms too fast, John.
“I would not get out the pompoms too fast, John.”
Why the hell not?
RAH RAH RAH!!!
the pompoms may indeed be premature…yes, Lamont, the wealthy left wing candidate, got 52% of the vote in the Democratic primary in Connecticut…Howard Dean also did fairly well in Democratic primaries…let’s see how Lamont fares with voters across the board in the 3-way general election in November.
Yes Timothy, I have read that great scholar and luminary (not to mention professional photographer) Kurt Nimmo. The end is truly near!
Then again, I see that “The Lobby” picked of Cynthia McKinney again. Or was that simply Cynthia McKinney who got Cynthia McKinney turned out by her own constituents?
Why not, John? Because it is waaaay to early to start celebrating. After all, Lieberman could still win as an “Independent Democrat” whatever the hell that is.Bear in mind that the Bush administration started cozying up to him, within minutes of his defeat.
John C, you are right. For example people like the colleges students just arrested in Ohio. I am sure these mofos were frame by AIPAC, right?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-terror-charges-ohio,1,6049288.story
Authorities stopped Osama Sabhi Abulhassan, 20, and Ali Houssaiky, 20, both of Dearborn, Mich., on a traffic violation Tuesday in Ohio. Authorities said they found airplane passenger lists and information on airport security checkpoints, along with $11,000 cash and 12 phones, in their car.
Abulhassan and Houssaiky admitted buying about 600 phones in recent months at stores in southeast Ohio and selling them to someone in Dearborn, the heart of southeastern Michigan’s large Arab community.
Each defendant was charged Wednesday with money laundering in support of terrorism. On Thursday, prosecutors added soliciting or providing support for acts of terrorism. The two also were charged with a misdemeanor count of falsification.
Christiane wrote:
Right now they are allied with the Israeli, because it suits their geostrategic goals in ME and because hawks go with hawks, the Israelians uses the US but the US uses the Israelians as well.
I think there’s more to it than this. Uri Avnery has written a great piece about it:
Who’s the dog? Who’s the tail?
Davis wrote :
The usual Euro-cowards have caved in just like they caved in to the Nazis with the pretext of saving Paris.
For once I’m in agreement with you : yes, just right like at the time of the Anschluss, the EU is caving in front of an imperial superpower harming the right of nations. They are caving in front of the invasion and destruction of Lebanon by the Israeli. They are caving in front of the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the US. I’m ashamed by the French participation in the first resolution proposing an unbalanced ceasefire for Lebanon. I’m ashamed by the German apparent support. We should stand up against Israel and US aggressive remodelling of the ME. We should denounce that injustice. We should ask an immediate ceasefire, an immediate withdrawal of Israel and the paying of compensations to Lebanon.
I think, (or at least like to hope), there is enough goodwill and earnest debate in this forum to say we are safely past having to respond to every odd bit of ad hominem invective or warmongery.
Now the question at hand. The UN is only as good as its most powerful member states. For either a basic or broader solution to be achievable, they have to all agree on it. Helena put forward reasons that Lebanon Palestine and Israel, and maybe Syria could benefit from a wider solution. We know they are not the only parties with interests and plans in the area. Maybe the US government would like to withdraw their involvement, but I see no obvious signs, are there some? Iran likewise doesn’t seem discouraged from it’s own path. The EU is disunited, Russia too weak and somewhat detached, China and India have their own long term plans. However, if the key parties can be pushed to genuinely participate in a peace conference, then new diplomatic opportunities must be possible from such a sea-change in approach. Enough to stop the killing for a while.
John C.,
This may intersting you…
Lieberman blames Rove-like tactics for Web site disruption
Helena,
I think your call for peace is a wish it’s hard to become true.
Most the western when they talking about peace between Israel and Arab they think it can achieved by pressing upon Arab, this due to they are taken by their guilt towards the Jews.
Why each time some countries like US and others involved in peace process in ME between Arab and Israel they achieved good steppes and on a sudden fails apart, back to the same point and again and again.
I think the point that missing here from most of the minds of those who talking about peace is the support for Israel from US and others EU and UK gave Israel the safe grads to do what to do in ME, each time those countries who lead the process they try to build peace on pushing the Arab to the corner to accepting the deals in favour of Israelis this gives Israel the lead to condition the process.
They forgot that Arab nation it’s boiling inside and most of Arabs feel they humiliated first by their regimes and secondly by the sponsors of peace project like US or EU.
The reality here if we need to build a peace in ME we need first to be honest , balanced and committed to the goals and the process that we supervised, this means any side breaking these process or the deals should be punished or at lest threaten in such way to bring him back on track.
What we saw last 50 years that the west, never tried for once whatsoever to do this with Israel, this gave the Israelis the cover-up and passport to do what they like to do in the region. The only case remind us of the west/US took action against Israeli was in 1956 war. In all the cases we never see any rail balanced sponsor for the peace in ME.
The war in Lebanon very obvious example of the support for Israel in this war, there are war crimes, breaking international laws, but there is a silence from the west about her, in regards to other side we seeing US/west accusing most the regimes and the Arab nations for many things far less what Israelis committing.
Even the peace agreements that Helena mentioned of Egypt and Jordan and Israel the fact is these peace process done by bribes, both countries they have financial aid from US both government they have internal problems to put pressure on their people to shut up and they humiliating them, in addition both regimes are corrupted most of the US aid misused. If this aid cuts today those regimes will be in big trouble.
So in fact these two examples not really soled peace deals if any one of these regimes one day changed.
To build a peace in ME we need first to involve the Arab nation first and convincing them this peace process will bring them all the benefits and inspirations to their life and their country and the region, by doing peaces with regimes knowing these regimes are corrupted and humiliating their people this can’t be achievable or lasting, if we do it right from the start then it will be last forever.
Hey Christiane,
You think Lebanon is disproportionate? How is 17 moslems blowing up 10 jumbo jets? 17 bringing down about 3000 people?
Here are their names, very similar to the ones in the Paris riots. You created this monster by caving in. Will you ever stand up?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4782343.stm
Last Updated: Friday, 11 August 2006, 04:04 GMT 05:04 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
‘Air plot’ suspects: Names released
The assets of 19 people held on suspicion of plotting to blow up passenger planes have been frozen.
Map: UK terror raid locations
Neighbours shock at raids
Their details appeared on the Bank of England’s website as:
ALI, Abdula, Ahmed
Date of birth (DOB): 10/10/1980
Address: Walthamstow, London, E17
ALI, Cossor
DOB: 04/12/1982
Address: Walthamstow, London, E17
ALI, Shazad, Khuram
DOB: 11/06/1979
Address: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire
HUSSAIN, Nabeel
DOB: 10/03/1984
Address: London, E4
HUSSAIN, Tanvir
DOB: 21/02/1981
Address: Leyton, London, E10
HUSSAIN, Umair
DOB: 09/10/1981
Address: London, E14
ISLAM, Umar
DOB: 23/04/1978
Address: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire
KAYANI, Waseem
DOB: 28/04/1977
Address: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire
KHAN, Assan, Abdullah
DOB: 24/10/1984
Address: London, E17
KHAN, Waheed, Arafat
DOB: 18/05/1981
Address: London, E17
KHATIB, Osman, Adam
DOB: 07/12/1986
Address: London, E17
PATEL, Abdul, Muneem
DOB: 17/04/1989
Address: London, E5
RAUF, Tayib
DOB: 26/04/1984
Address: Birmingham
SADDIQUE, Muhammed, Usman
DOB: 23/04/1982
Address: Walthamstow, London, E17
SARWAR, Assad
DOB: 24/05/1980
Address: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire
SAVANT, Ibrahim
DOB: 19/12/1980
Address: London, E17
TARIQ, Amin, Asmin
DOB: 07/06/1983
Address: Walthamstow, London, E17
UDDIN, Shamin, Mohammed
DOB: 22/11/1970
Address: Stoke Newington, London
ZAMAN, Waheed
DOB: 27/05/1984
Address: London, E17
This monster was not created by caving. It was very useful for the USA For the fight against the Russians in Afganistan. Do you remember that( Rep Charlie Wilson from Texas idea) Now we are swallowing the same medicine and we do not like it. And to know the odds of Israel defeating Hezbollah and the USA to defeat the insurgency in Iraq Answer me this question. How many times A foreign power has defeated a local insurgency? When you know the answer that your argument of caving in is wrong one.
I’m not the only one to think that Israel reaction to the capture of two soldiers by Hezbollah was completely disproportionate.
Our foreign minister declared so in front of the new Human Rights Commission of the UN; we said that because we are the repository of the Geneva Conventions. And don’t be fooled by the words : a disproportionated reactions is a war crime when it targets civilians. Louise Harbour the president of the commissions said that these war crimes should be prosecuted.
This reaction is also shared by Jews living here in the EU. For instance 177 Jewish professionals living in France have signed an appeal denouncing the disproportionate reactions of Israel. Among them are many physicians, including one who is an active member of “Doctor without border”.
You’ll find more concerning this appeal which condemn the Israeli government there in Le Monde
To Beirut if necessary
By Gidi Weitz
Hector mi amigo, the monster we were talking about are British Pakistanis. They are the product of Britain screwing up its colonies and ending up with the people at home. They are the product of the local mosque and the pakistani madrassas. Likewise in France. Different colonies same mosque.
Are these a local insurgency to London and Paris? Nah.
Christiane,
That is a nice gig, now the Swiss politicans are the supreme judges of world affairs. But you haven’t still responded on how proportional was 17 British Muslims attempted murder of 3000 civilians. Don’t your corrupt politicians have an opinion on that? Or are they still castrated by neutrality, petro dollars, and banking interest?
“How proportional was the 17 British Muslims attempted murder of 3000 civilians?”
If they were even half successful, they would have murdered more nonbelievers in one day than were suicide bombed in the two Bali attacks on the backpackers, the massacre of the Beslan schoolchildren and the slaughter of the Madrid/London commuters put together.
Sam you must be even more aghast at ACTUAL murder that is disproportionate, but you didn’t mention it even though this topic is a ME peace plan. You avoid responding to Christian by foisting an implausibly weak simile, which even if accepted would not exculpate an excesses in the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
A terrorist plot has just been foiled (as they only can be) by good security and police work. Yes the plotters weren’t insurgents, and they werent stopped by us invading the wrong country and destroying innocent and uninvolved cities and civilians in war crimes to make them hate us.
I see posts above wildly associating this Lebanon/ ME topic with things such as a page long list the names of British born ethnic pakistani terrorist suspects. No relevance is explained or evident, unless one presumes readers either have or will develop an “us or them” mindset just by reading it. I’m happy to wait and see on that score, I think it’s very unlikely.
Today I see the Dems being called “Taliban” by right wing media with suuport from Cheney. That’s quite a name from tweedledum for tweedledee. The timid, conservative AIPAC financed Democratic party is now to officialy be labled an enemy colaborator in a time of war? Is such vastly overblown labeling and intolerance the democratic freedom we are fighting for? Or is it the facism we once fought against?
I don’t think its sensible to tack onto the end of such a selective proposition that Switzerland has been “castrated”, it doesnt seem to be more than an ad-hominem and chauvanist extension, so please elaborate if you really feel there is an issue.
Anyway here is something relevant!!!!
As for Lebanon, after the dust settles Nasrallah can explain to the Lebanese people, particularly his Shiite followers, what exactly he hoped to accomplish when he attacked Israel.
Joshua, have you any comment on this?
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm
Truesdell wrote:
As for Lebanon, after the dust settles Nasrallah can explain to the Lebanese people, particularly his Shiite followers, what exactly he hoped to accomplish when he attacked Israel.
As for Israel, after the dust settles Olmert can explain to the Israeli people, what exactly he hoped to accomplish when he pulverized Lebanon to force Hezbollah to send two captured soldiers back.
As for Lebanon, after the dust settles Nasrallah can explain to the Lebanese people, particularly his Shiite followers, what exactly he hoped to accomplish when he attacked Israel.
When the Israelis invaded Lebanon in 1982, the PLO had nothing recently enough to give them a pretext, on the Lebanon border or anywhere else. They cited an attempted assassination in London which they blamed on the PLO, although they knew it had committed by a Palestinian splinter group that was a bitter rival of the PLO. (Abba Eban, Personal Witness: Israel Through My Eyes, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1992, pp. 605-606; Martin Gilbert, Israel: A History, William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1998, p.503)
If the Israelis wanted to bomb Lebanon, they would bomb Lebanon no matter what Hezbollah did or didn’t do.
Sorry be out of topic, but I just heard this from Iraq Najaf two main news
1- Amar al-Hakim, Abdul-Aziz’s son, Iraqis saying his behaviour now far worst than Ugday, Saddam’s Son!!!!
2- Ibrahim Jafari former PM and Da’awa Party member, split from the Da’awa Party and he creating now new political party…
David T, I did previously comment on the Beiruit initiative. I see it as a step forward. In the meantime, all Arab nations without territorial disputes should acknowledge Israel’s right to exist in peace. That can be done by the normalization of relations between the countries, which they have failed to a do for a remarkable 21,274 days since Israel declared its independence from colonial rule!
The question of the proportionality of Israel’s response to the Hezbollah attack is quite separate from the question of how Nasrallah was serving the interests of the Lebanese people when he decided to attack Israel 6 years after it withdrew from its buffer zone in South Lebanon.
The terrorist wave is, by all objective measures and by explicit claims of the perpetrators causally realted to the foreign policy of the target countries. If Roland doesn’t see that connection with the Lebanon and Iraq we can dwell on that point until he gets it.
I think the thread was fair as it asked Christiane why she demands proportionality just from the West in its fight. She is still hiding under the illusion of Swiss moral superiority. Has her Red Cross visited the Israeli abductees? Nope, they are getting the finger from Lebanon, and not a peep from Geneva or Christiane.
“Foreign policies” offer a threadbare explanation for the “terror wave” that has engulfed the entire planet…for example, last month Bombay trains were bombed killing 207 people, there have been two suicide bombing attacks in Bali, hundreds of Russian schoolchildren were murdered in Beslan, Shiite pilgrims and shrines have been attacked in Najaf pursuant to Takfiri doctrine…not to mention the assasinated Dutch filmmaker, the death fatwa issued against a British writer, the threats made against a Danish cartoonist, etc.
“When the Israelis invaded Lebanon in 1982, the PLO had nothing recently enough to give them a pretext, on the Lebanon border or anywhere else.”
The situation had been quiet for one year, in fact. The Israelis made up an excuse – but then that has been their modus operandi since the beginning. They try to provoke a reaction that will give them an excuse to do what they want, and failing that they will make something up.
“If the Israelis wanted to bomb Lebanon, they would bomb Lebanon no matter what Hezbollah did or didn’t do.”
Yup! It has been clear all along what Israel needs to do to be able to live in peace with its neighbors, yet time and again they choose to kill and destroy and take more. The Israelis appear to be addicted to violence. It is for all the world as if they are afraid of peace.
Shirin,
I won’t put all the Israeli together. At the time of the Oslo accords they were working toward a more peacefull approach. However Sharon and Bush support to Sharon definitely harmed the chances of peacefull coexistence. We see so much hate that it will difficult to recover from this dead end.
Helena: I’m with Dominic. Have you been brainwashed? Israel has put itself beyond the fringe of civilized behavior by making quarter of the Lebanese population refugees and destroying the infrastructure of a neighboring country in apparent response to a minor border incident.
A country which allows its leaders to act this way deserves at best international shunning. The world ought to be boycotting. Note: I think the U.S. equally guilty of similar offenses in Iraq — we deserve to be international pariahs.
Until our rogue states show some concrete capacity to observe international norms, we can’t really expect our enemies to make peace with us. To us, that will look like “terrorism” — the warfare of the weak.
Christiane,
With great respect, I cannot agree with you, at least not completely. No doubt there are Israelis who want peace and recognize and are willing to do what is necessary to achieve it, they appear to be a shrinking minority, and have no voice at all anymore. There are certainly multiple reasons for this, including the manner in which their governments use propaganda, deception, and the promulgation of fear to gain and keep popular support for their criminal and self-destructive policies and actions (just as the Bush administration has done since Sept 11, 2001).
As for Oslo, what the Israeli government was after there – and what they achieved – was a way to have their cake and eat it too, at great cost to the Palestinians. What they got was a cover of “peacemaking and (of course, “painful”) comprimise under which they actually stepped up the rate of creation of facts on the ground in preparation for the eventual annexation of occupied land. Oslo also gave them leave to use whatever violent and oppressive measures they deemed “necessary” on whatever pretexts they decided to provoke or invent.
So, with Oslo Israel did not give up, even temporarily, its addiction to oppressing, destroying, killing, and taking, it merely disguised them for a while.
By the way, the UNSC resolution passed yesterday is, quite simply, an abomination that gives everything to the aggressor – Israel – and nothing to the victims. Even the wording is disgusting in its refusal to acknowledge reality. It should have been rejected out of hand. And incidentally so far it has apparently not stopped Israel’s violent, destructive, and deadly activities even a little bit, nor is it likely to until Israel and the Bush administration are sated with blood.
Regarding this:
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=510
I don’t buy that Jabotinsky was a ‘fascist’. It may be that he at one time thought Italy should replace Britain as the Mandatory for Palestine, because he thought Mussolini would be ‘tougher’ on the Arabs. If that is all that can brought forth to show Jabotinsky himself was a fascist, then it hasn’t been shown.
Shirin
And incidentally so far it has apparently not stopped Israel’s violent, destructive, and deadly activities even a little bit, nor is it likely to until Israel and the Bush administration are sated with blood.
I think US administration share same attitude with Israelis of such behaviours, just reminder of the Gulf war in 1991 when ceasefire was accepted by both side and US army Slaughter the Iraqi army unfortunately not Saddam….“The Highway of Death”– The 1991 Gulf War, for some they like to name it as ‘Highway Of Death’ Slaughter .But Bush father he knew”Why We Didn’t Remove Saddam.
Recently Peter Galbraith fears the United States may have lost the war on the very day it took Baghdad. And he added that “The American servicemen and women who took Baghdad were professionals–disciplined, courteous, and task-oriented,”
Yes they are “professionals–disciplined, courteous, and task-oriented” as we saw in 1991 and the disastrous occupation of Iraq very very “were professionals–disciplined, courteous, and task-oriented”
Back to Israel – Lebanon war, a week ago Prime Minister Ehud Olmertapologised for the attack and he said:
about whom he talking by these words? Did he knew what he talking about? who are the murderous killing civilians, and who should be “clear them out from the boarders”?
A bitter harvest
“27 July 2006 LIKE the devil quoting the scriptures,”
For example people like the college students just arrested in Ohio. I am sure these mofos were frame by AIPAC, right?
Leaving aside the AIPAC snark, there have been a number of people publicly accused by the U.S. government of terrorist plots for which they ultimately were not even charged much less convicted.
I think it is early to speculate about people being ‘framed’ when they haven’t even been convicted.
You think Lebanon is disproportionate? How is 17 moslems blowing up 10 jumbo jets? 17 bringing down about 3000 people?
It depends on what they meant to retaliate for.
If they were retaliating for all the Muslims killed by American military action since 9/11, then it would fall far short of being proportionate.
I see posts above wildly associating this Lebanon/ ME topic with things such as a page long list the names of British born ethnic pakistani terrorist suspects.
This is a good point.
Hezbollah has not signed up for the global jihad. It may have traded information or otherwise co-operated with Al Qaeda or similar groups as is sometimes claimed, but it is not allied with them. Hezbollah is dedicated to combatting foreign influence in Lebanon.
It is too rarely mentioned that Al Qaeda and Iran were on opposite sides of the Afghan civil war, as Iran supported the Northern Alliance.
Has her Red Cross visited the Israeli abductees? Nope, they are getting the finger from Lebanon, and not a peep from Geneva . . .
People often throw out these negative statements without evidence.
Shortly after the first Israeli soldier was taken by Palestinians, a blogger declared that the Red Cross had not even asked to see him. I googled and quickly found two press reports that quoted the Gaza office of the Red Cross saying that they had asked to see him.
Is there any evidence for ‘not a peep from Geneva’? Is there someone who monitors Geneva peeps, who can certify that the peep-count is zero?
No doubt there are Israelis who want peace and recognize and are willing to do what is necessary to achieve it, they appear to be a shrinking minority, and have no voice at all anymore.
Sadly, I must agree.
Arafat had many good reasons for turning down Barak’s ‘generous offer’, the first being that there is no justification for Israel to demand the cession of any more territory, even if it’s ‘only’ a few per cent. If Canada or Mexico were to suddenly ask for the cession of two or three or five per cent of the United States, I would expect my compatriots to respond with minimal enthusiasm.
It seems most of Israel’s so-called ‘peace movement’ was eager to swallow every word of Barak’s and Clinton’s interpretations of the break-down. What kind of ‘peace movement’ takes the claims of politicians at face value?
Those events revealed the disappointing truth, that the Israeli side lacks for influential voices serious about peace.
Here is my bottom line on Helena’s column. I am sorry to say it is a harsh one.
The points that I and others have made add up to this: that the ‘peace process’ has always been a charade. The charade must me exposed before there can be a real peace process. I fear that columns like Helena’s contribute to perpetuating the charade rather than exposing it.
I asked the question above as to what Nasrallah hoped to accomplish when he attacked Israel.
Here is how Beirut storeowner Jamal Ghosn answered the question (lead story in the Sunday New York Times):
“Hezbollah’s stature has grown. But the biggest losers are the people.”
Jabotinsky, in many ways a classic 19th-century European liberal, spent time in late19th/early 20th century Italy and imbibed an atmosphere of what he considered an ideal, inclusive, liberal Italian nationalism. It is entirely possible that he gave Italian fascism the benefit of far too much doubt, as the lack of an explicitly anti-Semitic element in the fasci’s early program would have rendered it more palatable. Eran Kaplan’s “Between East and West: Zionist Revisionism as a Mediterranean Ideology” in Kalmar & Penslar’s _Orientalism and the Jews_ analyzes the affinities between Beitar and fascist Italy in the late 30s in a manner that pulls no punches.
It certainly does not minimize Jabotinsky’s and Ahimeir’s role, or the ardor the Beitaris felt for the “atmosphere” of militancy and nationalism. However, the Civitavecchia cadets probably left fewer cultural traces in Israel than the Special Night Squads, and no one is arguing that Wingate and the SNS experience left Israel as an incipient bastion of British wartime romantic militarism on the Wingate/Lawrence/Glubb model. One could make a better case for it, of course, but Israel = Nazi is the equation that gets the modern European cultural critic’s pulse racing…
Jabotinsky, in many ways a classic 19th-century European liberal, spent time in late19th/early 20th century Italy and imbibed an atmosphere of what he considered an ideal, inclusive, liberal Italian nationalism. It is entirely possible that he gave Italian fascism the benefit of far too much doubt, as the lack of an explicitly anti-Semitic element in the fasci’s early program would have rendered it more palatable. Eran Kaplan’s “Between East and West: Zionist Revisionism as a Mediterranean Ideology” in Kalmar & Penslar’s _Orientalism and the Jews_ analyzes the affinities between Beitar and fascist Italy in the late 30s in a manner that pulls no punches.
It certainly does not minimize Jabotinsky’s and Ahimeir’s role, or the ardor the Beitaris felt for the “atmosphere” of militancy and nationalism. However, the Civitavecchia cadets probably left fewer cultural traces in Israel than the Special Night Squads, and no one is arguing that Wingate and the SNS experience left Israel as an incipient bastion of British wartime romantic militarism on the Wingate/Lawrence/Glubb model. One could make a better case for it, of course, but Israel = Nazi is the equation that gets the modern European cultural critic’s pulse racing…