No.

Please understand that I’m playing the devil’s advocate and visualize a scenario, perhaps not so farfetched.

Supposing, all of sudden Hezbollah, Hamas, Taliban, and al-Qaede successfully invaded the United States and they excluded the political leaders of the United States at the United Nations discussing the partitions of the United States into Iraq, Palestine, Afghan, and Syria Mandates. Northeast of the U.S. goes to Hezbollah of Iran, Northwest goes to Hamas of Palestine, Southwest goes to Taliban of Afghan and Southeast goes to al-Qaede of Syria. Each mandate builds miles and miles of thick walls along the partitioned boundaries.

It had happened, do not be defensive, how would YOU deal with it? Considering the fact that you might be separated from the members of your families in other areas of the U.S. The crops in the Midwest and Southwest are ruined. Over the years the partitioned areas deteriorate so severely that they resemble refugee camps and ghettos. Either you submit your soul, mind, and body to the Mandate or suffer the consequences. This, I mean you have to learn Arabic since it becomes the official language of the United States, no more freedom of speech, freedom to worship, et cetera and you have to convert to Islam. What would you do?

This was what happened when a country was being partitioned. It happened in India, Africa, Middle East, Indo-China, Russia and South America. These countries were highly civilized, in many ways they were far advanced than Europe ever was. Only when the empires like England and France partitioned these countries, they spiraled down and became the “Third World.” See?

So, it is truly constitutive to find a solution that satisfies the majority who are living in the Middle East regions. Peaceful solution is imperative because violence (war) begets violence.

For most people in other parts of the world have a great difficulty to grasp the conception of separation between religion and government. Israelis do not separate the government from their religion, Hebrew; and Arabs govern as according to Koran. That’s the reality we cannot possibly ignore.

So, how do we find a peaceful solution for the majority who live in the Middle East regions? I am not sure.

I asked you a question since I cannot read your mind on what, if any, you are implying (or not) about what you’ve wrote.

My question to you, again, are you suggesting that Israel or the UN have a “re-vote” albeit 60 years later that Israel be forced to give back the land that was given to them back over to the Arabs?

See, The government of Israelis has been practicing the mentality of Mandate, putting up the barriers all around the perimeter of Palestine. As a matter of fact, like anywhere else, these very barriers are choking Palestine.

Naturally, these barriers are enraging Palestine and Arabs. I’m sure if we were experiencing the same thing here in the United States, doubtless some of us would become terrorists fighting for our rights and freedom. That’s human’s nature. Why, our forefathers were terrorists.

As we’re speaking, the government of Israelis is fighting against Hezbollah of Iran in Lebanon and Hamas of Palestine. As long as the United States is helping Israel, we continue to fight against all four, Hezbollah, Hamas, Taliban, and al-Qaede. Iran literally has built its own nuclear power.

As long as the United States is helping Israel, this very action proclaims to the world that the government of the United States supports Israel Mandate against Palestine. From human’s perspective, is mandating reasonable? No! Mandating does nothing but makes the residents very bitter and angry, which led to terrorism.

What if all four groups–Hezbollah, Hamas, Taliban, and al-Qaede–conquer Israel?

It’s not the time to side with anyone. It’s time to work for a peaceful solution! It’s better to salvage what government Israel has than to loose it all, isn’t it?

Can Palestine, Arabs and Jews go back to the pre-partition mentality of 60 years ago? I don’t know.

I already told you that I’m not sure how we could find a peaceful solution that would satisfy the majority living in the Middle East regions.

very well explained. i also took some courses on mid-east history — talk about complicated! but you laid it out quite well.

one must also not forget that occupation leads to resistance.

wanted to add to this discussion this article: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/738739.html — its by an israeli journalist and discusses the concept of proportionality - or rather the lack of it in this case.

Uh, those four Islamic groups don’t care about the land. See? When they got their Gaza strip back, what did they do? Turned into a wasteland and made it a weapon cache repository to use against Israeli citizens.

The thing is, you don’t see Israel wanting to expand their land. They like what they have and what was given to them by the UN in 1947. Give back Lebanon. They get bombed. Give back Gaza. They get bombed. Give back the Sinai Peninsula. They get bombed. And, oh, now you want and are trying to force Israel to give up the Golan Heights. And guess what the terrorists response will be if Israel do that? Yep. Bomb Israel since they’d be a lot closer to major cities. It is ironic that Israel is the only non-muslim country surrounded on all sides of their borders with Muslim countries who have tried, repeatedly, take over Israel. I suppose negotiating with Islamic terrorists is acceptable practice, then?

You say Israel does not want to expand their land. What about the land grabbing due to the building of the wall and the expansion of settlements?

Mcconnell and Raswant… not to dilverge the subject, but I happened to notice the word “terrorist” is mentioned. I have read several definitions of “terrorists”, so I am not sure what do you mean by “terrorist”?

Can you elaborate what do you mean by “terrorists”?

Thanks

Okayyyyyyyy. What’s the purpose of the wall? To stop those idiot suicide bombers from coming over. It’s not a land grab per se. And ever since the wall went up, countless lives were saved…on both sides. This isn’t the Berlin wall now but many of you are trying to make it like that. Palestinians are welcomed to come ago if they have legitimate business to do in Israel at key entry points.

Please look at the illustrations before you go any further with these arguments of yours.

You ARE for saving lives, no?
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrar.....fence.html - read the stats. The link also talk about the “land grabbing” as you so eloquently put it. Don’t let your Jewish phobia prevent you from reading the link.

“Before the construction of the fence, and in many places where it has not yet been completed, a terrorist need only walk across an invisible line to cross from the West Bank into Israel. No barriers of any kind exist, so it is easy to see how a barrier, no matter how imperfect, won’t at least make the terrorists’ job more difficult. Approximately 75 percent ofthe suicide bombers who attacked targets inside Israel came from across the border where the first phase of the fence was built.

During the 34 months from the beginning of the violence in September 2000 until the construction of the first continuous segment of the security fence at the end of July 2003, Samaria-based terrorists carried out 73 attacks in which 293 Israelis were killed and 1950 wounded. In the 11 months between the erection of the first segment at the beginning of August 2003 and the end of June 2004, only three attacks were successful, and all three occurred in the first half of 2003.

Since construction of the fence began, the number of attacks has declined by more than 90%. The number of Israelis murdered and wounded has decreased by more than 70% and 85%, respectively, after erection of the fence.”

How do you define terrorism? According to the CIA:

The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

—The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.

—The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

Terrorist: One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. They strap bombs on themselves, and try and get onto buses, or go into restaurants or shopping centers, trying to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible.

Squiggy, they kill Arabs, too. You need to remember that many of these terrorists are equal opportunity killers just to fullfill their political and religious agenda. Many Arabs or Muslims do not like what the terrorists are doing. You can see the responses in http://Iraqthemodel.blogspot.com

we get most of our oil from Mexico and Canada. Why are we paying Arab (OPEC) oil prices?

Missed this one.

It’s a myth that OPEC sets oil prices. It is the market that sets the oil prices…not OPEC. OPEC has some limiting influences on oil prices but they do not, per se, set oil prices for the world. What they can do is either to increase or decrease oil production which influences the world’s oil supply and demand market. It’s the oil market that influences prices called “oil futures.” Which is why oil prices go up whenever there is a war going on in the Middle East.

” ‘Opec is not responsible for the rise in prices and is not able to lower’ this upward trend, said Abdulwahab Abu Dahesh, who heads investment research at the Riyadh Bank in Saudi Arabia.

‘According to expectations, Opec and non-Opec producer countries will need many years to increase their production capacity to a level which can reassure the market,’ said Abu Dahesh.”
http://www.energybulletin.net/2288.html

Canada has a population of 30 million while the U.S. has 300 million. So, the US requires more resources.

The instability that worries the US is because it causes more problems in Europe than in the United States. They pay $6 a gallon while US pays around $3.20 a gallon.

It is false to say that we are more dependent on Persian Gulf countries for their oil. It is the other way around. Why? We have the multitude of resources to fall back on. Plus, we have enough oil on the U.S.for our own to sustain us while we improve better alternative energies and better products that uses energy efficiently.

“the instability that worries the US is because it causes moe problems in Europe than in the United States”… can you paraphrase or elaborate what do you mean by that because it sounds vague. Are you suggesting that we are worried about the instability in the region because our “allies” rely on them nearly twice more? I think I know where this is leading to… but do elaborate what do you mean…

“it is false to say that…” that is another subject I would like to respond… You are rigth, we are improving “better alternatives energies”… but for how long?

Currently, we are losing competition edge in technology and the likes because majority of scientific investors are foreign born legal immigrants on H-1B (”work visa”) status. Those immigrants have been responsible for many advance technologies in this country, however, many of them are driven out of the country because the Government quota on how many H-1B are given annually (i believe the quota lies in percentage of 7). The Senate recently passed a resolution that would extend the number of quota, but it is still a problem. Basically, there is no secret that it takes figuratively forever for even brilliant and smartest foreign born scientific investors to become US citizen (which many of them wanted to stay). Additionally, those H1-B must employed at federal-sponsored workplace (usually at University labs). So, private companies are out of luck with them. Lastly, many countries are starting to catch up with our graduate-level and doctorate-level programs, which meaning we could lose those foreign-born scientific investors. Hence, we will lose our “advanced technology country” status as we enjoyed if we continue at this trend.

So, the “alternative energies” might end up pricey or whatsoever.. one way or other, we will still be depending on Persian Gulf oil.

And what did Reagan say about the Berlin wall?

The wall in Israel is no Berlin wall. Sorry. It prevents or makes really hard for terrorists to walk across the border unimpedded with a bomb strapped to their vest. Palestinians and Israelis are free to come and go at key entry points along the wall. The Berlin wall KEPT PEOPLE INSIDE and from freely moving about to west Germany.

The wall has already saved countless lives….on both sides. Let me put down this link the second time. Don’t let your Jewish phobia stop you from reading this.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrar.....fence.html

Since you’re delusional and “right” all the time, I couldn’t tell. But thank you for posting a sarcastic comment (not even funny or clever) in response to an article that was well conceived and raised valid points in regards to modern warfare tactics.
Save the Karl Rove reference, I retract my comment (10789).
I will simply ignore all of your garbage, err, comments and pray that you stop spending time on your PC and concentrate, with all of your time and might, on flipping ******* tires.

**** me. I realized that I would actually miss McConnell if he no longer commented about. He adds a certain flavor to these discussions.
I apologize for the friggin tire flipping statement, but I do wish you success in tire flipping contests though.

Thanks.

In terrorists’ thinking, they are “patriots” of their homeland, as our forefathers were.

Not quite but you are still avoiding my question.

McConnell, I don’t think so. I think what Noelle and Patricia are trying to say is that it’s subjective. In other words, it’s a matter of PERCEPTION. Some Islamic terrorists may think they are better than our forefathers and less of terrorists. Some Americans may excuse our forefathers’ actions, and not those of some Islamic terrorists. Some people have many other opinions to choose from. So there is no way to really answer that question that is objective.

Again, for the 2nd time, my post was a sarcastic one about Dershowitz. For you to respond assuming I was critical and against Dershowitz’s article shows just how much you haven’t read my earlier posts leading up to Dershowitz.

sorry….the above post. Ignore it. It was meant for post #10821

Moi, please. I understand that. The question hasn’t really been answered. Re-read my question carefully.

i hate to take mcconnell’s bait.. as others said it’s a matter of perception but you want specifics. the goals are the same but technology in ‘terrorism’ have since evolved from tarring and feathering into planes or biological weapons.

Again, show me where was the last time that Israeli said “Death to all Muslims.”

Israeli = Israel govt and her people as a whole.

If it was won fairly, why is it known as OCCUPIED land and why are they further building settlements and occupying more land that is not theirs?

Fairly? Choose your words carefully, Swetha. Israel had every right to those land won in a DEFENSIVE war. Israel did not attack the four Arab countries that surrounded Israel in 1967. In 6 days, Israel defeated the four Arab countries when they INVADED Israel in the first place.

It is a disputed territory rather than an “occupied territory” since Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt all lost a part of their territory when they all decided together to invade Israel to wrest Israel of her land. That failed. And in the process of losing the war, they lost a piece of their territory in the process. It doesn’t make any sense on your part of the logic to question whether the war was done fairly. Israel didn’t pre-emptively start the war against 4 Arab countries. It was those 4 Arab countries that started the 1967 invasion.

They lost.

They lost a piece of their land.

And now, you’re saying it wasn’t won fairly???????

If you read my comment carefully, you will notice I DID NOT SAY IT WAS NOT FAIR. I was posing a question where I said if it was fair, why was a resolution passed in UN condemning the occupation of the land. That is what I said.

Ever consider a concept that most of the people in the UN actually hate Jews? Look at the link below when the UN displayed a map of “Palestine” but didn’t include Israel during a November 29, 2005 UN Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.
http://www.eyeontheun.org/view.asp?l=21&p=142

Ask yourself. Why did the UN do that?

Secondly, how can it be an “occupied territory” if Israel won that land in a DEFENSIVE war? I said this a few times that “occupied territory” was a concocted term by the UN. If it’s anything, the territory belongs to Israel by de facto in a war of which Israel won and now holds claim to those lands.

Again, I ask you. Who attacked Israel in 1967 in the attempt to overthrow Israel and her lands?

Thirdly, you said you didn’t say “unfair” in the context you meant otherwise but what can I conclude from your comment when I’ve already explained earlier that Israel acquired those lands by winning in a DEFENSIVE war against 4 Arab countries who invaded Israel in 1967?

the concept of lands gained in a defensive war is really quite ironic. you do realize that?

So long as you call it DISPUTED TERRITORY, and I call it OCCUPIED TERRITORY, me and you will never meet on the same page.

So, are you saying that the 4 Arabs never invaded Israel in 1967 in a pre-emptive fashion with the sole purpose of eradicating Israel once and for all?

So, Israel cannot claim that land won in a defensive war by pushing back the invading Arab armies? At least Israel gave away some of the lands in a land for peace deal. Guess who reneged on the peace part?

I never said that anywhere in the blog or my comments. I will repeat what I said before, as long as you call it disputed territory and I call it Occupied territory, we will never be on the same page. I guess we will have to negotiate at some level, the same thing the ISRAELI GOVT. and the Palestinian govt. should be doing at the moment!

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm

Nuff said.

once again, an enlightening and informative web site, McConnell. I learned a lot. Namely, Israel’s legal right to exist within the boundaries of its country was recognized and established by the UN and other legislative and diplomatic bodies. Thus, to say that Israelis are “occupying” the former territory of Palestine is not correct. The only areas of Israel that might be considered disputed are the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. But those areas were legitimately ceded to Israel after a war, and Israel gave them back as part of a peace process, but as McConnell indicated, the Palestinian Authority reneged on that agreement. The real crux of this article is that fanatical Islamic extremists are using the “occupied lands” argument as a defense against their continued violence and terrorism against Israel. That’s all it is. They are not patriots, they are not heroes fighting for their freedom. They are criminals attempting to win sympathy for their cause by playing the occupation card, hoping the world will overlook the fact that religious extremism lies at the root of their motives.

All the sites and articles you present are pro-Israeli. It’s almost like you don’t see the other side’s argument and believe that Israel can do no harm!

Harm: I meant *WRONG*

Er…Israel gave the land back to Lebanon, Gaza strip and Sinai Peninsula for peace for land swap deal. Guess who reneged on the peace deals?

Explain the encroachment of the wall into the Palestinian territory, the expanding of West Bank settlements?

“Disputed territory.” Israel won that land in a defensive war in 1967 when 4 Arab countries invaded Israel with the sole purpose to wipe Israel off the map.

As for the wall, I explained that earlier in my postings. It was stop the constant suicide bombers simply walking across that line into Israel. Saving the lives of both Israelis and Arabs.

http://www.deafdc.com/blog/swe.....ment-10907

Like I said, you say disputed territory, while the UN and pretty much most of the world says OCCUPIED TERRITORY. I never said don’t put up the wall, but putting up the wall and land grabbing at the same time? That definitely has to stop!

Swetha: just to be clear, Israel won the “disputed” territories as a result of the 1967 war, as McConnell pointed out. This is a fact. As part of the peace process, Gaza Strip and West Bank were turned over to the Palestinians and a plan was in place to make them self-governing. It’s not going well, but Israel is still responsible for the external and internal security of *their* territories. This is from the CIA web page on West Bank.

“The West Bank - the larger of the two areas under the Palestinian Authority (PA)- has experienced a general decline in economic growth and a degradation in economic conditions made worse since the second intifadah began in September 2000. The downturn has been largely the result of the Israeli closure policies - the imposition of border closures in response to security incidents in Israel which disrupted labor and commodity market relationships. In 2001, and even more severely in 2002, Israeli military measures in PA areas resulted in the destruction of much capital plant, the disruption of administrative structure, and widespread business closures. Including the Gaza Strip, the UN estimates that more than 100,000 Palestinians out of the 125,000 who used to work in Israeli settlements, or in joint industrial zones, have lost their jobs. International aid of $2 billion to the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 2004 prevented the complete collapse of the economy and allowed some reforms in the government’s financial operations. In 2005, high unemployment and limited trade opportunities, due to continued closures both within the West Bank and externally, stymied growth.”

As McConnell pointed out, the Israelis did not have to give Gaza Strip or West Bank to the Palestinians. They did so to keep the peace. If the Palestinians can refrain from violence, they could be working and could be self-governing. The Israeli military will come down hard on any violence perpetrated against peaceable, law-abiding citizens, Palestinians and Israelis both. It’s too bad the Palestinians can’t tell who is really trying to help them — the UN, the EU, USA, and their moderate Arab allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Instead, they behave like puppets controlled by Syria and militant Islamic extremists. When are they going to get a clue that the extremists among them are the cause of their own problems?

With all this destruction, one wonders why the economy is in shambles. How can they sustain themselves in this matter? Why are the poor people paying the price? It all boils down to the fact that both sides must meet and broker a peace deal, DRAW BORDERS (which is a MUST) and ABIDE by them!

it’s simple — the Palestinian militants are paying the price for their actions. There is a consequence for sending suicide bombers across the border, and that’s a heavy Israeli response. One plus one equals two. Since the Palestinians aren’t “getting it,” the next step is the wall. Where to put the border of a wall is a non-issue because the land is technically Israel’s. Since the Palestinians broke their agreement, the Israelis can put it anywhere they damn please.

(Apologies for the bold print above, I errred on the code.)

Curious Eyes,

It’s interesting to realize that you’re being subjective and overlooked the Yom Kippur War of 1973 or known as either Ramadan War, October War, or 1973 Arab-Israel War where a coalition of Arab Nations led by Egypt and Syria invaded Sinai and Golan heights and won them back that they lost to Israel in 1967. So, the matter is no longer about the disputed areas.

In 1988 Jordan gave a section of West Bank to Palestine because at that time a majority of Palestine living in that area and the rest of it was vacant. And guess what happened, a sect of orthodox Jews *illegally* settled in these vacant areas; that was why they had to leave.

The government of Israel, in her role as Israel Mandate occupies Palestine, has violated many treaties with Palestine, which naturally led to insurgents.

Certainly, Israel should not be shocked at the effect of their cause, occupation of Palestine territory.

See, after 40 years under occupation, the insurgency of some Palestinians with Arafat started in 1987.

All the problems we are confronting today might never happen had Israel allowed Palestine to have their own government earlier than 1980s.

Patricia, I appreciate the way you educate me. Could you please name the sources of the information above? My recent posts were based on what I gleaned from the CIA web site. Thanks.

Also, I’ve only been talking about Gaza and West Bank. I haven’t read anything (that I know of) about Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula.

The Palestinians have actually had numerous opportunities to create an independent state, but have repeatedly rejected the offers:

*In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state.

*In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of an Arab state alone, but the Arabs rejected the plan.
In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan.

*From 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians.

*The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence.

*The Oslo process that began in 1993 was leading toward the creation of a Palestinian state before the Palestinians violated their commitments and scuttled the agreements.

*In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state, but Yasser Arafat rejected the deal.

McConnell, can you comment on the reasons why the Arabs and Palestinians continued to reject all those offers? Was it because they felt entitled to an ownership of the entire country? Are there other reasons besides religious hatred?

Probably a good bit of both. So many opportunities, yet they keep throwing it away.

Curious Eyes,

Just like we are witnessing Israel and Hizbollah attacking each other, I was in my 20s when the 1973 Arab-Israel occurred. Ever since I was 16 years old, I’ve been following the international politics.

But if you wanna me name a source, I would recommend George W. Gawrych’s _The Albatross of Decisive Victory: War & Policy Between Egypt and Israel in the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israel Wars)_. I have read many books on Arab-Israel conflicts.

By the way, the World Fact Book at the CIA website also show that the population of the West Bank is predominantly Palestinian.

On top part of the screen, click whatever country or location you want to look at:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/profileguide.html

I’m for the Palestinian Authority to remain in Gaza Strip and West Bank and be autonomous. I’m against them sending suicide bombers and committing other acts of terrorism against Israel, and I know you are too. I’m also against neighboring Islamic countries, especially state sponsored terrorism (Iran and Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah), interfering in the attempts of Israel and Palestine to resolve their differences. Their reason for continuing to do so is religious extremism. This I see as the root of the conflict. Do you disagree with that?

Curious Eyes,

I believe I explained that Israel has to end her occupation of Palestine before somewhere here, but here goes.

We must ask why Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaede, and Talibans exist. We have the facts showing that these extremists did not exist before 1988. What prompted Araft to rebel against Israel? We all know that Palestinians were fed up with living under Israel-occupied territory and some Palestinians decided to take things into their hands pushing for their own freedom and their right to govern in Palestine.

However, the government of Israel dug deeper into Israel Mandate, this is like cancer promoting extremists to fester against Israel, and eventually almost globally because allies support Israel Mandate.

As of June 27-28 2006 in Vienna, the United Nations supported Israel-Palestinian Peace to resume political negotiations leading to a permanent two-State solution to the conflict. Now that Israel is attacking Lebanon, unfortunately, I guess the two-State solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine has to be put on hold … very disappointing.

Last night on CNN, I watched Paula Zahn interviewing a Syria Ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha.
QUOTE
MOUSTAPHA: What we want to do is find a way to solve the core issue. The core issue is the ongoing Israeli occupation of our territories. We want a resolution to this. All problems will disappear once the core issue is addressed.

ZAHN: All right, we’ve got to leave it there this evening. Ambassador Imad Moustapha, thank you for your time.

MOUSTAPHA: You’re welcome.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRA.....zn.01.html
(you’d have to scroll down a bit)
UNQUOTE

Israel has to relish its role as occupying Power, then there’d be hardly any reasons for extremists to continue their fight against Israel and the United States.

I’m somewhat taken aback by this point of view. One, you’re saying that Israel has no right, and never had any right to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine? So, the solution is, they should simply pack up and leave, or turn the entire governance of Israel and all its parts to the Palestinian Authority? Two, I’m stunned that you would quote the Syrian ambassador, and he said that the core issue is the Israeli occupation of “our” territories. Um? Did I miss something here? I’m not aware of Israel occupying any Syrian territories. Please clarify.

Oh, I’m all for a permanent two-State solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

It’s extremely important to know what the other sides are saying about Israel-Hizbollah conflict.

What I am trying to say is that from the point of humanitarian view, the government of Israel absolutely can’t occupy and choke Palestine forever and except Palestinians and the Arab Nations to ally with Israel.

The government of Israel can have their land, however they must also respect the existence of Palestianians and their right to govern.

As the United Nations proposed, I am all for resuming political negotiations leading to a permanent two-State solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine, but Israel and the United States seems not comfortable with the two-state solution to the conflict.

Supposing, Israel and the United States don’t put in an honest effort towards a permanent two-State solution to the conflict, then what? Is ethnic cleansing the answer to the conflict?

It was exactly what Glenn Lockhart expressed, and that’s what I’m afraid of.

The longer the government of Israel is clinging to its role as occupying Power and Israel literally flattened the southern Lebanon, believe me, it’s indeed a very bad strategy because now more and more Arabs have less respect for the govenments of Israel and the United States.

Should the Arab Nations flares up, the United States will not be able withstand Iraq, Afghan, and the Arab Nations.

Curious Eyes,

Re: Syria

Golan Heights is far up north-west, south-east of Israel, belongs to Syria but after the 1973 Arab-Israel War, both Syria and Israel to disengage their forces in Golan Heights. Ever since, UN has been mandating Golan Heights and the government of Syria has been waiting to get Golan Heights back.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/undof/

West Bank at the east boundary line meets Jordan.

Southernmost of Gaza strip meets Egypt.

you’d have to scroll all the way down to see the map
http://www.un.org/apps/news/in.....amp;Body1=

I just dont agree with that. Killing scores of people is never the answer, atleast I don’t believe it is. If your plan was implemented, killing these terrorists will result in breeding more of the same. You can’t go on killing…

I don’t like it either, but…
I really wonder why Arabic countries aren’t really doing anything to reel in those radicals. If America had an organization like Hezbollah, I know Americans would be outraged, and demand our government to reel those wayward Americans in, and subject them to trial for crimes against humanity.
Iran (at least, Ahmadinejad), instead, supports Hezbollah and its methods.

I believe the KKK still exists in US, and so do the skinheads..they may not be operating at the level of Hezbollah, but they exist nonetheless. I like your solution of education better than erradication..

Uh, MKULTRA, they are already here in America.
http://www.penraker.com/archives/004213.html

You shouldn’t be surprised that they are here given the fact that we had terrorists in America who drove three airplanes into our nation’s most recognized buildings, and one into the ground.

It’s hard to get justices done in an Islamic court of law. The most dangerous society is when religions control their government. The Jews and the Arabs together are impossible remember they tried that and Sadat was killed?

And how come liberated women are not screaming blue in their faces about the fact that many, if not all, Muslim countries oppress women’s right and are not seen as equals as men? They can’t drive. Can’t vote. Must cover their bodies. Does not have a say in divorce. Must walk behind her husband at all times. Cannot look into the eyes of men (vice versa, too). Their education are limited.

These things are true in many of the Islamic countries. Some are true exceptions in some areas such as Kurdistan, or northern Iraq.

http://www.equalityiniraq.com/english.htm

http://www.peacewomen.org/news.....women.html

McConnell,
I meant the scenario where there is an American based organization that attacks people in other countries, not cells of foreigners in our land.

McConnell, I read that web site and was simply too floored to comment. The fact that Syria was on that CTC committee says it all. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse. I never knew that the UN was supporting terrorism simply by their silence and inactivity. I understand it’s a nice gesture to have a day of sorrow for the Palestinian occupation, but to show a map without Israel on it is beyond the pale. This is scary. No wonder the UN is beset on all side by its problems.

I want to reply to your earlier post about the treatment of women by Muslims. I have a good friend who is Muslim and lives in Malaysia. He says that the treatment of women by fundamentalist Muslim countries like Iran and Iraq is related to culture, not religion. According to him, it’s in the Koran that women have equal human rights and men are required to treat them fairly. How the country and culture define their roles is a separate issue. My Malaysian friend says that these Muslim extremists are very far from representing the Muslim majority.

I kidded him about how the fact that he can have multiple wives but I cannot have multiple husbands tells me all I need to know about equal rights for women in the Koran.

fundamentalist christians and fundamentalist muslims aren’t all that different from one another. funny.

However, that’s where you are wrong, Kate. For apostates of their respective former religion, it’s Islamism or Islamic law that will get an apostate killed. Anywhere.
http://64.233.187.104/search?q.....k&cd=3

As for Christians, ever hear of the story of the prodigal son?

No, there is a vast difference, Kate. A chasm.

i SAID “aren’t all that different”. I’ll clarify - in terms of women and oppressing ideas. please think in generalization from our part not in specifics. the fundie muslims are more blatant in oppression while the fundie christians are behind legislation and tv shows. I’m done here.

“aren’t all that different” = fundamentally the same.

What am I and others are to think?

well i interpreted it as they still come from the same extremist frame of mind using religion as their excuse and condemning all who dont agree. christians in certain parts of the world are certainly part of some horrific acts, gential mutiliation anyone? to go back in history, how about the crusades? its fundamentalism, not the religion itself. anyone can take religion and warp it to justify their actions.

Oh…btw, I’m very aware of the politics going ons for the past several years. Be it to you to assume what I do or don’t know. You have no idea. International politics is one of my most favorite areas for quite some time.

Israel has a legal claim. Two generations from now, they’ll also have sentiment, from even Arabs born in, say, 2040 or 2050. To evict Israelites then will be impossible. Arab neighbors will be saying, “Let’s co-exist, they’ve been around since any of us can remember.” Kind of like how nobody can really make a case for our removal from the U.S. and a return to American Indians. Entrenchment.

Yes, I’m saying moving out is an option. I explicitly said that, no need to paraphrase here. In fact, I gave my two “idealistic” solutions a while back (somewhere in Rob’s pretzel blog entry), and both centered on evacuation.

I’m for moving out only because… this much we agree on: For the foreseeable future, as long as Israel is there, there’s going to be warfare, with an irrelevant UN standing by. I’m not willing to sanction a waiting game. “Entrenchment any day now and then the Arabs will let up, any day now, any day…”

My question is, I guess: You think Israel is justified in its offense (I do too), but was it unavoidable (I don’t think so)? You’ve cited history, commented on the present, but offered no direction for the future (a tall order in any case). What would you do if you could have the Middle East your way?

“McConnell, sir, I have Olmert and the Hez on the phone.” What are you gonna say to them? Go…

Well, that’s easy for you to say to tell them they have to move out of all of Israel. 7 Million of them who have Biblical and historical ties to the land.

Whether if it’s avoidable or not, but kidnapping Israeli soldiers is nothing more than an act of war.

Israel has the legal claim to the land as given to them by the UN.

Indeed I have already offered a direction. Look back in previous postings (here and Rob’s pretzel entry).

Turn over the kidnapped Israeli soldiers and give up arms. The Hezbollah is a political party, not a govt entity for all of Lebanon.

Get NATO, as I have said before, to guard and control the borders. Israel move completely out of Lebanon in 2000. Yet, the Hezbollah still attacked Israel with rockets since then. Self defense is justified here.

You do not negotiate with terrorists. Else, you’d just give them more incentives to attack you the next time.

Thanks. Appreciate.

What’s more, UN Resolution 1559, Israel obeyed every aspected of that resolution set forth by the UN by pulling out of southern Lebanon.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/d.....81.doc.htm

But for 6 years both Lebanon and UN failed to enforce that resolution. Including getting rid of Hezbollah or illegal militia.

To be fair, Swetha said that Israel hasn’t been compliant. Just so we aren’t being selective here.

I’ve been approaching this somewhat philosophically. We’re operating on entirely different premises, and that’s fine with me.

Bible.The “Biblical ties” argument doesn’t fly with me since I don’t place credence in the Bible. You obviously do, and that’s a crucial part of your argument. But for me, it’s down to historical ties, and seeing how it’s holy to three religions, I say let them share it. That’s not negotiation with terrorists.

The UN. Wow, I didn’t have a case for this before you supplied the voting record. When you consider the aggregate populations of these voting countries… looks like the 13 who voted against UN Resolution 181 outnumber the 33 who voted for.

I wouldn’t get rid of the UN, but as long as it has a decidely Western and Christian edge, the Middle East will always take its legitimacy with a grain of salt. Power is derived from the consent of the governed - Jefferson. But you might view government differently.

I like this quote:
“Religious freedom is not going to happen in any country that is officially Islam.”

Hey McConnell. You know I agree with you on many things, but regarding Malaysia, I can tell you without hesitation and from first hand experience, you’re quite wrong on this. I’ve visited the country 3 times and at length, met a lot of people, read a lot, etc. I’m a little appalled by the content of that web site you linked to. A bit inflammatory, wouldn’t you say? Consider the source, eh?

Yes, Malaysia is a predominantly Muslim country. Yet freedom of religion is very much like that in the U.S.A. If a Muslim person wants to convert to Christianity, he/she can, and there is no adverse consequences. And vice-versa for any of the minority religions. In its history, Malaysia has had significant cultural and religious strife due to those differences, almost to a point of civil war. However, the government got smart quick and instituted a policy of religious tolerance. It works for them.

I have to tell you, I used to be biased about Muslims. In fact, the first time I set foot in Malaysia, I was ignorant and did not realize they were Muslim until I got there. If I had known, I would never have gone. But once I got there and got to know the people and the culture, I changed my mind and realized that Muslims are not all alike.

Within the Muslim practicioners in Malaysia, though, I have to say that they are pretty strict on each other. But for everybody else, it’s live and let live.

Check out my other comments about the differences between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. It’s the latter who are responsible for most of the problems, I believe.

A minor may not convert to another faith without explicit permission of his or her guardian as described in the Guardianship of Infants Act(1961) and the Federal Constitution (Articles 11 (1) and 12 (3) and (4)) in Malaysia.

Then we have Joshua Jamaluddin was incarcerated under the Internal Security Act for converting to Christianity. He later detailed his torture during his incarceration. Now he is an activist for allowing greater religious freedom in Malaysia.

Muslims who wish to convert from Islam face severe obstacles. For Muslims, particularly ethnic Malays, the right to leave the Islamic faith and adhere to another religion is a controversial question, and in practice it is very difficult for Muslims to change religions. The legal process of conversion is unclear; in practice it is very difficult for Muslims to change their religion legally.

In 1999 the High Court ruled that secular courts have no jurisdiction to hear applications by Muslims to change religions. According to the ruling, the religious conversion of Muslims lies solely within the jurisdiction of Islamic courts.

The issue of Muslim apostasy is very sensitive. In 1998 after a controversial incident of attempted conversion, the Government stated that apostates (i.e., Muslims who wish to leave or have left Islam for another religion) would not face government punishment so long as they did not defame Islam after their conversion. However, whether the very act of conversion was an “insult to Islam” was not clarified at the time. The Government opposes what it considers deviant interpretations of Islam, maintaining that the “deviant” groups’ extreme views endanger national security. In 2005 international media attention focused on the Sky Kingdom sect whose founder Ayah Pin claimed to be God, and whose members - mostly Malays - were accordingly charged with religious “deviancy” and “humiliating Islam.”

In the past, the Government imposed restrictions on certain Islamic groups, primarily the small number of Shi’a. The Government continues to monitor the activities of the Shi’a minority.

In April 2000, the state of Perlis passed a Shari’a law subjecting Islamic “deviants” and apostates to 1 year of “rehabilitation” (under the Constitution, religion, including Shari’a law, is a state matter). Leaders of the opposition Islamic party, PAS, have stated that the penalty for apostasy should be death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....n_Malaysia

My main contention was that if a country has an official religion (e.g. Islam) and is part of the govt, then there is no real sense of true religious freedom since the separation between church and govt does not exist. Therefore, this invites potential problems regarding the status of religion in a country.

Actual source:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2003/23838.htm

Not wikipedia where it has gotten the info from.

Check out the CIA website here. This one is for Iraq.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html