Isreal :(

[mellowman]

Who is to blame for this? Certainly not Israel.

... Israel can count only on itself.

Yeah, right - and they do a pretty good job there obviously :roll:

Who is to blame for it? Sure, Israel, just as much as arab terrorists. I don't see the difference - taking a whole county hostage, killing hundreds and destroying government buildings in exchange for two kidnapped israeli soldiers ...

Sick minds they have. On one side there are terrorists in an organisation (Hizbo, Hamas whatsoever), on the other side a whole nation acting like a terrorist.

If single people and their organisation go berserk - they are bastards & terrorists. If a whole government goes berserk and kills x times more people ... hm, how do we call this? Selfdefence? Gimme a break! Even a (young and artificial) nation/government is an organisation.

Main Entry: terrorism

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/terrorism

Doesn't this definition fit them both? Funny, huh?

[mellowman]

ha! this gets even better:

Main Entry: terror

...

4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/terror

And now tell me shoe doesn't fit them both!

[vbroker]

They must have a ceasefire now and the US must remove itself as the honest broker - it has been totally discredited.

Clueless comment which itself has been discredited. The U.S. is about the ONLY global Israel supporter. This does not mean however, they are not an "honest" broker. Keep watching the BBC.

The UN must take over and negotiate a peace between the two sides.

The role of the world including US, Europe, Iran, Syria and other countries should be to back the UN to impose whatever measure it deems fit to bring about peace including imposing ecomonic, military and diplomatic sanctions on both sides.

Like the U.N. has been doing for the last 40+ years? Where were they to enforce the Palestinians' obligations agreed to in the Oslo Accords? In a word; absent. In a second word; inept. Wake up.

The Bush Administration, in my opinion, is once again revealing its dangerous approach to foreign affairs by not doing a lot more to bring about a ceasefire first, and a real settlement afterwards.

In your opinion.

Part of the problem is finding an honest broker.

If this refers to the U.S. (the U.N. can't manage itself much less anything else) then the comment is erroneous.. We have an honest broker. The problem is teaching Arab children (Madrassas) to hate people of Jewish faith in general and Israelis in particular. The problem is glorifyng suicide bombers who are promised 42 virgins in the afterlife. The problem is Hezbollah and other terrorist groups with zero respect for human life setting up innocents as human shields designed to cause world "outrage" against civilian casualties. The problem is the rest of the world buying into the same nonsense posted on TF political boards and lined up against Israel in its absolute right to defend itself.

I saw Bush linking this all to Ali quedo again and the need too spread democracy. He said this all while smiling with a born again look in his eyes :shock:

And what is so wrong with giving the people the opportunity to govern themselves as opposed to the unelected few?

Who is to blame for it? Sure, Israel, just as much as arab terrorists. I don't see the difference - taking a whole county hostage, killing hundreds and destroying government buildings in exchange for two kidnapped israeli soldiers ...

If single people and their organisation go berserk - they are bastards & terrorists. If a whole government goes berserk and kills x times more people ... hm, how do we call this? Selfdefence? Gimme a break! Even a (young and artificial) nation/government is an organisation.

Yeah, this is brilliant. There's no difference at all. It's Israel's fault their soldiers were abducted in an unprovoked manner. Two is not enough? How about twenty? Or two hundred? When is it "OK" to step in and defend yourself? Young and artificial? Like this post? The rubbish is unrelenting.

And now tell me shoe doesn't fit them both!

I just did.

I am so tired of reading and listening to the BBC quotes. The fighting stops when the Arabs, not the Israelis, decide to lay down arms and make peace. Until that point, Israel as a sovereign nation must defend itself. Period.

[mellowman]

And now tell me shoe doesn't fit them both!

I just did.

Try harder. And try with a bit more thinking.

For your information: there are people who use their brain (instead of reading BBC - which seems to be your favorite) and get to logical conclusions.

Like: if I am attacked by an obviously mad terrorist, then I have no right to kill the terrorists innocent neighbours.

It just takes some brains to see this won't solve the conflict but worsen it. But even this seems too much for some. So - why don't you vote for a party in your country who supports weapons exports to Israel? Or some blueprints for WMD's? If you can't beat them - join them, right?

[mellowman]

This definition refers to terror groups acting against an established government not established governments acting in retaliation against terror groups.

Well, why don't you check the definition of "group"? Even a nation is a group (which I said earlier, but what shall's, repetition is the mother of knowledge ...)

Israel is in a position where it must win ALWAYS

And surprise, surprise - aren't they winning all the time? Look at that: no more war, no more rockets, no more bombings. They are all good, really good. It's peace all over the place, since decades.

Sorry for getting personal, no offence meant. I'll slow it down again.

[mellowman]

Arabs share no fault in this conflict by your standards

Stop this defamation. Reread my posts. At no point I said anything even close to this. I condemn(ed) any terrorist, also the arab version.

[mellowman]

I absolutely agree with your last post. I would extend it - with minor changes - to both sides, but however: completely agreed.

Sad part is: Taking cheap and abundant arab workforce and combining it with israeli IQ & technology - this could be a wonderful, prospering country, a wonderful home for both parties.

I wish so much, SO MUCH, to see the day when they get there.

[i_love_som_tam]

The UN has absolutely NO credibility... ZERO..... They have had observers in Lebanon for 28 years, doing what? "Oh look, there goes another rocket into Israel, should we call someone?" "Nah, what good would it do, they will just tell us to log it and keep watching."

I agree with the first statement but as a former UN peacekeeper I have to disagree with you on the last gibe. Neverthless, I can understand why you think like that.

The fact is that most UNMO's and soldiers (under UN mandates) are very passionate about keeping the peace. It is not so much their inability to monitor and report on any given situation but more to do with what course of action UNHQ agree on once the reports are recieved. Peacekeepers are kept under very tight control and at times this is veeery frustrating. Here's an example for ya.

The UN had been warned by the man in charge of the UN's Rwandan peacekeeping force, General Romeo Dallaire, that Hutu extremists were preparing for genocide.

"The UN had 2,000 peacekeepers on duty in Rwanda in 1994. But as the killings began UN troops were ordered to withdraw. By the time they returned it was too late"

- The former UN peacekeeper General Romeo Dallaire

The problem is not with the Peacekeepers or UNMO's but with people within the organisation who have trouble making decisions on just about everything. As it stands most UNMO's work their butts off and do alot of good which goes unnoticed. I hope this has put it a lil more in perspective for ya

Just echoing with what WTF said. You may not know it but most UNMOs go into these UN missions unarmed. They are not peacekeepers, they are what their title implies, military observers. They can not enforce the mandates of the UN. They just observe. In my experience with them they met with military counterparts on both side of the border and discussed intentions, made suggestions for peaceful resolutions, troop withdrawals, blah blah blah.

They reported directly to UN Manhattan and sought guidance from them. The UN knows daily what the situation is like where the UNMOs are posted. The UNMOsare doing the jobs that their countries, not the UN, ask them to do. No reason to be slagging them. Slag the UN.

[mellowman]

Cool. It amazes me again and again what you can learn on TF. Thanks for sharing these experiences. I mean it, no sarkasm this time.

[Farang_ha_gig]

Its statement stands in contrast to the European Union's shamefully muted voice. The Palestinians kill two soldiers and take one prisoner and, in response, power stations are blown up, sewage and water systems grind to a halt, bridges are destroyed, sonic booms terrify children day and night, and all this is inflicted on a hungry people who are under siege in what is effectively a huge open prison. The EU's response? Vague expressions of "concern" and calls for "restraint".

Is it World Cup madness? The rush for last-minute cheap summer holiday deals? Couldn't European leaders show a tenth of the courage of Israel's brilliant columnist, Gideon Levy? "It is not legitimate to cut off 750,000 people from electricity. It is not legitimate to call on 20,000 people to run from their homes and turn their towns into ghost towns. It is not legitimate to kidnap half a government and a quarter of a parliament. A state that takes such steps is no longer distinguishable from a terror organisation," he wrote this week in Haaretz.

You have to get your facts right Mr. How far back in history do you want to go?? Let's start with very short history - like a couple of months ago. Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip all together. Why? so Palestinians can get full control over their affairs there, and according to the Palestinians demands. How? In a peaceful manner. They left all houses intact. Operational greenhouses (where many Palestinians were working for the Israelis before) were left for them to keep operating and make ends meet and help themselves out of poverty.

What did the Palestinians do IMMEDIATLY after the last Israeli left the Gaza strip? DESTROY all houses, greenhouses and what ever so painfully left for them and for their benefit. Why?? Purely out of hatred.

But that was not enough. What they want is the complete destruction of the state of Israel. Why do you accept their wishes as legitimate? Has anyone ever wanted to kill you just because you are whatever you are? Has your country ever been under a threat of destruction??

And Lets continue with the case in hand. A group of Palestinian (Hamas) has CROSSED the international border between Gaza and Israel in order to murder and kidnap soldiers. What are the Israelis supposed to do? Sit and cry?? Will YOU come to help the kidnapped soldier?? I doubt it. Israel has to defend itself and the right of the Israeli people to a safe homeland.

And as for "civilians" - well, when does a person stops being a civilian and becomes a soldier? I'd say when he lets people with bombs and weapons hide in his home or back yard. That's the point when he stops being a civilian victim and becomes and active terrorist. Israel has never targeted a civilian place if there is no threat in it. And threat is having weapons and bombs and missiles ready to be launched at CIVILIANS on the other side of the border. Yes. The Palestinians have always targeted CIVILIANS in their homes, schools and working places.

I am sure the Israeli government will be happy to hear any constructive suggestion how to get peace into the area.

[mellowman]

Israel has never targeted a civilian place if there is no threat in it.

A Hamas terrorist leader driving in a car and cynically taking kids on the ride as a human shield. Israel forces know it. They attack the car with a rocket from a heli, killing the target, the kids and a bystanding kid on the sidewalk.

I didn't make that up, it became reality. And it is the consequence of your theory. I understand your line of argumentation, but do you really accept this? How cynical is that then?

1. Just because terrorists do wrong, it doesn't mean a government should do wrong (and killing innocent people IS wrong).

2. Even if it wouldn't be wrong - IT CLEARLY DOESN'T SOLVE THE CONFLICT!

[Mikee_Moose]

I havent bothered to read all 18 pages of this rather HOT topic so perhaps someone has already posted something similar. I dunno.

As far as this conflict goes, it doesnt really matter if this Lebanon incursion ends tomorrow because as recent ME history has shown - they will keep on killing each other forever. Its non stop over there.

Simplistic approach? If the combatants didnt have easy access to explosives, weapons and bullets - it would be more difficult to kill each other.

Secondly, since most of the Hamas terrorists/freedom fighters are probably just kids with no future - then give them a future.

As long as basic requirements of food, shelter, employment and education are met, then many problems are solved. Give thesekids a futureand maybe they wont be so willing to blow themselves up? Curb international arms dealings and maybe that too will lesson the violence.

Stop investing in violence (America, are you listening??) and start investing in people.

Unfortunately, nothing is simple and I fear that this is just one in a long line of ME conflicts that will continue long past my days on this planet. I suppose once the boffins find a replacement for petroleum products, the Middle East will just slip back into the stone age anyhow. The US wont give a damn. Imagine if Burma had huge oil reserves. Somehow I think it likely the US would be there in seconds. But they are not.

[Loburt]

Simplistic approach? If the combatants didnt have easy access to explosives, weapons and bullets - it would be more difficult to kill each other.

Secondly, since most of the Hamas terrorists/freedom fighters are probably just kids with no future - then give them a future.

As long as basic requirements of food, shelter, employment and education are met, then many problems are solved. Give thesekids a futureand maybe they wont be so willing to blow themselves up? Curb international arms dealings and maybe that too will lesson the violence.

Stop investing in violence (America, are you listening??) and start investing in people.

You're right, but at the same time it is indeed more complex.

Cutting off easy access to weapons and explosives is just about impossible. They are coming from many many sources, not just America.

And a big part of the problem is the massive corruption of the Palestinian leadership. There is far more money available to give young Palestinian people a chance at a better future than they are seeing. Unfortunately, a lot of it has been stolen by corrupt elements of the Palestinian Authority.

There are educated, moderate Palestinians who are well aware of what their people need to build a better future. Unfortunately, they are often intimidated and kept powerless by thuggish elements of the PA and Hamas.

To be fair, you should also ask why Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc., aren't investing and spending more on programs and enterprises to give Palestinians a future. They certainly have the money.

Instead, they are sending missles, rockets, AK-47s and offering rewards for suicide bombers. What kind of Palestine does that help build?

[DR_JORDAN]

Arabs themselves are quite a messed up bunch have nothing to offer but to dig out their oil and conquer the whole world with and rest of the world are killing each other for that. If there is somebody looking at us from distance imagine how pathetic today's world and people are!

Some are sitting there babling about how sorry theyr are while those people are killing your kids, friends etc... All hypocrisy...

I could share with you some fascinating facts and some personal thoughts about the Israeli-Arab conflict, but I would comment on the broader picture. I include the area between Morocco and Pakistan, which the majority of the population living in this region is Arab and Muslim, but include some non-Arab minorities and some non-Muslim minorities.

Why don't I concentrate on Israel and it's neighboring countries? Because Israel, and all the related problems with it - and in spite of what you read and hear from the International Media - is not the center of the problem, and was never the centre of source of problems in that region. It is correct that the Israeli-Arab conflict is 100 years old, but it's not the "main act"!

The millions who died in the Iran-Iraq was have no connection to Israel. The massacre in Sudan (Darfur Area), where the Arab-Muslim government kills the black, Christian citizens, and has no links to the Israeli conflict; the reports coming from Algeria where hundreds of Algerians are butchered by other Algerians, it has nothing to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict; Saddam Hussein did not invaded Kuwait, threatened Saudi Arabia and butchered his own people because of Israel.

Egypt did not used poison gas against Yemen in the Sixties because of Israel; Assad (the father) did not kill ten of thousands of Syrians citizens in one week in El-Hama (Syria) because of Israel; the PAN-AM flight bombing by Libya has nothing to do with Israel, and I could continue more and more...

The root of the problem is that in all this Muslim area is not functioning correctly, and even if Israel would have joined the Arab league and Palestine were independent for 100 years.

The 22 countries members of the Arab League, from Mauritania to the Gulf countries, with population of 300 million people - more of the USA, and match the population of Europe, with territory larger then USA or Europe. These 22 countries with all the OIL and natural resources, have the all together lower GDP then held of California; They produce less then Belgium and The Netherlands together. There are huge differences between rich and poor ! Most of the rich people in these areas did not earn their money from successful business but due to corrupted regimes and governments; the women status in most of these countries is worst then what it was 150 years ago in Europe. Human rights is below any standard, although that Libya was elected as chairman of the UN organization for Human rights; according to a study published by some Arab intellectuals and sponsored by the UN, the number of books translated to Arabic in all these countries is lower then the number of books translated in Greece alone. The total amount of Scientific publications that 300 million Arabs published is less then of 6 million Israelis; The birth rate are very high which increase the poverty, and increase the social differences between the classes and cultures; and all this happening is a region that historically was the centre of knowledge.

You can definitely say that this is a region which is a prefect "green-house" to develop cruel dictators, terror networks, religious fanatics, jealousy, murderers and succeed bombers; and it's a fact that people in all this region blame Israel and USA, the Jews and the Christians for their failures, except from themselves !

[Loburt]

The Bush Administration, in my opinion, is once again revealing its dangerous approach to foreign affairs by not doing a lot more to bring about a ceasefire first, and a real settlement afterwards.

In your opinion.

Yep, my opinion. At this point, most of the world agrees with it too.

Part of the problem is finding an honest broker.

If this refers to the U.S. (the U.N. can't manage itself much less anything else) then the comment is erroneous..

Most of the world, and certainly most the Arab world, does not regard the US as an honest broker in this conflict. They beileve it favors Israel based on its track record.

Whether you believe the US is an honest broker or not is irrelevant.

If either side in the conflict does not regard the potential broker as honest and unbiased, then they are unlikely to agree to the tough measures proposed by that broker that will be necessary to bring about peace.

So finding an honest broker is part of the problem.

The comment, therefore, is not erroneous.

However, you did make an erroneous comment in your earlier superficial analysis of why the US supports Israel.

As I recall, you wrote that it is because Israel is a democracy, the only democracy in the Middle East aside from Iraq and Afghanistan.

You left out another Middle Eastern democracy:

Iran.

Oh my, how inconvenient.

[vbroker]

However, you did make an erroneous comment in your earlier superficial analysis of why the US supports Israel.

As I recall, you wrote that it is because Israel is a democracy, the only democracy in the Middle East aside from Iraq and Afghanistan.

You left out another Middle Eastern democracy:

Iran.

Oh my, how inconvenient.

My superficial analysis? Like the superficial suggestion theocratic Iran under Ali Khamenei's absolute rule is a functioning, legitimate democracy? Just before "elections" there all but one of Iran's "independent" newspapers were suddenly shut down if memory serves. Oh my, how ridiculous an assumption. The statement might have had more credibility if Venezuela were the example.

...I have this awful feeling that this conflict will never end, not in my lifetime.

I'm wondering how many innocent lives will be taken away, how many kids will lose their family, how many hearts would it scar... because of this atrocious hatred?

To answer that, one need look no further than WWII. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in Germany and Japan before it all ended. Then, it was a world war against Nazi Fascism. Today it's not very different. This time it is called Islamo-Fascism. But we are fighting an ideology versus one, two or three countries. Even though many don't and/or refuse to realize it yet, we are fighting WWIII. This is just what bin Laden and al-Zawahiri envisioned. A global war to return to the fourteenth century's most conservative and radical form of Islam with Israel at it's epicenter. Some of the leaders that understand this are Tony Blair, John Howard, Ehud Olmert and George Bush. As long as terrorists know to use innocents as human shields to elicit cries of outrage from those who don't believe we are fighting WWIII, it will go on. I believe the conflict will end in our lifetime IF we, the civilized world bring democracy to the Middle East and give the people the right to govern themselves. If we are to believe the majority of the common Middle Eastern Arabs are good, civilized people then logic should dictate they would renounce hatred and the violence it breeds. One would think such people would elect others of the same mindset. But it will not be easy or quick to get there; there is alot more nonsense ahead. Verbal and otherwise.

[DR_JORDAN]

This is worth watching :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493278181614&q=Obsession%3A+What+The+War+on+Terror+Is+Really+About&hl=en

[i_love_som_tam]

Agreed, my post regarding the UN was not meant to ridicule the individual UNMO's who I respect deeply; it was meant to show their ineffectiveness as they are often sent into dangerous situations with their hands tied behind their backs. A direct result of the chain of command not willing to take any action to enforce a UN mandate, basically, the rules of engagement for the UN forces need to be revisited if they are to become a viable deterrent.

You are absolutely correct on that point. I believe the last armed conflict that UN took a major part in was the Korean War.

NATO intervened in the Kosovo and Bosnian conflicts. The UN sent peacekeepers into the regions when the cease fire agreements were reached.

The Australian Army was poised for weeks, if not months, waiting to go into East Timor during the 1999 drive for their independence from Indonesia. The UN repeatedly ignored warnings of the potential for violence and requests for peacekeeping forces to be deployed to Timor. These warnings and requests began in early 1999 when it was announced that the election was to be held in September. These warnings and requests were issued by UN election personnel, military advisors and international police advisors on the ground in Timor.

It took hundereds of deaths for the UN to finally send the Australian army in. Order was restored almost immediately and the Indonesian military, police and their backed Timorese militias booted out of the country.

The UN needs to put their dentures in so they have some bark to their bite. Right now it is totally worthless and a huge waste of financial resources.

[Loburt]

However, you did make an erroneous comment in your earlier superficial analysis of why the US supports Israel.

As I recall, you wrote that it is because Israel is a democracy, the only democracy in the Middle East aside from Iraq and Afghanistan.

You left out another Middle Eastern democracy:

Iran.

Oh my, how inconvenient.

My superficial analysis? Like the superficial suggestion theocratic Iran under Ali Khamenei's absolute rule is a functioning, legitimate democracy? Just before "elections" there all but one of Iran's "independent" newspapers were suddenly shut down if memory serves. Oh my, how ridiculous an assumption. The statement might have had more credibility if Venezuela were the example.

Yes, it is a functioning, legitimate democracy whether you like its form or not, whether its form is flawed or not. Mr. Khameni's rule is powerful but not absolute.

Iran is more of a representative democracy than Afghanistan, which is a country you cited. Many of the people sitting in Afghanistan's goverment are warlords - even drug smugglers - who got their votes at the point of a gun. They do not allow free and independent newspapers in areas under their control. In fact, they generally kill anyone who challenges their rule.

The fact that in Iran there is an additional authority (the clerics) aside from the elected authority, does not mean it is not a democracy. Thailand also has an additional non-elected authority, yet Thailand is a democracy.

Israel also has religious parties, and their support has been key to the survivial of many of its coalition governments. Thus, they have tremendous bargaining power in government. They don't represent the majority of Israelis and their views on many issues are the minority view, but they have imposed those views on government policy against what the majority of Israelis want. True, they were elected to their seats in parliament. But they have often imposed theocratic views and policy on the majority.

Iran's government was elected. Claiming it is not a democracy because you don't like who it elected or some of its features, is ridiculous and erroneous.

The United States does not support every democracy on the face of the earth. The United States also supports many nations which are not democracies. That's realpolitik.

So stating that the reason the US supports Israel is because it is a democracy, is a superficial analysis.

The reasons are far more complex.

[frenchmaster]

However, you did make an erroneous comment in your earlier superficial analysis of why the US supports Israel.

As I recall, you wrote that it is because Israel is a democracy, the only democracy in the Middle East aside from Iraq and Afghanistan.

You left out another Middle Eastern democracy:

Iran.

Oh my, how inconvenient.

My superficial analysis? Like the superficial suggestion theocratic Iran under Ali Khamenei's absolute rule is a functioning, legitimate democracy? Just before "elections" there all but one of Iran's "independent" newspapers were suddenly shut down if memory serves. Oh my, how ridiculous an assumption. The statement might have had more credibility if Venezuela were the example.

Yes, it is a functioning, legitimate democracy whether you like its form or not, whether its form is flawed or not. Mr. Khameni's rule is powerful but not absolute.

Iran is more of a representative democracy than Afghanistan, which is a country you cited. Many of the people sitting in Afghanistan's goverment are warlords - even drug smugglers - who got their votes at the point of a gun. They do not allow free and independent newspapers in areas under their control. In fact, they generally kill anyone who challenges their rule.

The fact that in Iran there is an additional authority (the clerics) aside from the elected authority, does not mean it is not a democracy. Thailand also has an additional non-elected authority, yet Thailand is a democracy.

Israel also has religious parties, and their support has been key to the survivial of many of its coalition governments. Thus, they have tremendous bargaining power in government. They don't represent the majority of Israelis and their views on many issues are the minority view, but they have imposed those views on government policy against what the majority of Israelis want. True, they were elected to their seats in parliament. But they have often imposed theocratic views and policy on the majority.

Iran's government was elected. Claiming it is not a democracy because you don't like who it elected or some of its features, is ridiculous and erroneous.

The United States does not support every democracy on the face of the earth. The United States also supports many nations which are not democracies. That's realpolitik.

So stating that the reason the US supports Israel is because it is a democracy, is a superficial analysis.

The reasons are far more complex.

I totaly agree with you on Iran.

Moreover the iranian president (Ahmadinejad) is not exactly on the same line as clerics and seems to be much more independant from religious authorities than his predecessors.

He can stand this position towards clerics due to the strong population support. Such debate is a good sign for a democracy.

I also agree on the fact that "US supports Israel is because it is a democracy" is a stupid assesment. For info Lebanon is also a democracy, maybe the only one more or less working in the Arab world.

[vbroker]

I never suggested Iraq and Afghanistan were "developed" democracies. They are at this point, works in progress. I mentioned them as asides that the only true developed democracy there is, once again, Israel. I didn't think I needed to spell that out. And I never suggested "every" democracy on earth supports the U.S. and what we are doing or that we support them. I think that's clear to everyone or we wouldn't have this lovely board, would we? Forget Iran and Venezuela, what about Spain, France and Germany? We in the U.S. have had a difference or two with them. This issue is splitting hairs and mostly irrelevant to the larger issue which is to give these troublesome Middle Eastern countries a chance at democracy. It is the only thing in 60 years that has not been tried. I repeat: if we are to believe most common Arab folks are decent people and not hateful terrorists bent on death and destruction THEN WHY NOT TRY DEMOCRACY? At least they maybe will denounce terrorism and get on with building their lives and their children's lives as opposed to destroying eveyone else's. No one suggested it would be easy to accomplish or mistake free in its quest. In fact, it is just the opposite but none the less a noble cause. Another assinine, unenforced UN Security Council Resolution is the last thing the area and the rest of the world needs.

[Loburt]

All democracies are works in progress. That is their nature.

[vbroker]

The posts have been spot on to this point. A bit of nonsense here.

...as an American (I) find the Bush Administrations lack of diplomacy in the Middle East a major mistake. I understand the President's view, he does not want to deal with terrorists or supporters there of....

He does not and should not deal with terrorists. "Diplomacy" hasn't worked for the last 60 years. See prior post. Now he should legitimize terrorists? Let's not forget Hamas' charter refuses Israel's recognition and they're not changing it any time soon. If it did change then maybe Bush changes his posture.

Iran and the Palestinian Authority (Hamas) were both elected at the poles by the people. Now, I disagree with everything they stand for, but that "IS" democracy. In order for the Bush administration to gain credibility in the region, Bush should acknowledge these governments and engage them in diplomacy. If it doesn't do any good, he can say, see I told you - you can't negotiate with terrorist or sponsors of terror. But, if it had a positive impact, that could change everything.

There's a time for diplomacy (UN consensus attempt for the Iraq issue) and a time for action (no consensus; the process was fixed/flawed from the beginning). That's when dealing with otherwise civilized people. Why does he need to say "see I told you so" and waste more years and thus give those years to the Irans and North Koreas to continue on a nuclear quest? We already know the outcome; we have already seen the deception. It is one thing to deal with suicidal lunatics in another part of the world. It is quite another when the same are on the verge of nuclear technology possession AND have promised to use same. Remember, the fringe aspire to die in Jihad and take as many "apostates" with them as possible. Their only deterrent is technology denial. Let's try and save the same old negative rhetoric concerning 02's Iraq invasion, shall we? It's been said over and over again ad nauseam; let's try and deal in the present.

Perhaps if he approached Hamas and said, we want to help you, America wants to rebuild your economy and help you get your land back so you can live alongside Israel in peace. Hamas would have no choice but to cease ALL terror activities in return for US aid and support in dealing with Israel. Now this is only Hamas but it's a start, we need to engage Iran similarly and on different issues without threats, and see if it leads anywhere.

The assumption is wrong. That a terrorist group has been elected by its people is irrelevant. It's up to the terrorist group to cease doing the things that made it a terrorist group. BTW, our wonderful western European allies also consider this to be a terrorist group and they won't deal with them either. Why should Bush? Iran needs to cease weapons development agreed to by being part of the Anti-Proliferations Agreement. They need to show they are not saying one thing and doing another; not the other way around. Again, talk time is finished.

If this does not work, we have the military power to deal with these regimes easily, I just feel Bush should be doing a bit more talking. What's that old saying, keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer?

Talking has been addressed. As for the old saying, that comes from a Hollywood script. The last thing I heard about Hollywood had something to do with Mel Gibson. Try this for an old saying: "Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice; shame on me."

[eagle]

I used to think the crazy guys who walked around with the sandwich boards "the end of the world is nigh" were just nut cases.Now i think there right,we dont have long left,i belive that the bush administation "war on terror" is enlisting more terrorists by the day,uk and us foriegn policy is making the world a powder keg.When china and russia become really involved and ww3 starts for real,the bush and blair will already be in their nuclear shelters to let US all take the sh*t.Stop believing what you are told on t.v,rise up NOW.

Im sure this will fall on all deaf ears.

Enjoy what you have now.

NEIL.

Yes thats what we need the whole world rising up in revolution :shock: Man at war is nothing new. Unless you are in the middle of a conflict you can stop it now by turning the channel on your TV :twisted:

[Loburt]

Hamas Figure Blames Palestinians for Gaza Chaos

By STEVEN ERLANGER

Published: August 29, 2006

JERUSALEM, Aug. 28 ? In an unusual instance of self-criticism, a well-known Hamas official has deplored the collapse of Gazan life into chaos and has said that much of the blame belongs to Palestinians themselves.

?Gaza is suffering under the yoke of anarchy and the swords of thugs,? Ghazi Hamad, a former Hamas newspaper editor and the spokesman for the current Hamas government, wrote in an article published Sunday in Al Ayyam, the Palestinian newspaper.

After so much optimism when Israelis pulled out of Gaza a year ago, he wrote, ?life became a nightmare and an intolerable burden.?

He urged Palestinians to look to themselves, not to Israel, for the causes. But he appeared not to be placing the blame on Hamas or the Palestinian Authority?s prime minister, Ismail Haniya of Hamas. He said various armed groups in the Gaza Strip ? most affiliated with Fatah, Hamas?s rival ? were responsible for the chaos.

?We?ve all been attacked by the bacteria of stupidity,? Mr. Hamad wrote. ?We have lost our sense of direction.? He addressed the armed groups: ?Please have mercy on Gaza. Have mercy on us from your demagogy, chaos, guns, thugs, infighting. Let Gaza breathe a bit. Let it live.?

He also questioned the utility of firing rockets into Israel that cause few casualties but result in many Palestinian deaths when the Israelis retaliate. He seemed to be arguing for other armed groups to follow the Hamas decision to halt rocket fire into Israel. His article was first described in English on Monday in The Jerusalem Post.