Middle East Wildfires

by Paul - . Sat Jul 15, 2006 14:04 tarbhmaith at imagine dot ie

Too often watching the events as they occur there is a certain amount of information overload that it becomes impossible to make any real sense of it all. That is why I see your question "Is it a real case of going in to release the soldiers? Or some alterior motive? " as the real question we have to ask.

I realise that everything is dynamic it is all actions and reactions, when and why did it all begin the chicken and egg scenario.

But one thing I do believe that a solution that is imposed by military might alone is never going to solve any underlying hatreds and sense of grievance.

Most people support the underdog (regardless of who started it) ones sympathy automatically goes to the powerless (or as the bushites say those who practice asymetrical warfare).

When we give out about the disapportionate response of the Israelis we are accused of sectarianism/racism/anti semitic. But I wonder does this give the green light to the militarists to proceed with the disapportionate response because they have exhausted all their other options such as kidnapping those they claim are terrorists (on their say so....internment israeli style), they have to all extents monopolised resources such as water and robbed arable land from the Palistinians, Syrians and Lebanese (if one accepts that the sheeba farms are part of Lebanon).

We can not turn the clock back on how Israel was formed, it looks like the one state solution is out of the picture, leaving the two state solution. But Israel by its own actions seems to be cutting out the two state solution in favour of an open air containment prison for all of Palistine.

Wher does that leave those who have any genuine interest in pursuing a democratic and non violent vision.

This is why imo that the extremists on all sides gain power, and nothing suits their discourse so much as limiting any political initiatives to the military solution. Thus creating a zero sum game a win lose situation whereby there can only be one victor who can then proceed to rewrite history in their favour (the world history is littered with such examples).

That is why your reference to Sinn fein is not totally wrong. A military grouping that by negotiations accepted adaptions to their stated objectives to change a zero sum game into a win win situation and in that process gained a fair bit of polical power enabling them to pursue their objectives through the politcal process. That process does not have to make real coherent sense once those taking part understand that they can not impose their will on the majority, thus taking some of the heat from the political process.

The question then becomes can the "honest" broker the US jettison their imperial project of world/resource domination and encourage Israel to accept the numerous UN resolutions and retrench within their 1967 borders and all their neighbours to accept those borders.

by SkidMark Sat Jul 15, 2006 17:23

What Zionists and thier enablers call "Israel" is in reality Zionist occupied Palestine. Since Zionist occupation of Palestine can not be equatable with peace any more than Nazi occupation of Denmark or Brittish occupation of Ireland can be equatable with peace, it is pretty stupid to act suprized that Palestinians would want to liberate thier homeland from the Zionist crusaders.

Sure, palestinians elected Hamas. And before that, they chose the appease Zionist crusade route and elected Fatah. But Zionists kept stealing more and more Palestinian lands in the west bank and kept murdering the Palestinians who resistsed the Zionist's continuing theft of more and more Palestinian lands. Zionists even multiplied thier bloodsoaked efforts by a factor of 3. Electing the appeasers of Fatah didn't stop Zionist offenses against Palestinians. It didn't even slow down the offenses of Zionist crusaders. Appeasement of zionist offenses only emboldened the murderous thieving ZIonists to be murderous thieves of more and more Palestinian lands.

Zionists don't like the rockets Palestinians fire at Zionists any more than Nazi occupiers of Poland liked the molotov cocktails Jews of the warsaw Ghetto tossed at the Nazis. That is hardly suprizing. It makes every bit of sence that Zionists wouldn't like palestinians fighting back against the Zionist crusader's offenses. It is also not a suprize that Zionists try to scapegoat thier chosen victims because thier chosen victims dare to fight back. Nazis tried to scapegoat thier chosen victims for fighting back. English in ireland scapegoated thier chosen victims for fighting back, Soviets in Afghanistan tried to scvapegoat thier chosen victims for fighting back. Murderous thieves of thier neighbor's homelands usually scapegoat thier chosen victims. It is no suprize that murderous thieving ZIonist crusaders ALSO try to scapegoat thier chosen victims.

by Ed Lee Sun Jul 16, 2006 13:06

That's fair enough to say that Israel stole this, that and the other but that's not the crux of the situation here.
It's about small groups of people doing nasty things that sets off a chain reaction of larger events. Probably the best example being the lone-murder of Franz Ferdinand that sparked WW1.
Hamas and Hez both must know Israel would flatly deny any of their ransoms so why are they stuipid enough to kidnap them in the first place?
The media frenzy is all about who bombed who and how many were killed that day. What of the captured soldiers? Is Gilad Shalit and the other two unamed soldiers even still alive? This is just another opportunity for bland sensationalist reporting. Hey maybe Fox News should send that muppet Geraldo Rivera there.
One must wonder if all this fighting would really stop if the soldiers are released.
With the way things are going, all sides are using the kidnappings as an excuse and legitimacy to attack and hence counter-attack; each claiming they're the victim or just 'defending themselves:' take today's aerial bombings of Beirut and more rocket attacks on Haifa.
The US will no doubt will seek to intervene more and more as the price of oil steadily reaches $100 a barrel.
It's disheartening to see more and more civilian deaths being caused by such a small nasty event and political egoism.
We delude ourselves when we say we live in this so-called 'conceptual age' where rational thinking and globalisation (of economy & culture) will bring peace and stability. It'll still produce power-hungry, ideological and selfish individuals to turn this world upside down (insert your own examples here.)
Perhaps in the future our descendants will see how barbaric we were... not much better than the medieval ages.

by eastern eye Sun Jul 16, 2006 14:20

The soldiers' names are Ehud Goldwasser, aged 31, and Eldad Regev, aged 26.
They were both reserve soldiers.

by Paul R - . Sun Jul 16, 2006 14:34 tarbhmaith at imagine dot ie

"Probably the best example being the lone-murder of Franz Ferdinand that sparked WW1."

Maybe a little picky of me, but I believe that the assassination of franz ferdinand was just an excuse to pursue the larger imperialistic plans of the european empires, the conflict embers were already smoking. This is also what I believe is happening in Israel at the moment. This conflict did not start last wek, to state the obvious. But have you noticed that many commentators only refer to the recent past in regards to tit for tat actions and reactions, but that is another story. I do not believe that there is not a wider agenda here, but that is just a suspicion.

"The US will no doubt will seek to intervene more and more as the price of oil steadily reaches $100 a barrel."

That is central. But it will bringout more fissures between the American right arabists (who like the price of oil being high, the saudis must be thrilled) and the so called American neo conservatives (the jewish lobby and strausians, who are not pleased with the oil resourced sunni arab states being so empowered). So far the neo conservatives seem to be running the Israeli foreign policy.

But why has no Arab oil producer refused to sell oil to Israel.

http://profcutler.com/wordpress_blog/?p=90

"We delude ourselves when we say we live in this so-called 'conceptual age' where rational thinking and globalisation (of economy & culture) will bring peace and stability. It'll still produce power-hungry, ideological and selfish individuals to turn this world upside down (insert your own examples here.)
Perhaps in the future our descendants will see how barbaric we were... not much better than the medieval ages."

On this sunday morning listing to Robert Frisk (Newstalk) it is hard to disagree with you. How do you get others to swallow their hate.

by Biggo Sat Jul 22, 2006 17:02

Read the web attached story if you want REAL ISRAELI propaganda and a hell of a laugh at their utter rediculous religious supremacy.