Daniel Pipes: Bush, Say no to Olmert

[Leon]

Bush: Say no to Olmert
By DANIEL PIPES
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1145961355807&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

It's a grand occasion when a new Israeli prime minister makes an inaugural visit to Washington. He typically meets with the president, addresses a joint meeting of Congress, appears on plum television shows, talks to influential audiences and consults privately with a range of leading figures.

Personality, pomp and substance mix together as the two heads of government establish a working relationship, the US-Israel bond is reconfirmed, and issues relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict are reviewed.

When Ehud Olmert arrives in a few days, the key policy issue will concern what he refers to as the "convergence plan," a follow-up to the Gaza withdrawal of mid-2005, with a comparable but larger removal of Israeli soldiers and residents from the West Bank.

David Makovsky has pulled together the several components of this far-reaching plan in a recent Washington Institute for Near East Policy study, Olmert's Unilateral Option: An Early Assessment.

These include:


Israel's security fence will serve as the baseline for a boundary with the West Bank, 92 percent of which will come under Palestinian Authority control. Israel will retain three residential blocs (Gush Etzion, Ma'aleh Adumim, Ariel) with an estimated 193,000 Israeli civilians, but at least 60,000 Israeli civilians will be evacuated by 2010 from the West Bank, using force if necessary.

Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem will be incorporated in the West Bank, reducing that city's Arab population by 140,000. Conspicuously, the plan does not address the future of Israel's military presence.

The Israeli plan may be unilateral in nature, but Makovsky notes that even unilateralism requires negotiations. Accordingly, Olmert will seek US diplomatic and financial support for withdrawal during his forthcoming Washington visit. That support appears inevitable, for the US government never opposes Israeli withdrawal from territory.
But before the president and congress rubber-stamp Olmert's initiative, they might consider some of its negative implications for American security, as spelled out in an important report by Caroline Glick for the Center for Security Policy. In Ehud Olmert's "Convergence" Plan for the West Bank and U.S. Middle East Policy, Glick cautions that Olmert's plan will likely harm US security interests by destabilizing Israel and Jordan.

IN PAINSTAKING detail she documents how the 2005 Israeli retreat from Gaza radicalized Palestinian society, caused Gaza to descend into anarchy, opened it to global terror forces, jeopardized Israel's national infrastructure, tied down Israeli troops, permitted the build-up of a substantial Palestinian arsenal, and created a range of new Israeli problems with Egypt.

She predicts that, in similar fashion, handing territory to the Palestinian Authority will destabilize the West Bank, harm Israel and "directly threaten the survivability of the Hashemites" in Jordan. This damage will have many negative implications for the United States, she argues, by:

• endangering US military assets warehoused in Israel and Jordan;

• enhancing the prestige of states that sponsor Palestinian terrorists;

• strengthening the Hamas-run Palestinian Authority which, with its Syrian, Iranian and Hizbullah allies, will provide what Glick calls "a training, logistics and information warfare base" for terrorist groups at war with the United States;

• threatening the land routes through Israel and Jordan that supply US forces in Iraq;

Bush: Say no to Olmert
By DANIEL PIPES

(Continued from page 1 of 2)
• enabling terrorists fighting American forces in Iraq to establish training bases in the West Bank;

• creating a perception of US weakness, given that Israel is so widely seen as an agent of Washington;

• gratuitously handing a victory to Islamists and jihadists.

THE US government has since the 1950s invariably encouraged Israeli governments to withdraw from territory, and I expect that pattern to continue. But it bears notice that several members of Congress - including Charles Schumer and Jesse Helms - have voiced their concerns when they see Jerusalem endangering its security by giving up too much land. Could such caution not conceivably take hold within the executive branch too?

Against all hope, in December 2000 I appealed to the Clinton administration to buck up its faltering ally by adopting several measures, in particular the discouragement of further Israeli territorial concessions. Today I appeal to the Bush administration to recognize how wretchedly the Gaza withdrawal is turning out; to look beyond the easy attractions of another Israeli retreat, and to be aware of the dangers of a unilateral retreat by Israel on the West Bank for it, for Jordan, and for the United States.

The writer, based in Philadelphia, is director of the Middle East Forum.

[Leon]

The US had already said that it will refuse to give the Israeli govt US$10 bill to fund the disengagement.

Rumor has it that it will cost allot more than 10 bill.

My question: Where will Olmert get the money and what consequence will this have overall to the Israeli economy?

[Romain]

First ofa ll hello! I am new here.
I toos ay that the disangagement plan needs to be worked at... Israel should make sure the central coastal strip of land is not so narrow... 10 km is not enough, and a daring raid can severe Israel in two parts.
It should lay claim to some 15-20% of the West Bank if ti can.
Furthermore, I believe Israel should keep the Golan heights for good.
And last, but not least, it still has the water, overpopulation and Arab baby boom problems...
Israel is only solving one of its existence problems by making peace with the Palestinians.
As for the money, I think 10 bill is enough. What are the main costs except for a security infrastructure?

[Faysal]

"Lets build a wall to bring people together"

"Welcom to Fort Israel!"

"a Jewish Reservate"

"The final Solution to get rid of Jews in Europe"

Sick quotes, but they fit in this topic.

[Illuminatus]

Indeed they are "Sick quotes" -- since they are not sourced, it sounds like only Faysal is making 'em.

"Lets build a wall to bring people together"

The security fence has been instrumental in bringing down the number of "successful" Martyrdom Operations by 99 percent. With proven stats like these, there is no UN resolution, international law, EUtopean outrage or mass hysteria and whining from the world's 1.6 Billion Muslims that will bring down the security fence.

"Welcom to Fort Israel!"

They actually stand up and defend themselves -- GASP! how dare they.

"a Jewish Reservate"

It's a Jewish state, always was and always will be and don't you forget it.

"The final Solution to get rid of Jews in Europe"

It didn't work now did it? Sure they tried - after all being Europeans naturally makes them a fairly dumb group of people. But if you recall, the EUtopians paid dearly for the attempt and spent the next 3 decades digging itself out of the ruble. Today the Jewish communities in every one of the 25 EU countries are growing and now resurgent -- and did I mention, the so-called "solution" was instrument in helping the State of Israel come to fruition.
---

Daniel Pipes is simply urging Dubya not to put his "stamp of approval" on any disengagement plan on the West Bank. In the final analysis, Israel will do what's in it's best interest and security -- first and foremost. And everyone else will simply have to live with it. Stamp or no stamp.

"but they fit in this topic."

Of course they fit - it's a topic that's only in your head, Faysal.

^_^

[Faysal]

In my head, and in that of Ben Gurion:

“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”

I love honest people. God rest your soul, David.

[Illuminatus]

Afraid of something?

Trying to use a Ben-Gurion quote to show a contradiction or throw back at someone doesn't seem to be working.

Let's finish his quote.

[.. ... Why should they accept that? ...

They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance.

So it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there

Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out... I'll be seventy years old soon... if you asked me whether I shall die and be buried in a Jewish State I would tell you Yes; in ten years, fifteen years, I believe there will still be a Jewish State.

But ask me whether my son Amos, who will be fifty at the end of this year, has a chance of dying and being buried in a Jewish State, and I would answer: fifty-fifty'. ..]

The actual quote was from a conversation with Dr. Nahum Goldmann, in 1956;

and later quoted in the book The Jewish Paradox: A personal memoir (published in 1978) by Nahum Goldmann himself.

That was fifty years ago. Looking around today, it sounds like he may have been slightly mistaken.

I wish he where alive today to see an Israel that is vibrant, prosperous, with an ever rising population, the tenth fastest growing economy in world, as well as being technological and scientifically successful.

I have no ideal what kind of a dust bowl Israel looked like in 1956, but there's something about being a tired old warrior in retirement, looking back on all your struggles and wondering if it was all worth it.

The quote showed that Ben-Gurion was no starry-eyed romanticist and simply recognized that there was adequate justification for the existence of a Jewish homeland without denying the legitimacy of the grievances of those who were displaced to give it room to be birthed.

At some point in Israel's future, that moral balance must be redressed - but not now, while survival is at stake.

Better luck with your next quote Faysal.

^_^

[David II]

Moral balance.........the occupied territories are soaked in the blood of Palestinian children....I find no moral balance there.

The only way for Israel to know true peace is to ensure that it enjoys good relations with it's neighbours, particularly the Palestinians. Israel won the 1967 and '73 wars but it has lost the peace. It's violence against the Palestinians only serves to fuel the extremists, more violence will result in more suicide bombings.

Ditch the right-wing rhetoric and use your brains, the only way to peace is through mutual respect.

[Mediocrates]

But what you mean is Israelis laying down and taking it no matter what. I've never once heard any of you claim that anything at all can or should be expected of the Palestinians. IT's like they're drug addled children or something playfully hitting you with their bombs strapped to their chests and this 'respect' you talk about is some kind of imaginary political dream where an elected government in Israel would gleefully do nothing to protect her own citizens from violence?

Is that what you meant?

[David II]

but I am not saying Israel should lay down and take it. What I am saying is look at history; unless you can utterly destroy all resistance, which frankly is impossible, then you have to find a way of making peace.

If Israel continues it's policy of occupation, assasination and destruction of the Palestinian infrastructure how in the long term does that benefit her? Does it not simply insense hotheads further making more suicide bombers?

Israel has won the wars, now she needs to win the peace. Not just for Israel and her neighbours but for all of us in the west.

[Mediocrates]

That is an unassailable platitude. It's a content free statement. Face facts - whatever Israel does will be rejected because what the Palestinians want, they think they can do it or not, is the collapse and end of Israel. Laying down and playing nice to people like that is pointless.

[David II]

If Israel is to know peace and security it needs friends around her. Both Jordan and Egypt have made peace with Israel and both of those countries are active in tackling terrorism because they want a stable relationship with Israel.

Continuing to occupy or control Gaza and the West Bank, to bomb Palestinian infrastructure everytime there is a suicide bombing is a policy that is doomed to failure. The IDF could not defeat the PLO, Hamas, etc., it gave limited control of the occupied territories to the Palestinians and punished them everytime Hamas (and others) committed a terrorist outrage. In essence it punishes the Palestinians for not preventing something Israel itself could not prevent.

The samething is now happening in Lebanon; it is punishing the Lebanese Government and people for being too weak to get rid of Hezbollah, something most Lebanese would probably be glad of, or at least they would have been before the IDF started bombing residential tower blocks in Beruit.

Can Israel exterminate Hezbollah, no. Most European countries have experienced terrorism and all have found that the only way to defeat terrorism is via a political settlement. It may mean supping with the devil, but the rewards speak for themselves.

[Illuminatus]

"Peaceniks" have thr priviledge of taking advantage of a widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities.

History is rarely interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements -- that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war.

In Lebanon and Gaza, the UN, the Swiss and the EU are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent.

Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? An yet millions upon millions of innocent civilians died in the process. Indeed, 10's of thousands of US American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany.

There is a reason why (US Civil War) General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia -- not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy.

There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.

"World Public Opinion," the UN and whining "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions.

That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel by Islaom-Terrorists in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places -- but who looks at track records? David II?

I recall the Falkland Islands (or Islas Malvinas to Latinos) war, when Argentina sent troops into the Falklands to capture this little British colony in the South Atlantic?

Argentina had been claiming to be the rightful owner of those islands for more than a century. Why didn't it attack these little islands before? At no time did the British have enough troops there to defend them.

Before there were "peace" movements and the UN, sending troops into those islands could easily have meant finding British troops or bombs in Buenos Aires. Now "world opinion" condemned the British just for sending armed forces into the South Atlantic to take back their islands.

Shamefully, the so-called "Europeans Allies" of Britian opposed the British use of force. But fortunately British prime minister Margaret Thatcher ignored "world opinion" and took back the Falklands.

The most catastrophic result of "peace" movements was World War II.

While Hitler was arming Germany to the teeth, "peace" movements in Britain were advocating that their own country disarm "as an example to others."

Crying,

[.. Moral balance......... peace is through mutual respect....]

British Labor Party Members of Parliament voted consistently against military spending and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country.

If calls for "peace" brought peace, there would never have been World War II.

Not only did that war lead to tens of millions of deaths, it came dangerously close to a crushing victory for the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese empire in Asia. And we now know that the United States was on Hitler's timetable after that.

For the first two years of that war, the Western democracies lost virtually every battle, all over the world, because pre-war "peace" movements had left them with inadequate military equipment and much of it obsolete. The Nazis and the Japanese knew that. That is why they launched the war.

Calls for "Peace" do not bring peace but war.

[CoinToss]

In my head, and in that of Ben Gurion:

“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”

I love honest people. God rest your soul, David.
At the same time he fought for Israel and wanted no arab in Israel.
Yes, rest in peace, David.

[Mediocrates]

If Israel is to know peace and security it needs friends around her. Both Jordan and Egypt have made peace with Israel and both of those countries are active in tackling terrorism because they want a stable relationship with Israel.


Enforceable treaties first, then peace.


In essence it punishes the Palestinians for not preventing something Israel itself could not prevent.


I rather like the idea that any and all internal problems are for someone else to fix. I think that all the unemployed people in France should be given jobs by the Chinese or that all the angry Arabs in the world should be fed and educated by Brazil. I mean why not? It's not like the country they live in has any responsibility for it? Why even HAVE countries at all?


Can Israel exterminate Hezbollah, no. Most European countries have experienced terrorism and all have found that the only way to defeat terrorism is via a political settlement. It may mean supping with the devil, but the rewards speak for themselves.

The level of terrorism in the EU is rather less and the so called 'golden age of terrorism' - the '70's was perpetrated by people in the middle east, for the most part. It's easy to appease people who live far away. I wonder though how happy they'd be in Spain for instance if after the Madrid bombing and they withdrew from Iraq there was another Madrid bombing every week for the next two years anyhow. Because that's the reality that Israel lives in. Let's say for the sake of argument you had the IRA at the table and every day they promised to stop blowing up pubs and you agreed to this and every day another pub blew up. Every day you went back to the table and told them to stop it and they agreed and the next day another pub blew up until finally they told you there's nothing can or plan to do about it. How long would you persist? Because that's the reality Israel lives in.

[David II]

Thank you Cointoss. You appear to be a very angry young man, do you have a deep seated sense of inadequacy, is it something sexual, would you like to talk about it?

WWII, the Falklands, yup, lessons have been learned. It is interesting that Argentina attacked the Falklands when it did - it could have attacked at any time over the preceding 40 years but only did so when the economy was going down the pan and its population had had enough. As for Peace, take a look at South Africa and Northern Ireland; peace is possible but only on fair terms and that means fair to Israel and the Palestinians.

Israel is occupying the West Bank and controlling Gaza; if she wants peace she needs to ensure that the conditions are right. The routine killing of children, building on Palestinian land (usually where there is an aquafer), bombing of Palestinian infrastructure only serves to stoke up the extremists.

Finally, I see a lot written about Arabs and how they wish to destroy Israel. Why do I see nothing about the (equally small minority) of Israeli's who wish to drive the Palestinians off their land?

In short, yes, Israel is responsible for Palestine and will be until the day she ceases her occupation and control.

[Floyd]

Enforceable treaties first, then peace.



The level of terrorism in the EU is rather less and the so called 'golden age of terrorism' - the '70's was perpetrated by people in the middle east, for the most part. It's easy to appease people who live far away. I wonder though how happy they'd be in Spain for instance if after the Madrid bombing and they withdrew from Iraq there was another Madrid bombing every week for the next two years anyhow. Because that's the reality that Israel lives in. Let's say for the sake of argument you had the IRA at the table and every day they promised to stop blowing up pubs and you agreed to this and every day another pub blew up. Every day you went back to the table and told them to stop it and they agreed and the next day another pub blew up until finally they told you there's nothing can or plan to do about it. How long would you persist? Because that's the reality Israel lives in.

That's couse the EVIL 3 (Izrael, USA, GB) were & still are standing behind Al' Quaida! The funnyest part was Ussama Ibn Laden's threat just few days before the elections. But, he is a stupid man, he didn't know that he provided a lot of votes for his "old enemy" LOL!!! Right???

[David II]

Enforceable treaties first, then peace.



I rather like the idea that any and all internal problems are for someone else to fix. I think that all the unemployed people in France should be given jobs by the Chinese or that all the angry Arabs in the world should be fed and educated by Brazil. I mean why not? It's not like the country they live in has any responsibility for it? Why even HAVE countries at all?

Israel occupies or controls the occupied terroritories; morally and legally she is responsible for them. If you want Palestinians to solve their own problems I'd suggest that Israel treates them fairly, i.e. don't attack Palestinian infrastructure everytime some idiot blows themselves and dozens of civilians up.

The level of terrorism in the EU is rather less and the so called 'golden age of terrorism' - the '70's was perpetrated by people in the middle east, for the most part. It's easy to appease people who live far away. I wonder though how happy they'd be in Spain for instance if after the Madrid bombing and they withdrew from Iraq there was another Madrid bombing every week for the next two years anyhow. Because that's the reality that Israel lives in. Let's say for the sake of argument you had the IRA at the table and every day they promised to stop blowing up pubs and you agreed to this and every day another pub blew up. Every day you went back to the table and told them to stop it and they agreed and the next day another pub blew up until finally they told you there's nothing can or plan to do about it. How long would you persist? Because that's the reality Israel lives in.


Drawing a comparision between the IRA and the Palestinians is misleading. The majority of Northern Irelands population some 60-65% view themselves as British and living in Britain. I would expect that close to 100% of Palestinians would view themselves as living in Palestine. Past Palestinian Governments have been militarily and/or Politically too weak to tackle terrorists and Israel should take some blame for that. When the IRA robbed the Northern Bank should Britain have bombed the devolved Government in Northern Ireland? That is the logic you are following.

[Floyd]

The funnyest part was Ussama Ibn Laden's threat just few days before the elections. But, he is a stupid man, he didn't know that he provided a lot of votes for his "old enemy" LOL!!! Right???

No answer to this question?

[Floyd]

Bump! Answer please! Anyone?

I know you can't explain it:eek:

[Mediocrates]

Drawing a comparision between the IRA and the Palestinians is misleading. The majority of Northern Irelands population some 60-65% view themselves as British and living in Britain. I would expect that close to 100% of Palestinians would view themselves as living in Palestine. Past Palestinian Governments have been militarily and/or Politically too weak to tackle terrorists and Israel should take some blame for that. When the IRA robbed the Northern Bank should Britain have bombed the devolved Government in Northern Ireland? That is the logic you are following.


Maybe the Palestinians should revisit the terrorist approach of they feel that Israel's response is too much to bear.

[David II]

Maybe the Palestinians should revisit the terrorist approach of they feel that Israel's response is too much to bear.

Perhaps the Palestinian and the Israeli people would both benefit from a mutually agreed equitable settlement that ensured security and political / economic stability for both peoples. Isn't that US policy as well Mediocrates?

[Mediocrates]

I'm not sure the US has a policy at all. I'm not sure that it matters since the "Road Map" was little more than a sop to the Saudis in the first place. A settlement can only be possible with Iran. So if you know a way to drag them to the table seeing how not even threats from the rest of the world over atomic weapons has done that, will work here.

[Floyd]

The funnyest part was Ussama Ibn Laden's threat just few days before the elections. But, he is a stupid man, he didn't know that he provided a lot of votes for his "old enemy" LOL!!! Right???

If you can't explain this, then this is an evidence for every man that's thinking with his own head that Bush & Ibn Ladin are working together!

[David II]

I'm not sure the US has a policy at all. I'm not sure that it matters since the "Road Map" was little more than a sop to the Saudis in the first place. A settlement can only be possible with Iran. So if you know a way to drag them to the table seeing how not even threats from the rest of the world over atomic weapons has done that, will work here.

I'm not sure that a settlement with Iran is necessary, at least for peace with the Palestinians. As for any settlement with Iran, not a great prospect is it.

[Floyd]

The funnyest part was Ussama Ibn Laden's threat just few days before the elections. But, he is a stupid man, he didn't know that he provided a lot of votes for his "old enemy" LOL!!! Right???
If you can't explain this, then this is an evidence for every man that's thinking with his own head that Bush & Ibn Ladin are working together!

[sconie]

Look, G.W. may not be the smartest man, and even I as american citizen can see that he might have underhanded agendas. But anyone that thinks he is in bed with Osama is crazy. Time to stop listening to rhetoric and think for yourself. How in the world would that make any sense?

[Good day]

Warning: Translation by computer: original in: www.melodysoft.com/foros/lreydelosjudios
This publication is coopering with the mossad intelligence service of Israel.
Israel Tzabaot is a expert in cabala magic, he is working to the Israel state.
Foundation YHVH . Today's wisdom. The occult laws of the war.
0732 Press Creative analysis. http://fundacion-yhvh.netfirms.com (Web of the King of the Jews) http://e-nostra.com (official Searcher of the Foundation) http://come.to/0732press (political Analysis) http://browse.to/internacional (International communist GROUP RESURRECTION) http://e-book.tk (Editorial where Manuel's Vine books are published) we don't become responsible for anything of that written. We declare that all that written is a figuration megalomaniaca or crazy of a possible present reality, passing or future, with resources and new, absolutely experimental ideas, esquizoids, poetic, grandiloquent and enormous or maybe guessed right. We don't seek to convince anybody of the published ideas, we only look for the amusement and the cynic skylarking besides the full observation of the reality and the guessed right analysis. Publication specialized in political analysis. Game of rol . We thank the successes mediátics of this publication. We deny all the insults in the event of complaint. It is supposed that the King is very aggressive, totally unbalanced mentally, for what his writings are always based on the extreme aggressiveness and this publication should not be read for smaller than 16 years that can carry out all the humorous histories that are expressed in this publication. SLOGANS: YHVH FOUNDATION CRAZY'S DISCLAIMER FOR TO DESTROYED WORLD. New power in the World. The power of the Jew in the world. The vengeance will make us free. 0732 Press Creative analysis. YHVH Foundation highest authority Judaism in the world.



1. The border steps of Israel, the barriers and the wire fences of the whole territory of Israel and of the new conquests they should have symbols like broken terrorists' human bodies, terrorists' dissected heads or terrorists' dissected crucified bodies, looking toward it was. These make of magnificent shield.
2. The weapons confiscated as the assault rifles and other weapons should be distributed among the best soldiers of ours and among the generals that should use them and to have them like preferential weapons of great precision and power.
3. The law of the silence, is not to speak neither to scream too much when one makes the war, the silence it is the most potent scream and the one that more damage ago to the enemy. Neither it is necessary to be too noisy. The zambombazos of the tanks is a warning informer that should only be used to destroy human bodies.
4. Some woman should always take in the war and follarla until exploding it making you/he/she handcuffs her.
5. The law of Yahveh, all the soldiers must be praying when they make the war and they should take the symbols from their faith to the overdraft.
6. To take a city is not to enter in her, like it is usually affirmed. To take it is to besiege her and to block it. Once fact this the city is of property. The fence includes, the destruction of the antennas of TV, and the absolute isolation of the city: telephones, satélites(bloqueados with waves and interferences).
7. The law of the cannibalism and the possession: sometimes from killing the heart it hurts and an enters not well bad call of war: nightmares, depresión…nerviosismo…estos symptoms only remits when it is violated an enemy woman, or the enemy's blood is sucked. Because the woman is the symbol of the earth and the blood is the symbol of the soul. When making that, you take possession of the enemy's earth and of their souls and your hearts find a true justification of the battle. The symptoms are increased if the earth is returned or the women are returned that are the same thing. So if you want to be healthy, not to return those conquests, you don't harm to you same. Those symptoms are the sensation of having fought for he/she swims her.
8. The law of the funnel: to Make the war is to dominate and to make that one makes our will, above killing him.
9. The law of the pain: The important thing is the pain, not the death. To win it is necessary to make I damage for that reason I tell you that you destroy the tourism of Lebanon… it is conquered when one harms, more than when it is killed.
For the time being it is suficiente…ya I will tell you more things.

Israel Tzabaot King of the Jews.

[XzXaN]

Its hard for me to understand that why dont humans learn from the past.

World War 2 gets it birth when the winners place humiliating conditions on Germany n peace begin when the winners helped in rebuilding Gemany.Today Germany is one of the most develop countries n its no longer interested in War or in world domination .The reason for this is economic prosperity n good quality education .Japan is another example n i believe that world should learn from those examples.

Israel is a realty n so is the Arab world n Palestine.The dilemma in Arab n Muslim countries is that the governments there r not interested in development of there countries but they r busy with corruption n to divert the public,s attention from the real problems they use religion n hate for other countries just like Hitler use the hate for Jews.

An Israeli youth has future in term of education n employment .Unfortunatly Palestinian youth has not the same future .All they have is poverty ,unemployment etc.

I believe that hate is the highest form of pain in most people.If u want to kill hate u have to cure the pain.

Palestinian n Lebanese youth has nothing like an Israeli they didnt have a bright future ahead ,when u didnt have good education, no play grounds no work but just poverty n there government is doing nothing about that then Its very easy to use those young minds .

Jews learn there lesson n they develop there own political Judaism because of which they got Isreal back on the map of world .I still believe that if Jews havent adopted the modern ways of democracy n development n if they have sticked to there religion only then there might have been no Israel.Arab n Muslim have to learn the same thing that religion is not going to work in today,s modern world.Religions r old myths created by the mind of ancient peoples .If u want to move forward u have to reform u,r self according to the world of today n not according to the world of ancient times .

Israel has to take the responsibility of big brother.Its no more a young state .It has developed economically but unfortunately in term of peace its a total failure.If instead of bombing Israel had promote development in Palestine even if it was under there own control today they might have not seen that much hatred by the Palestinians.

I know this might sound really ridiculous to many peoples but arent this thing has already worked in Germany Italy n in Japan .How is peace possible when there is hate among the parties involved .If u want to gain the trust of u,r enemy u have to show love to them otherwise he will always be u,r enemy.

If instead of creating buffer zones n making peoples leave their homes they had develop the same areas today middle east would have been a peace full region .Even if u make the whole world a buffer zone it will not help.Just like Hitler use the German youth of that time for his evil planes in the same way the regimes in Syria n Iran r using the youth in Lebanon n in Palestine.Israel may finish one Hizbullah n Hammas but they r giving birth to more Hizbullahs n more Hammases n the cycle will keeping repeating it self until Israel learn how to love its enemy n then the enemy will be no longer enemy but friend.

Why i,m putting the responsibility on Israel because its more power full n only the power full can do that .Just like the power full in World war 2 had done that in the past n today we see that they r no more enemies but friends.

[Floyd]

Look, G.W. may not be the smartest man, and even I as american citizen can see that he might have underhanded agendas. But anyone that thinks he is in bed with Osama is crazy. Time to stop listening to rhetoric and think for yourself. How in the world would that make any sense?

Would american people aproove atack on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran... if there was no "terrorist atacks" on 911? He needed a reason to atack. Maybe Bush himself had no conection to this, but then he is a sandman (dancer on the strings) for someone else who maked the plan. Why did'nt "the atacks" hapened while Clinton was the president? You still haven't answered me this:

The funnyest part was Ussama Ibn Laden's threat just few days before the elections. But, he is a stupid man, he didn't know that he provided a lot of votes for his "old enemy" LOL!!! Right???

[sconie]

Why did'nt "the atacks" hapened while Clinton was the president? You still haven't answered me this:

The reason these attacks didn't happen then is because they wouldn't have had the effect the terrorist desired, you are right there. Clinton would have had the whole word community united against them and would have went a diplomatic way. They happened with Bush in power because everybody knows you "Don't mess with Texas", and retaliation was inevitable. And I think that was their plan all along, to encite hatred for the free world as we know it. Still, there is no secret plan where the two are in it together! We are just seeing Bush get outsmarted, which I have to admit is not very hard to do. But I think he is learning, and our next president will do more to combat terrorism in their first year then Bush did in 8, I promise you that.

[Floyd]

The reason these attacks didn't happen then is because they wouldn't have had the effect the terrorist desired, you are right there.

What are you trying to say? That terrorist wanted America to atack islamic countryes? That just doesn't make any sense!

[sconie]

HELLO, they are terrorist. They want to provoke the world powers to react against whoever they can. You think these people don't want to see people killed, be it american or anybody else? They want TERROR to be in the hearts and minds of every person to promote their agenda. And what better way than to provoke the big guy, and then convince everyone he is the bad guy when he reacts. Really is amazing at the intricacy of thier plan, shows allot of intelligence. Yet they still aren't smart enough to realize that they are fighting towards no concievable goal and the only thing that will come from a suicide, is death, their own and whoever else. Death is not a goal anyone should look to attain. To live in peace and prosper, now there is a goal that I can understand. If the leaders actually believed the rhetoric they are spewing, why are they not the first to die for their cause and reap the rewards of countless virgins? Instead of acting like cowards hiding, as though they don't believe in the rewards of martydom theirselves.

[Faysal]

At the same time he fought for Israel and wanted no arab in Israel.
Yes, rest in peace, David.

auslander raus? dont believe u

he was no fascist like u are

[Floyd]

HELLO, they are terrorist. They want to provoke the world powers to react against whoever they can. You think these people don't want to see people killed, be it american or anybody else? They want TERROR to be in the hearts and minds of every person to promote their agenda. And what better way than to provoke the big guy, and then convince everyone he is the bad guy when he reacts. Really is amazing at the intricacy of thier plan, shows allot of intelligence. Yet they still aren't smart enough to realize that they are fighting towards no concievable goal and the only thing that will come from a suicide, is death, their own and whoever else. Death is not a goal anyone should look to attain. To live in peace and prosper, now there is a goal that I can understand. If the leaders actually believed the rhetoric they are spewing, why are they not the first to die for their cause and reap the rewards of countless virgins? Instead of acting like cowards hiding, as though they don't believe in the rewards of martydom theirselves.

Oh... how smart explaination! Would you blow up yourself if there is another option? Or you would do that 'couse you want to create some chaos in the world? Hey! This is not Batman & Joker, we are not in the movie. People don't
sacrifice them selfs for fun. It's a metter of rebelion...

[GWeinberg]

But I think he is learning, and our next president will do more to combat terrorism in their first year then Bush did in 8, I promise you that.

Unfortunately it may take decades to regain trustworthiness lost by today's policies of pre-emptive war and retaliation.

[sconie]

Oh... how smart explaination! Would you blow up yourself if there is another option? Or you would do that 'couse you want to create some chaos in the world? Hey! This is not Batman & Joker, we are not in the movie. People don't
sacrifice them selfs for fun. It's a metter of rebelion...


I really can't make any sense of this? Are you trying to say that suicide bombers consider that their last resort. Give me a break!! Maybe try, not blowing yourself up. There is always that option.:D

[David II]

Would american people aproove atack on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran... if there was no "terrorist atacks" on 911? He needed a reason to atack. Maybe Bush himself had no conection to this, but then he is a sandman (dancer on the strings) for someone else who maked the plan. Why did'nt "the atacks" hapened while Clinton was the president? You still haven't answered me this:


Neither Iraq nor Iran had anything to do with 911.

[minusthejihad]

Neither Iraq nor Iran had anything to do with 911.

So what. They both have plenty of blood and crimes on their hands to warrant an attack. Saddam paid families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Thats plenty of support of terrorism to warrant an attack.

You don't get it. 911, Madrid, Israel, London, Bali, India, etc. Its all the same thing: jihad, militant Islam, fundamentalist Islam, whatever you want to call it. Call it Clash of Civilizations, write it down, take a picture, I don't give a phuk.

[David II]

So what. They both have plenty of blood and crimes on their hands to warrant an attack. Saddam paid families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Thats plenty of support of terrorism to warrant an attack.

You don't get it. 911, Madrid, Israel, London, Bali, India, etc. Its all the same thing: jihad, militant Islam, fundamentalist Islam, whatever you want to call it. Call it Clash of Civilizations, write it down, take a picture, I don't give a phuk.

I agree with you. Militant Islam is a global threat to all civilised democratic nations; I hope your Government is doing more to combat it than ours, its all "human rights this, human rights that, mustn't offend this person or that", what about the majority? Even school children are taking Education Authorities to court (as the UK tax payers expense) to protest that they're not allowed to cover themselves from head to foot in black cloth. They demand our respect yet give little in return to our culture or values.

My point is that 911 had nothing to do with Iran or Iraq, its down to Bin Laden and his particular brand of psycho stupidity. I would suggest that the US turn its attention to Saudi Arabia - they're the ones who are funding much of the Islamic terrorism in the world today.

[minusthejihad]

I agree with you. Militant Islam is a global threat to all civilised democratic nations; I hope your Government is doing more to combat it than ours, its all "human rights this, human rights that, mustn't offend this person or that", what about the majority? Even school children are taking Education Authorities to court (as the UK tax payers expense) to protest that they're not allowed to cover themselves from head to foot in black cloth. They demand our respect yet give little in return to our culture or values.

My point is that 911 had nothing to do with Iran or Iraq, its down to Bin Laden and his particular brand of psycho stupidity. I would suggest that the US turn its attention to Saudi Arabia - they're the ones who are funding much of the Islamic terrorism in the world today.

I agree with you. Every dog gets its day. You mean you don't think the US was looking 10 - 20 years down the line? Just how quickly can the US respond to a threat from Iran? Well, if we weren't in Iraq, we're talking weeks. Today, its hours. Saudi knows we're there too.

[David II]

If Iran wasn't such a serious threat to the entire world it would be interesting to see how the "nuclear" situation will pan out. All this rubbish about "developing our own power" is a complete crock; we all know what's going on.

For once I think the IDF can do the world a huge favour and take Iran's nuclear research facilities out. Some nations may complain but at least the rest of us will be safe.

[Mediocrates]

For once I think the IDF can do the world a huge favour and take Iran's nuclear research facilities out. Some nations may complain but at least the rest of us will be safe.


No - you should take care of your own problems and stop outsourcing your dirty work. Why should Israel do you job just so can heap condemnation on them? No thanks. I'd happily trade Florence, Zagreb or Bucharest for Tehran. Then if the whole Muslim world rises up against you -well, good luck with that. Maybe Red Ken can calm down the mob.

[David II]

No - you should take care of your own problems and stop outsourcing your dirty work. Why should Israel do you job just so can heap condemnation on them? No thanks. I'd happily trade Florence, Zagreb or Bucharest for Tehran. Then if the whole Muslim world rises up against you -well, good luck with that. Maybe Red Ken can calm down the mob.

well it isn't really our problem is it; Iran doesn't have the capacity to launch missiles that can reach Europe so we're ok, perhaps the West should sit back and let Iran gain nuclear parity with Israel. I guess that fits in with your rather strange view of the world doesn't it Mediocrates.

As for Red Ken, well he isn't really red anymore.

[Rev]

Anyone thinking of staying in the West Bank- GET OUT - The Security wall is going to start another slaughter!!!
Any Jew that stays in the west bank will be slaughtered.
Why do i say this????
In the Book of Daniel Chapter9 verse 27 it mentions that an anti-messiah -(the Talmud calls him Armilus, The Christian Bible calls him the Antichrist),
will help make Israel a covenant for 7 years. (Israel has not made this yet). Halfway into the 7 year "peace" he will stop Jews from
sacrificing, and he will claim to be God (the Abomination of Desolation). He will then pursue those who don't worship him.
Olmert has mentioned that those Jews who want to stay in the West Bank (Judea) won't have Israel's protection.

In the Christian Bible, In the book of Matthew chapter 24 verse 15, it mentions what happens after that....


"When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place,
(whoso readeth, let him understand: )
THEN LET THEM WHICH BE IN JUDAEA FLEE INTO THE MOUNTAINS:
Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
FOR THEN SHALL BE GREAT TRIBULATION, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

[Mediocrates]

well it isn't really our problem is it; Iran doesn't have the capacity to launch missiles that can reach Europe so we're ok, perhaps the West should sit back and let Iran gain nuclear parity with Israel.


Israel is in their gunsites regardless. When Europe falls under their nuclear umbrella then it's Europe's problem to deal with or ignore. On paper, a DPRK Taepodong-2 missile can hit Greenland from Iran. Is this technically feasible? Well of course it is, it's just a matter of time. Then the EU can gather together and worry about what they should do about it, or not.

[David II]

Possibly true, but if one takes your view then Iran will attack Israel first and both Israel and Iran will end up as radioactive dustbowls. Then it ceases to be Europe's problem.

Perhaps the question is whether Iran would ever directly attack Israel; Israel is militarily more powerful and has powerful friends who would ensure that Iran took a beating. On that basis perhaps Iran will continue indirect attacks via third parties such as Hezbollah, a policy followed by Lybia for many years until we all made up with hugs and kisses.

[Mediocrates]

I think the purpose of strategic weapons is to shape strategy. The most valuable use of them is to not use them. Iran may or may not be crazy enough to nuke a US carrier group in the Indian Ocean. I don't know. But in either case a nuclear Iran is free to prosecute any other strategy as a gambit against those weapons. It could occupy parts of Syria and Iraq. It could send troops into the Muslim states of the FSU. It could rattle the NATO forces in Afghanistan. It could do an awful lot of damage with the nuclear sword hanging over everyone's heads. Look at the EU reaction at the mere threat of a plausible nuclear force in the future.

[David II]

It is true that both strategically and politically a nuclear weapon equipped Iran is a serious potential threat, however, I believe an equal threat is that Iran will hand a number of nuclear small devices to terrorist organisations for their own purposes. Traditionally states such as Iran and Libya have not started conventional wars, rather they have sought to spread their idiology indirectly via smaller groups and organisations.

The potential consequences to Iran could well be severe but the Iranians might bank on (a) the world not being able to pin down Iran as being the source of the device and (b) possession of an A-bomb is a sufficiently serious deterrent to prevent a US / allied strike.

[Mediocrates]

No posting in Turkish. Last warning.

Also you've mixed in thoroughly debunked lies.

Also:

http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp