As it so happens, there are other things one can do with a camera phone during a revolution besides filming gun battles.
I recently arrived late to a very good party, the party of Jiim Siin’s brilliant and wickedly satirical monologues about the Syrian uprising. Recorded on an iPhone by an anonymous Syrian fellow living in the diaspora, the series entitled وقائع طنجرة الضغط (“Chronicles of the Pressure Cooker”) is a collection of short audio clips of sketches, political allegories, and satirical musings on the revolution. You can listen to the entire series on his blog.
Among my favorites:
- Boiling up a new Constitution
- Don’t go…alone: A letter to Bashar al-Assad.
- Re-reading Syria as a sieve, rather than a pressure cooker…
- The most recent clip, excoriating the new Syrian constitution’s requirement that any presidential candidate be married to a Syrian woman.
- You know what? Do yourself a favor and listen to them all.
What I love about these clips is the language: a rich, pungent, evocative vernacular… basically colloquial poetry. Yes, I know I’m getting carried away, but I can’t really think of a more creative response to the situation than this.
I got in touch with Jiim Siin via Twitter. He tells me he was inspired by Arabic radio programs and by Monty Python’s Flying Circus, “for the absurdity…” His weekly missives bring to mind Jacques Barzun’s famous definition of decadence: “When people accept futility and the absurd as normal, the culture is decadent. The term is not a slur; it is a technical label. A decadent culture offers opportunities chiefly to the satirist…”
In Jiim Siin, the Syrian revolution has a very talented one indeed.
Qifa Nabki 
I agree.
But discussions in which one of the parties insists on inventing the other party’s positions as the basis for said “discussion” is a monologue.
Posted by lally | March 23, 2012, 10:12 amLally,
In “#174”, you say things are understood.
No one is stating your position for you. But if you are relying on people to simply understand your position for you because it is “understood”, then I don’t think you really ought to complain when people misunderstand.
That’s why being explicit leaves no room for interpretation.
And lessens the likelihood of a monologue.
So do I take it that I was mistaken when I “understood” from your various postings that you are sympathetic to the Palestinians?
Do you think the Palestinians should leave the Israelis alone? Forget the Right of Return? Give up on Jerusalem?
Posted by Gabriel | March 23, 2012, 4:17 pmHi all,
Jiim Siin here.
Elias, thank you very much for the great blog entry. I am grateful.
A few things disturbed me in the last few comments:
“So let’s see which arab countries will denounce Mohamed Merah.
Palestine was the first…”
Why should Arab countries (presumably the governments) denounce Mohamed Merah specifically. Did France, of which he was a citizen, denounce him? Are Arab countries all linked to him only because his parents were from an Arab country? Would you expect the Jews worlwide to denounce the massacres perpetrated by Baruch Goldstein or by Israeli soldiers in Qana?
“Palestine was the first…”? The Palestinian Authority was the first.
Jiim Siin
Posted by gottfriedstutz | March 24, 2012, 7:48 amGiven the fact that the Arabs are mainly responsible for this sickening scourge of terrorism starting from the seventies all the way to 9 11 and now killing children in France, all in the name of liberating Palestine, defending Islam and the Arab nation from the infidels. Yes, the Arabs have a lot of apologizing to do.
Unless of course we all agree that all Arab governments and people, all puppets of a great conspiracy, lead by the infidel colonial powers, have no say or do in anyyhing that is going on. Then there is no need to apologize.
Posted by Vulcan | March 24, 2012, 9:49 amVulcan, thanks.
danny, asked me the same question, and he has a point.
However, you can bet the PA put out statements for a reason.
Here are a few condemnations from a search I just did:
These statements are made to distance one’s cause from the terror act, that is, if the country or organization is INTERESTED…
The head of the World Council of Churches has condemned violence against religious and ethnic minorities after a spate of murders in southern France.
http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase.php?cat=europe&id=396
“MPAC condemns these attacks in the strongest terms possible and is relieved that this criminal is no longer able to cause fear on the streets of France,” said Salam Al-Marayati, MPAC President. “We offer our condolences to the families victimized by this horrific act and call upon the people of France to come together and not allow their national resilience to be impacted by these acts of terror.”
SEE: “French Police Say They Have Cornered Suspect in School Shooting” (New York Times)
ALSO SEE: “Sarkozy Vows to Find Gunman in Fatal Jewish School Shooting” (Globe and Mail)
The victims of the 10-day killing spree include at least three French Muslim paratroopers and four French Jews, three of whom were children ages 7 and younger. All seven victims were shot at very close range and directly to the head.
The fact that this tragedy took place in a religious institution and targeted children is even more disturbing. The sanctity of life and religious institutions is paramount in the principles espoused by the Quran.
French Muslim and Palestinian leaders have condemned the terrorist acts.
“These acts are in total contradiction with the foundations of this religion,” said Mohammed Moussaoui, President of the French Council of Muslim Faith. “France’s Muslims are offended by this claim of belonging to this religion.”
Meanwhile, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said, “It is time for these criminals to stop marketing their terrorist acts in the name of Palestine and to stop pretending to stand up for the rights of Palestinian children who only ask for a decent life.”
http://interfaithcenter.org/archives/2289
RAMALLAH (Ma’an) — PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad on Wednesday condemned the killing of three children and a rabbi at a Jewish school in France, rejecting the suspected gunman’s motive of avenging Palestinian children killed by Israel.
“This terrorist crime is condemned in the strongest terms by the Palestinian people and our children … No Palestinian child can accept crimes against innocent people,” Fayyad said in a statement.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=469956
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(WARREN, MI, 3/21/12) – The religious leaders (imams) of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan (CIOM) today condemn in the strongest terms the recent murders of three French Muslim paratroopers, a rabbi and three Jewish children, which were reportedly committed by a French national named Mohammed Merah.
http://dawudwalid.wordpress.com/
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 24, 2012, 9:55 amWhen will the most Infamous White House Murder INC, in the Levant since January 24th 2002, and Worldwide ever since the Barbaric Inside Job of 9/11, ever apologize to the American People and the Rest of the World, for their Odious Zioconned acts of extra-judicial assassinations in broad day light, instigated by the monster Dick Cheney?
When will the Satanic Pentagon and IsraHell apologize for the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians murdered in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Afghanistan?
Just wondering! 🙂
Posted by Zen | March 24, 2012, 1:21 pm@206….Dude; zen=HK?
Posted by danny | March 24, 2012, 2:26 pmA colleague introduce me formally to data mining programs a few months ago. Our first experiment was done on the federalist papers to determine their authorship.
#206 requires no such sophisticated techniques to conclude that Zen is HK :-). Have you been lurking all this time?
Posted by gkaram | March 24, 2012, 4:58 pmThanks for pointing that out, Ghassan. Bye bye Zen.
Posted by Qifa Nabki | March 24, 2012, 5:01 pmOh come on we miss The Ashh Ka ! it would have been fun to read his LSD induced theories on the current events.
Posted by Vulcan | March 24, 2012, 7:17 pmQN…It is a slow news cycle…Let the E channel be open to expose the psychedelic effect of HK’s aged “Bekaa Gold’s” on a special mind. 😀
Posted by danny | March 25, 2012, 8:22 amVulcan, in which ways are “…the Arabs […] mainly responsible for this sickening scourge of terrorism starting from the seventies all the way to 9 11 and now killing children in France”?
Keep in mind that the presumed murderer is French.
Posted by Jiim Siin | March 25, 2012, 5:42 pmJiim siin…
Are you a citizen of any western country?
Posted by Gabriel | March 25, 2012, 7:56 pm“Keep in mind that the presumed murderer is French” No, he is Algerian Arab Muslim with a French citizenship.
Sorry I am too tired to go into details as to why I think Arabs are responsible, just to name a few contributing factors that dominated or now dominate the Arab world like Leftist revolutionary ideologies, Wahabi, Salafi & Shia extremism, Military Dictatorships, poverty, oppression, hate mongering etc etc
If you have time, tell us if and why you think Arabs are not responsible
Posted by Vulcan | March 25, 2012, 8:54 pmOccupation too… just in case “La Resistance” cries foul
Posted by Vulcan | March 25, 2012, 10:11 pmMurder lnc. & the Assad Legacy
He’s baaaaaack….
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 25, 2012, 10:20 pm“La Resistance” as you disrespectfully call them used their arms to prevent Lebanon from being invaded today. What did you do to protect against the Zionists?
Posted by dontgetit | March 25, 2012, 10:30 pmDontgetit,
i need protection from corruption, sectarianism, racism, oppression, ignorance, lack of freedom, armed thugs, lack of human rights, expired and rotten food, bad roads, crazy rude and aggressive drivers, electricity generators, air pollution, dirty rivers, dirty sea, garbage mountains, and the noovo reesh of Beirut. These are my enemies not the Zionists.
The Zionists didn’t make us the way we are in Lebanon.
Posted by Vulcan | March 25, 2012, 11:13 pmThe Zionists didn’t make us the way we are in Lebanon.
Vulcan,
How about Syria? Are the Zionists destroying the Syrian government led by the great and highly esteemed Assad family?
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 26, 2012, 7:47 amAkbar, yes its a great conspiracy in Syria and the rest of the Arab World, led by the Infamous White house Murder Inc and the ZioNaziCons to destroy our beloved peace loving Democratic regimes and people, but rest assured we are up to their games and we will face this with more Democracy, human rights and tolerance as you see in the newly published Syrian constitution. 🙂
Posted by Vulcan | March 26, 2012, 9:41 am@219,
AP, The Zionists are supporting it!
Posted by danny | March 26, 2012, 10:22 amAP, The Zionists are supporting it!
danny,
You got me. What are the Zionist supporting?
THe GOI has been totally mum with respect to the crisis in Syria.
However, no Jew or Israeli I know supports Assad. Nada.
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 26, 2012, 5:06 pmLet’s not put together Jews and GOI for a moment. The GOI has been the protector of the Assad clan as the butchers in Damascus have been the guarantor of the total peace at their borders (Golan) since 1974. It is with their acquiescence that Assad’s army took over Lebanon. It makes sense as Another Israeli Guy will agree as well. GOI does not give a rat’s ass to other people’s suffering; especially that of Syrians. They care about the safety of their own Jewish citizens. Period. Could you let me know if Israel has officially recognized any of the Genocides that have been perpetrated on other people? Ukrainian; Rwandan; Armenian…etc…?
Posted by danny | March 26, 2012, 6:10 pmdanny, معك حق
There is movement toward recognizing the Armenian genocide ever since the Israeli/Turk relationship became problematic. The geopolitical change of direction was/is lead by some American Zionists in order to punish Turkey through Congressional action.
So helpful of them but the GOI isn’t sure that’s it’s a good idea.
Posted by lally | March 26, 2012, 6:59 pmIs any non Jew a GOI or is it only a non Jew who lives in israel?
Posted by gkaram | March 26, 2012, 7:35 pmGOI=Government of Israel
Posted by lally | March 26, 2012, 7:51 pmLally… you sure as hell have me confused.
I thought you were a non-Arab American.
Posted by Gabriel | March 26, 2012, 8:16 pmDanny,
The Israeli government does not protect the Assad regime. It is just not motivated enough to get rid of it given its actions since 1973.
.
It is not as if Israel will do anything to make sure he stays in power. The Israeli view is that the long term in the middle east is unpredictable and therefore the best strategy is to get periods of quiet that are as long as possible and use them to advance Israel’s qualitative advantages while strengthening its economy.
.
Given the history of Syria, Israeli assessment has always been that Assad would either be replaced by another general or by the Muslim Brotherhood. So why bother anyway to get rid of him? It is not as if Syria would become Sweden if Assad leaves. Maybe we are wrong, but that has not been shown yet.
.
Plus, even though it sounds counter intuitive, what Israel wants is a strong government in control of Syria so as not to repeat the Lebanese scenario in which militias act with impunity from the state and are manipulated by outside actors. In the post-Assad Syria, Iran will still seek clients to arm and support (in a similar manner that it supports Hezbollah), and if the state is weak, it will spell trouble for Israel. Which is the reason Israel turned a blind eye to Syria taking over Lebanon, hoping that will reign in the Palestinians. That did not work out well. And by the way, in 1982, the major battles the IDF had were against Syrian troops and the Syrians suffered huge losses.
.
So your theory that Israel protects Assad is just not correct.
Posted by AIG | March 26, 2012, 8:55 pmVulcan @218:
LOL – the zionazis are not to blame for crazy rude aggressive drivers and, outside of Palestine, for the bad and rotting food. Most of the other issues you name (really the first few) are, demonstrably, the direct result of the insertion of “israel” and jews into the Middle East and are necessary until that cancer can be cured. When the zionist entity is gone, we can talk about “freedom” and “human rights”. Until then, they are of little use in the face of the constant aggression. It is the “armed thugs” that you need to protect you, except that they are heroes, not thugs.
Posted by dontgetit | March 26, 2012, 9:15 pmAIG:
Israel does what it perceives to be best for Israel.
This is natural.
If that means its perception is that Assad’s “peace” is good for Israel, it will adopt policies that “support” Assad.
If it feels that Assad’s “peace” is no longer good for Israel, or perhaps a little confusion in the rest of the Middle East is good for Israel, then it will support policies that will “support” confusion and strife.
But it will not support policies simply because it wants a democratic regime that supports Human Rights in Syria.
That’s the bottom line (and I think Danny’s correct broader point). The rest is really just petty details.
Posted by Gabriel | March 26, 2012, 9:16 pmThanks Gabriel. 😀
Posted by danny | March 26, 2012, 9:28 pmJiim Siin:
I read this and thought of you…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17519558
Why do you suppose Merah’s father decided to have his French son buried in Algeria?
Posted by Gabriel | March 26, 2012, 10:54 pmThe GOI has been the protector of the Assad clan as the butchers in Damascus have been the guarantor of the total peace at their borders (Golan) since 1974.
Danny, Gabriel,
“protector”? “guarantor”? “support”? Shirley you must be joking!
Can you be more specific? Has the GOI provided body-guards??
If anyone protects Syria it’s the F’in Russian, the F’in Hezbos and the F’in Iranians.
As much as I like you guys, you have odd opinions sometimes….
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 26, 2012, 10:57 pmGabriel and Danny,
If Israel believed that some course of action would bring to power a strong and stable democratic government in Syria with reasonable cost in human life and treasure, Israel would pursue such action.
The thing is very few, if any, policy makers in Israel believe such a course of action is available. No one I know thinks that democracy is going to take root in Syria in this decade, whatever anyone does. Hopefully, we are wrong.
And since when does not supporting getting involved in regime change is the same as either supporting Assad or “supporting” Assad, whatever that means?
So do you “support” or support Assad because you are not doing anything to change the regime? Or is this just details?
Posted by AIG | March 26, 2012, 11:48 pmAIG:
You don’t really believe that the nature of whatever system exists in Syria/other neighboring countries with respect to Israel is irrelevant to Israel.
As for your last point, what you or me or Danny or others do to support or “support”;Assad is not relevant. Who are we? Well I’ll speak for myself, I’m just a nobody!
But “Israel” is not a nobody. It is a country of some importance. It is a country for whose security all sorts of American politicians are “committed”. The same kind of politicians who decide when to bomb a country (Libya), or when not to bomb a country (Syria).
Posted by Gabriel | March 27, 2012, 12:18 amStill WASP-y as ever, Gaby. Copped the phrase from QN’s twitterfeed.
Come off it, AIG. Israeli pols are too pragmatic to invest in airy-fairy musings about democracies for Arabs unless they’re designed & staffed to their specs; see Ramallah. Both the GOA & the GOI share that basic approach but the former rather ineptly shroud their true intent with pink spun cotton candy.
Regime change v.Syria has always been the goal from the US perspective and is shared by the current Israeli pols. The professional security types were more enthusiastic about coming to an understanding with Assad; thinking it’s doable and that he would give up Hezbollah for the Golan.
The rising noise levels about the instability enabled transfer of militarily significant assets into the cadres of Hezbollah are real reflecting genuine concerns. From a security POV, it’s far more strategic to maintain the stability of the military infrastructure already tasked with keeping everything cozy & safe from the terrorists.
When war with Syria was contemplated, it was based on the old paradigms and assumptions of probable reactions from Assad; very limited, as the betting went. This regime is now fully mobilized, under siege and unpredictable when cornered; more dangerous.
Uneasy times ahead.
Posted by lally | March 27, 2012, 1:40 amZionist Hegemony NewZ,/b>
To the Arabs here who think the GOI “supports” or “props up” the Syrian regime:
Please post your proof/links. Then we’ll discuss.
One day the arabs will realize Israel isn’t omnipotent.
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 27, 2012, 7:18 amI see the Zionists are preventing an edit feature on this website…
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 27, 2012, 7:19 am“Supporting” the Assad Family – The Real Story
Looks like the Assad family needed to enter Lebanese terrortory to kill opponents to their regime (those that don’t bow down to Assad posters and such).
Anyway, I’m wondering if Hezbollah, known for their unwavering committment to protecting Lebanon at any cost, did anything to protect Lebanon.
This may be a question for Hezbollah “supporter” dontgetit…
http://news.yahoo.com/syria-replies-annan-homs-shelled-again-001338054.html
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 27, 2012, 7:45 amPatience is a virtue (except with Israel)
It took 9 dead “activists” for Turkey to recall her ambassador in Israel.
Conversely, it took over 8,000 dead Syrians for Turkey to do the same with Syria.
Why the disparity?
http://news.yahoo.com/turkey-closes-embassy-damascus-recalls-ambassador-syria-over-074030764.html
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 27, 2012, 7:51 amI will try to be brief.
@240,
To my knowledge all military “agreements” are still active albeit supposedly frozen. Why don’t you ask Bibi or Lieberman on what’s up with their calculations?
@239,
Just like GOI HA has its own calculations. Do you expect them to attack Syria? They have accepted the sisterly Syrian army not the Zionist IDF.
@237 & AIG
Lebanon was supposedly “created” by France to offer refuge or majority to the Christians living there. Also, to provide a friendly base in the MENA. Alas, no one thought about giving them a national pride!!
Lebanon was and still is the dumping ground of all disenfranchised and international terror cells. I guess Israel along with Arab countries thought that if they keep the conflict in Lebanon and contained. So did the West & USSR. Refer back to Jordan and Egypt along with Syria who sent their Palestinian “forces” to Lebanon to prolong the conflict in 70’s…Israel had acquiesced to the Syrian “intervention” in Lebanon to early 80’s when PLO ran amok in the South! After the invasion of Lebanon and destruction of Syrian ragtag army Syria got its revenge by arming along with their friends and ally Iran the HA.
Up to 1990’s; Israel was content with skirmishes on the border that it had occupied so was Syria as it had the only prize it ever wanted. LEBANON not Golan. in 1991 Papa Bush allowed the Syrians to totally control Lebanon and Israel low and behold acquiesced. In their calculations now they wanted their so called enemies to control HA instead of PLO. Well dudes? What’s up with those? What kind of proof do you really need? Israel & USA have the primary concern of Israel’s well being. Every other issue is dealt with based from that starting point. You see how fast they blew off the Libyans? Libya does not border Israel!
Now I have been rambling on…But you get the point. If you want links; then read the history of the region for the past 40 years!
Posted by danny | March 27, 2012, 9:26 amGabriel,
Of course the nature of the regimes around Israel is important to Israel. Where did I say otherwise. That does not mean Israel can control the nature of these regimes or influence them. Could Israel have the “soft” power that Syria has in Lebanon through its many supporters? Of course not. Israeli power is much less subtle and is simply based on deterrence. But it can’t push Lebanon in any positive direction because it lacks the kind of power Syria does. For example, it is the interest of both Israel and Lebanon to share infrastructure to exploit the natural gas deposits in the sea. Can Israel make this happen? No.
Do you really believe Israel can predict the outcome of an action such as an intervention in an Arab country? It didn’t work well in Lebanon, did it? Part of being powerful is knowing your own limits, and after Israel’s failure in Lebanon and the US failure in Iraq, anyone who has confidence he can engineer a good solution from outside in an Arab country is just delusional.
Posted by AIG | March 27, 2012, 9:30 amAP@239: It is not the job of the Resistance to fuss about border activity among allies. If there is an issue, I am sure Damascus and Beirut can work it out on a friendly basis and if not, there is the LFA. The weapons of The Resistance are a deterrent to an invasion from “israel”. They will not be and never have been used against arabs.
Posted by dontgetit | March 27, 2012, 9:30 amAig…
Yes of course. It may be better for Israel to have peace, to share infrastructure, to improve economic activity with the various countries.
But this argument is neither here nor there.
Israel will still take actions, given the realties and constraints facing it, that it perceives to be best for Israel.
Posted by Gabriel | March 27, 2012, 10:02 amGabriel,
Of course Israel acts according to its best interests and not based on some pie in the sky ideals, who said otherwise. That is not relevant to the fallacy that Israel supports Assad. It just doesn’t.
Posted by AIG | March 27, 2012, 10:10 amAIG
#245.
In #234, it seemed you said as much. At least that’s how it reads.
Posted by Gabriel | March 27, 2012, 10:38 amGabriel,
What it clearly says is that since a stable democratic Syria is in Israel’s interest, it would pursue such action if the goal was attainable and the costs reasonable. Accountable governments do not go to war if they want to stay in power. They emphasize economic growth over reckless foreign policy. That is why a truly democratic Syria is great for Israel.
Posted by AIG | March 27, 2012, 10:48 amA truly democratic Syria might ask for its land back (Golan) from Israel. Assads have left Israel in peace for about 40 years… Truly democratic countries could go to war over disputed land.
Posted by danny | March 27, 2012, 11:24 amFriends & Enemies: Can you tell the difference?
It is not the job of the Resistance to fuss about border activity among allies.
dontgetit,
It’s nice to know HA has allies in Syria who kill thousands of innocent arabs. I think it will make it easier for arabs to ally themselves with Israel when democracy comes.
Gee who murdered more arabs? The evil Zionists or our friendly “Resistance” thugs??
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 27, 2012, 12:07 pmAIG:
As I said before, these points are petty details.
Danny gave a basic rebuttal in #248.
If I may add, it is also true that stable dictatorships sometimes don’t go to war. Syria comes to mind relative its Golan border.
Posted by Gabriel | March 27, 2012, 2:30 pmDanny,
A truly democratic Syria will be too busy creating jobs for its people to worry about the Golan for many, many years, let alone start a war to get it.
A truly democratic Syria will want commerce with and loans from the West, so the chances it will start a war are zero. The last thing Syrians will want is to pay for a stupid war. The Syrians will cut their defense budget drastically if they become a democracy.
We already have the Lebanese example. Even though the Lebanese hate Israel, very few want to go to war with it over the Sheba Farms. Most Lebanese think electricity is a much much higher priority. Syrians will be no different.
So an accountable government in Syria is the best thing that can happen to Israel. No democratic Syrian government will ever go to war unless attacked.
Posted by AIG | March 27, 2012, 2:33 pmGabriel,
Read #251. You are so wrong about this it boggles the mind.
Posted by AIG | March 27, 2012, 2:34 pmAIG:
I read it. And please don’t be mind-boggled.
Israel is a democracy, is it not?
Why then, according to this Wiki article…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces
does it spend 7% of its GDP?
By contrast, Syria spends…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Army
half of that!
Posted by Gabriel | March 27, 2012, 2:51 pmHow long has your Mother been an Axe Murderer NewZ
A truly democratic Syria will want commerce with and loans from the West, so the chances it will start a war are zero. Even though the Lebanese hate Israel, very few want to go to war with it over the Sheba Farms.
AIG,
Which begs the question, will a democratic Israel start a war with Iran??
Can you spell out the difference here? Is it a “necessary” war vs. an unnecessary war?
Gabriel,
How long do you think it will take the Israelis to stop supporting Assad?
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 27, 2012, 2:59 pmGabriel,
Come on. First, most statistics from Syria are complete BS. They basically invent the numbers. Furthermore, most people realize that the Syrian army is not directed at Israel but internally. Why fund such an army?
In addition, the Syrian army is worthless as is because they have very weak air capabilities, both defensive and offensive (as Israel has shown countless times most recently with the attack on the nuclear reactor). So again, why invest in this useless institution (except for subduing internal foes)?
And last but not least, the Syrians know that Israel is not going to attack them if they cut their armed forces and neither are the Iraqis or Turks.
Posted by AIG | March 27, 2012, 3:19 pmAIG:
Yes, most people do realize that. Not least the Israelis. This was my, and Danny’s point. The Syrian army was never directed at Israel. So Democracy or Not, there was no risk of “War” with Syria- certainly not in Israel’s calculation.
Again, see above.
As per AP’s comments.. What if this “Democratic” Syria decides to invest in some Nuclear power plants.
Will there be Bibi-like Sabre rattling of the sort directed at the “Democratic” Iranians?
Posted by Gabriel | March 27, 2012, 3:40 pmGabriel,
Danny’s point is that Syria may go to war with Israel over disputed land if it were democratic. So how does the fact that Syria’s army is not directed at Israel support this point? It supports my point that the Syrians will not continue investing in this useless army.
The nuclear point is also irrelevant because the non-democratic Syria did in fact invest in nuclear weapons, not just plants. So how is a democracy worse from Israel’s point of view? It is much better as the investment will not be secretive and much easier for Israel to take care of if it thinks necessary. Furthermore, a democratic Syria will not be happy to be sanctioned because it pursues nuclear weapons. The Syrian people will kick out any government that causes them to be sanctioned.
Posted by AIG | March 27, 2012, 4:07 pmAIG,
Not to split hair…I did say:”Truly democratic countries COULD go to war over disputed land.”
No Syria and no MAY…
Posted by danny | March 27, 2012, 4:59 pmDanny,
As a dictatorship Syria did in fact go to war in 1973, and still helps Hezbollah against Israel.
Of course a democracy could go to war, that is an irrelevant truism. The question is how likely is a democratic Syria to go to war and the answer is that it is very unlikely.
Posted by AIG | March 27, 2012, 5:21 pmHow likely is a Democratic Syria getting the Golan back by peace negotiations and not war ?
Posted by Vulcan | March 27, 2012, 6:39 pmSyria would be unlikely to initiate a war. Israeli concerns are that Syria’s growing arsenal of missiles and anti-missile technology could be used to ill effect in response to Israeli attacks.
Joint GOI/GOA Fall 09 exercise “Juniper Cobra” tested interoperability in a scenario defending Israel from simultaneous missile/rocket attacks from Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas.This spring’s bigger and better version of Juniper Cobra was cancelled due to concerns.
Posted by lally | March 27, 2012, 6:56 pmVulcan,
Good question. I think it is a long term one though. Take the Sheba Farms, the Lebanese currently are against negotiating with Israel to get them back but this may change in the future. I think it will take a long time for the Syrian public to acquiesce to peace with Israel but I hope I am wrong.
Posted by AIG | March 27, 2012, 7:12 pmAIG,
Lebanon is now controlled by a heavily armed party that is ideologically against peace with Israel, with the experience of multiple wars and the heavy toll it took on the population, especially in South Lebanon. In other words the Lebanese or a large portion of the Lebanese are easily persuaded to refuse a peace treaty with Israel. In the Syrian case and if a truly democratic government emerge there, pursuing the peace option should not be as difficult, given the fact the Syrian population have not experienced the direct effects of war with Israel like the Lebanese did.
Maybe I am wrong and the ideological factors of Arabism and Islamism play a bigger role, regardless of the influence of wars.
Posted by Vulcan | March 27, 2012, 7:45 pm@262,
Why would the Syrian public be against getting their land back? Unless peace means something else to you? If it means keeping the Golan and not trading land for peace; be ready to be opposed to the end with any nation with pride. If Israelis are ready for the tradeoff then there’s no reason why Syrians should take a long time to agree on saving lives and prospering…The dictator in Damascus and HA in Lebanon have been using the “fear of the Israelis” and “Zionists” to subjugate their people and repress them. If Israel shows a deft side and tries to accommodate the Palestinians somehow; all wars could be over in ME. Off course it is easier said than done!
Posted by danny | March 27, 2012, 8:12 pmDanny,
The Syrian public, like the Egyptian public before it, will be happy to get the land. The part they are not happy with is the normalization which is what Israelis mean when they say peace. We mean ambassadors, tourism, trade etc. We already have no war.
As long as the Syrians see Israel as a usurping colonial entity that needs to be destroyed, they will not be inclined to normalize relations. And changing this view may take a long time.
Posted by AIG | March 27, 2012, 10:51 pmThe part they are not happy with is the normalization which is what Israelis mean when they say peace. We mean ambassadors, tourism, trade etc.
AIG,
And what “normalization” is there now with the fragile peace treaty with Egypt?
It’s all “one-way”: Israelis travel to Egypt; not vice-versa. And currently that’s at a stand-still. Trade? What trade? And of course, the MB and the Islamists are considering ripping the agreement in half.
The only thing that holds the agreement together is the US and the MFO. It is a “trip wire” just like the one that was broken in ’67.
http://www.mfo.org/organization.php
I agree with Vulcan, the hope is that “Arabism and Islamism” will come to terms with Israel. The longer the despots continue to kill their own, and the longer Israel exists, the more likely these two camps will reach out to Israel.
If they do, there would be great potential to tap ME resources.
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 28, 2012, 6:51 amIsrael willing to sell gas to Arab neighbors
http://news.yahoo.com/israel-willing-sell-gas-arab-neighbors-124945708.html
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 28, 2012, 9:31 am@265,
AIG,
How did you gage the Arab public’s opinion? So far they have been governed by dictators who would use any “cause” (Zionist/Defense of Arab-ism/Islamism etc. etc.) to keep their sheeple at bay. If & when people are free to make choices on their own merits; they would live with the rest. However; you conveniently sidestepped the elephant in the room. Palestinian issue. There should be accommodations made to finalize the two states or scrap the idea altogether and grant all Palestinians Israeli citizenship and live within one state (I know full well that would be against everything the extremists and BIBI stand for).
Posted by danny | March 28, 2012, 12:20 pmWeird but True non-Israeli manufactured “Elephants in a Room”
NGO that wants Palestinian refugees let into Israel is barred from Ramallah for being Israeli
http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-irony-of-bds-right-of-return-conference-pushed-out-of-ramallah/
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 28, 2012, 1:40 pmDanny,
It is quite easy to know what the Arab public thinks on this subject based on what Lebanese and Egyptians think, and they speak quite freely. What is your estimate of the number of Lebanese who would support normalization? I think not more than 20%.
I just fail to see how the Palestinian issue is relevant to your point about attitudes towards normalization. The situation is what it is, and this is part of what influences public opinion in the Arab world. Speculating what might be is useless. You are of course entitled to your opinion about what should be done but it is the Israeli electorate that decides. The status quo will be with us for many years on that front.
Posted by AIG | March 28, 2012, 3:04 pmWrong on Lebanese…and as Lebanese are NOT free as you suggested; that is a wrong compass. They are sheeple. If Nassrallah declares tomorrow that Israel is our ally; prohibitive majority of his “supporters” will follow suit…Same with FM, FPM, LF & no double PSP…
Posted by danny | March 28, 2012, 3:50 pmDanny,
If my grandmother had wheels, she would be in pole position at Daytona.
Why would Nasrallah declare Israel an ally? We are dealing with the here and now, not some alternate universe of your imagination. The fact is that a huge majority of Lebanese are against normalization with Israel. Of course, one can imagine a scenario in which they are all lobotomized and change their minds. But that is not a serious argument.
Posted by AIG | March 28, 2012, 4:01 pmI must say that I am a little awed that Danny’s gone into engagement mode.
AIG: I actually think the point, which you so quickly dismiss, is really quite relevant.
The sort of situations Danny suggests are really not all that hypothetical. Look at the FPM and its supporters. They were the loudest and most boisterous Anti-Syria crowd when their leader was exiled in Paris.
And his die-hard fans are now Syria’s loudest supporters.
There is no logic that informs their opinions, except the “Flock” logic defined by Danny above.
So the argument isn’t really that irrelevant.
Posted by Gabriel | March 28, 2012, 4:07 pmAIG,
Then provide your grandma with wheels you miser….
My points cannot be so easily dismissed if you knew ANYTHING about how the Lebanese populace functions!!
IMO the Israelis (Jewish) were behind the MWD premise to invade Iraq! It is simply an Israeli & USA tactic to divide and conquer. They have accomplished by empowering Iran in Iraq and creating the myth of Iranian influence…It simply works out like magic to have Arabs and Iranians at each others throats for religious reasons to leave you alone to destroy the Palestinian aspirations. In a simple way it has pushed the Palestinian question to the back burner… create enough distractions so that the world leaves Israel alone to continue its “assimilation” and expansionist policy into the West Bank..!
Shall I go back to the Iran Contra affair? earlier? Later? Israel & the Mullahs are acting like jilted lovers. As for your assertion of 80% of Lebanese being against normalization (off course I would love to know what your basis of normalization is); kindly provide your sources.
Posted by danny | March 28, 2012, 4:32 pmGabriel,
I don’t know about being engaged…rather enraged that the Israelis think “normalization” should be the norm with its neighbors while they treat their non Jewish citizens like a load of crap!
Posted by danny | March 28, 2012, 5:07 pmAIG:
The point- beyond the “democracy” discussion- simply is this:
All your arguments about a “democratic” Syria being a Syria that won’t engage in wars, or which will spend less on defence, or will seek different types of relations with Israel will only take root if there is some offer on the table.
It really is as simple as that.
Move on the 2 State solution, dismantle settlements, return the Golan, and I think you will have more takers in the Arab world than you give credit for. In fact, at that point it really doesn’t matter if the takers are led by democratic governments or not.
Continue with the status quo, and I don’t think, democracy or not, that there will be much of a shift in public opinion in the Arab world.
Posted by Gabriel | March 28, 2012, 5:26 pmDanny,
In the same sense, the Lebanese and Arabs don’t know enough about Israel and the Israeli’s either. We assume many things.
I mean to risk a nuclear war and annihilation as a method of distraction to suppress Palestinians might just be a little far fetched and buys into the whole conspiracy theories of your average unintelligible Arab citizen which strikes me as strange that you are prescribing to this mode of thought.
AIG,
Don’t under/over- estimate the Lebanese. They are a crazy bunch. As Gabriel and Danny have alluded to, a lot of public opinion is swayed by the head honcho of each party or sect. Survival is the highest ideal and the modus operandi of all groups in the ME.
Posted by Maverick | March 28, 2012, 5:48 pmJiim Siin,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17544154
Apparently, a lawyer in Algeria are now pursuing the French government for the murder of a French citizen.
Posted by Gabriel | March 28, 2012, 6:07 pmDanny,
Once you start with the conspiracy theories, you are on your own. Don’t forget Israel also is responsible for 9/11.
Gabriel,
Don’t try to shift the argument. I never said the Syrians will like Israel even the least bit or seek to change their relation with it when they are a democracy. I went out of my way to say that they will still hate us and would want to maintain the current “relations”. But they won’t go to war for all the reasons I stated above. And they will not go to war irregardless of what is on the table, and nothing will be on the table for many, many years until Israel deems the Syrian democracy stable enough to be worth more than the paper of an agreement with them.
The Syrians are broke. It will take them years and years to reach the point where they can afford the luxury of war against Israel. And in those years Israel is not going to be standing in place technology wise. So the qualitative gap is only going to grow. No accountable Syrian government is going to start a war with Israel. They are going to spew a lot of hyperbole but they are going to invest the little money Syria has in developing its economy and creating jobs, not wrecking even farther by going to war with Israel.
Look how unpopular the war option has become even among the Shia supporters of Hezbollah.
So even though Syria will be offered nothing by Israel, there will be no war. And what Israel can offer to the Palestinians, they do not want and vice versa. There is just no agreement that is acceptable to both sides at this point in time. And of course there will not be a shift in public opinion about Israel in the Arab world. But no one in Israel is counting on that. It is clear to us that we will be hated for a very, very long time. Does it look to you that we really care?
Posted by AIG | March 29, 2012, 12:27 amMaverik,
Under what scenario will the Lebanese change their minds and want to normalize relations with Israel? Maybe my imagination is not strong enough so help me out here. Israel is not Syria. We do not have the “soft” power Syria has with many agents inside Lebanon. All we have is deterrence. What incentive do Lebanese have to normalize relations with Israel? What would make them change their mind? Nothing I can think of.
If your argument is that it is possible that the Lebanese will change their mind, then I of course agree. It is possible but very unlikely.
Posted by AIG | March 29, 2012, 12:36 amAIG:
I don’t know what you went out of your way to say.
You’ve been all over the map, it’s hard to tell where you stand!
One moment, you say it’s counterintuitive but a strong stable government in Syria is best for Israel…. because a repeat of Lebanon and state breakdown because of external influences is not good for israel.
The other moment you say that a democracy in Syria is best for israel, because democracies won’t initiate a war, and the syrians will democratically opt to spend less on defence.
The only thing we have managed to agree on is the one first point that Danny made in the first place- Israel will do whatever is in its best interests- whether or not a democracy takes root in Syria.
Or as you put it, the best Israel could hope for is periods of relative “quiet” for it to work on its qualitative advantage etc.
To think Israel just lets the pieces land where they may and “hope” that such periods of quiet will just come to be. That they are just passive observers in this chess game is a little naive. But somehow, this is the picture you seem to be painting of how you perceive things to be.
Posted by Gabriel | March 29, 2012, 1:30 amAIG asks:
“What incentive do Lebanese have to normalize relations with Israel?”
Increased tourism?
Posted by lally | March 29, 2012, 1:59 am@279
No conspiracy theories dude! Just common sense analysis of the strategic interests and survival instincts of Israel. Nothing I would not do if I was an Israeli leader..
Posted by danny | March 29, 2012, 2:45 amAP Asks: “Trade? What trade?”
First: Natural Gas Pipeline that was a big news item showcasing corruption of Mubarak cronies. This pipeline delivered natural gas to Israel.
Second a much more important (though much less in dollar terms) is agriculture trade. Israeli produce is common in the European marketplace. However, most of this produce is not of Israeli origin. It is only sorted, graded and packaged in Israel. The produce is in fact grown in Israel (significant amount from settlements), Palestine, Egypt, Jordan & Syria (Golan wine anyone?).
The way it works is.
1. Farmers sell produce to traders who provide light mark-up and sell to Israeli importers.
2. Israeli importers sell produce to high-tech pack-houses that meet stringent EU & UK requirements.
3. Israeli pack-houses sort, grade, pack produce and stick the ‘Made in Israel’ stamp on the box.
4. Produce is sold as Israeli to European distributors and wholesalers.
5. Distributors and wholesalers provide produce to supermarkets and other groceries.
Israeli produce is also available throughout much of the Middle East – though not usually marketed as such.
Third: When I worked in Baghdad I attended some social events at the US embassy in Baghdad. I was surprised to see the Hebrew writing on the Corona bottles served in the embassy. This one doesn’t really count but is a good segway to
Fourth: We see lots of Israeli products in Lebanon. Most of it is smuggled and on the black market, but it is still trade. Most of these products are in fact traded directly by IDF officers and HA operatives. HA brings heroin and hash. IDF brings LSD and MDMA (ecstasy). I do not know if this trade is sanctioned by the respective organizations or if it is the work of rogue elements within each, but there is no denying that it exists.
There is lots of trade that goes on. No argument it is still very limited, but possibly accounts for ~ 1% of Israel’s GDP. Agriculture alone accounts for 2.6% of Israeli economy. It is not far fetched to assume that at least 50% of this agriculture comes from Palestine, Jordan and Egypt.
Posted by Johnny | March 29, 2012, 6:02 amJohnny,
Thanks. If we can find the dollar amount of trade between Israel and Egypt, that would put to rest this issue. I’ll try to find it.
I don’t think there is much produce grown in Israeli settlements which are all on the West Bank and not very fertile. I have to think that at least 95% of the farms and kibbutzim are inside the Holy Green Line.
IMO the Israelis (Jewish) were behind the MWD premise to invade Iraq!
Danny,
HaBB, as much as I appreciate your political leanings, this just isn’t true. The Israelis never pressured the US gov’t to invade Iraq and many in the GOI were against it. I know this because I used to be quite friendly with David Wurmser and his wife Meyrav. That is how I met Ahmad Chalabi and some of the AEI people.
David Wurmser wrote Tyranny’s Ally because the Clinton Administration (president from 1993 – 2001) refused to confront Saddam Hussein after 12 years and 17 UNSC resolutions. You remember “A Clean Break”? American conservatives were calling for regime change all throughout the Clinton years. The Israelis, like the Saudis (who were both “Scuded” during the first Gulf War), naturally, weren’t going to object. And yes, the fear was that Saddan had WMD capability, since he did not allow UN weapons inspectors in Iraq to do their job.
http://www.amazon.com/Tyrannys-Ally-Americas-Failure-Hussein/dp/0844740748
If anything, it was Ahmad Chalabi and his friends in the INC who were feeding the US administration inflated and often bogus information on WMD.
The GOI is pretty careful about getting the US involved in international crises, less the Ron Pauls and the Pat Buchanans charge Israel with forcing the US into fighting her battles (of course they never pin this on any one Arab country like Saudi Arabia). Iran is really the only nation Israel is alerting the US to; Iraq was never given such a priority to the Israelis. However, the first Bush administration had to presude the GOI not to attack Iraq after the Scuds started falling in the first Gulf War.
The US and US conservatives (aka neocons) wanted regime change in Iraq because Saddam was a loose cannon who already invaded Kuwait, Scuded allies, and murdered his own people to levels that far surpassed our other despot buddy, Heir Besho. The WMD issue was the UN legal spark and certainly a grave concern (the “lie” that 16 UNSC members voted for as well as our Congress including Hillary Clinton), but it certainly wasn’t the only reason why Bush decided to finish the job his father started just before Clinton assumed office.
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 29, 2012, 7:25 amJohnny,
I found the numbers. Israel imports about $350M (gas, when the line is bombed or broken) and exports about $150M (textiles). Apparently trade with Jordan is higher.
http://www.israelidiamond.co.il/english/news.aspx?boneid=918&objid=8722
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 29, 2012, 7:43 amISN’T bombed…
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 29, 2012, 7:51 amGabriel,
I have been very consistent. You are trying to muddy the waters in order to defend your weak argument which is that a democratic Syria is likely to go to war with Israel.
Of course a stable and strong government in Syria is good for Israel. But it would be best that this government be accountable to its people (democratic) because then the chances of war and the use of third parties to fight Israel will go down substantially.
Which is of course unrelated to the fact that Israel will act according to its interests which is saying nothing. It is just something that is obvious,
The point is simple, do you still believe a democratic Syria is bad for Israel? If yes, what are your arguments?
Posted by AIG | March 29, 2012, 9:08 amJohnny,
It is quite far fetched to assume that half of Israel’s agricultural exports come from neighboring countries. It is in fact ridiculous. You cannot hide a truck with cucumbers. There is some agricultural trade with the West Bank, but that is it.
Posted by AIG | March 29, 2012, 9:12 amAIG:
“Still believe”? Where did I say a Democratic Syria is “bad” for Israel. It may be, or it may not be. You already have conceded that this entity would not be friendly to Israel. Is that Good or Bad? What remains is whether this entity would ever go to war with Israel or not.
My view- and Danny’s view i think as well, is that this decision to go to War or not is not related to whether there is democracy, but certainly in part to how Israel deals with the Palestinian issue (we can’t possibly know for certain that they would go to war again).
History has shown us that there were episodes where propped up dictators (Sadat, Mubarak) kept the peace with Israel. And not-propped up self-serving dictators (Assad) also kept the peace with Israel.
History also showed us that when Turkey’s military’s rulers were set aside, and a more “Democractic” system emerged, the leadership there was not so kind to Israeli relations, in what was clearly a downgrade of the relationship.
My argument with your point was not whether or not a Democratic Syria was good for Israel or not, and hence I don’t need to defend that argument, or demonstrate its correctness.
But your point that a “Democratic” Syria would never go to war with Israel, because it is democratic cannot be supported with proper arguments.
Posted by Gabriel | March 29, 2012, 9:47 amGabriel,
Really? The decision if to go to war is not related to whether Syria is a democracy? Do you really believe that? You think the democratic and non-democratic countries use the same considerations on whether to go to war? Democratic countries put an emphasis on the well being of their citizens and therefore are more loath to go to war, especially against stronger opponents. You think that if there is an open discussion in Syria about war with Israel it will not make war less likely?
And you really believe that the Palestinian issue will influence if Syria goes to war? Do you really believe Syrians are willing to die and trash their country for the Palestinians? If you do I have a bridge to sell you. Syrians want jobs and a quiet life.
Has Turkey gone to war with Israel? Of course not. You guys are arguing that a democratic Syria is more likely to go to war with Israel. That is just completely wrong.
Posted by AIG | March 29, 2012, 9:59 amYou Can Dream. No?
Syrians want jobs and a quiet life.
Don’t forget freedom of speech and multi-party elections…
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 29, 2012, 11:06 amAIG:
Israel is, last I checked, a democracy. Yet it went to war in 1947 (not of its choosing), 1967 (of its choosing) and 1973 (not of its choosing).
There are also plenty of Arab Non-Democracies who have not gone to War with Israel. Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, etc.
Your arguments are baseless.
There are many considerations to go to War, or not to go to War. Yes, they may be different for “Democracies” and “Non-Democracies”. But those are the underlying details.
On Turkey.. Turkey does not border Israel. Turkey is full of Turks, who don’t like the Arabs much, and who mock them more often than not. Yes AIG, Turkey will not go war with Israel over Gaza, or the Marmara.
But if you believe that a Democratic Syria, 5 years from now, will just stand on the sidelines if Israel decides to pummel Gaza as it did some years back. Or a democratic Egypt will simply stand in the sidelines, or or or… then you are living on an altogether separate planet.
My point was simply this. Israel cannot continue with the type of “License” it had in recent years for certain actions, if proper democracy does take root in countries like Syria. Its approach has to change. Or something’s gotta give.
Why you are complicating this point is beyond me.
Posted by Gabriel | March 29, 2012, 11:26 am“But if you believe that a Democratic Syria, 5 years from now, will just stand on the sidelines if Israel decides to pummel Gaza as it did some years back. Or a democratic Egypt will simply stand in the sidelines, or or or… then you are living on an altogether separate planet. ”
We can all rest assured that a Democratic or Non-Democratic Syria will always “reserve the right to respond at the proper time and in the proper place” how can we forget this wonderfull phrase ! 🙂
Posted by Vulcan | March 29, 2012, 12:28 pmGabriel,
In 1967 Israel went to war not of its choosing. Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran and stopped all shipping to Eilat. That was an act of war to which Israel reacted. Once Egypt started its naval blockade of Israel, there was not much choice left but war, not to mention Nasser throwing out the UN from the Sinai.
First you write:
“My view- and Danny’s view i think as well, is that this decision to go to War or not is not related to whether there is democracy”
Then you write:
“There are many considerations to go to War, or not to go to War. Yes, they may be different for “Democracies” and “Non-Democracies”. But those are the underlying details.”
So which is it? You seem a little confused. Of course the details count, that is what we are discussing here.
Then you say Turkey does not border Israel but you use Arab countries that don’t border Israel as an example of Arab countries that did not go to war with Israel. Of course you are wrong about that also. In 1948 ALL the Arab League declared war on Israel including Saudi Arabia and the UAE and also Lebanon if you did not know.
But then we come to the crux of the matter, your wishful thinking:
“ut if you believe that a Democratic Syria, 5 years from now, will just stand on the sidelines if Israel decides to pummel Gaza as it did some years back. Or a democratic Egypt will simply stand in the sidelines, or or or… then you are living on an altogether separate planet.”
You are just completely wrong about this. Let me ask you a simple question: We are five years from now and nothing has changed. A democratic Syria and Egypt call for a war against Israel. Will you volunteer to fight? Will you send your child to fight? Will you demand Lebanon join the fight? Of course not. If the Lebanese are not willing to fight Israel, why do you think the Syrians and Egyptians would be willing?
The Syrian diaspora is not willing to fight for democracy in Syria. You think Syrians will want to fight for Palestinians? That is quite delusional. Nasrallah, who is clearly more motivated to fight Israel than any Syrian or Egyptian democracy did NOTHING during Cast Lead (the 2009 Gaza war). He didn’t shoot ONE rocket.
In 5 years Syria and Egypt are still going to be economic disasters and far behind. They will never go to war for the Palestinians. So yes, Israel can continue doing what it has been doing and has nothing to worry about if democracy gets hold in Syria or Egypt.
Posted by AIG | March 29, 2012, 12:32 pmIsrael’s dastardly “Approach” and their crummy “License” NewZ
My point was simply this. Israel cannot continue with the type of “License” it had in recent years for certain actions, if proper democracy does take root in countries like Syria. Its approach has to change. Or something’s gotta give.
Gabriel,
Can you be more specific? What exactly is does the GOI need to correct in its “approach” to prevent this “something” to “give”?
Just to add to the already odd discussion (BTW AIG is making a good case), Israel has a 20% population of Arabs (a sizable minority) and of ALL of the demonstrations occurring throughtout the ME (Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, etc) are outside of Israeli borders. Israeli Arabs haven’t really demonstrated. Maybe Israel’s “approach” is OK?
And there is nothing preventing Israeli Arab from demonstrating. Moreover, the GOI wouldn’t massacre hundred or thousands of their own citizens; the government would simply fall and new/early elections would follow suit. Or, I suppose it could be a full scale war like in ’48.
But it hasn’t happened, and I don’t think it will. Why?
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 29, 2012, 12:39 pmRe-read those 2 statements. These are not contradictory statements. I
Being democratic does not “preclude” one from going to War [Your assertion was that it does].
Being democratic also doesn’t mean that the country will in fact go to War. Syria may be Democratic and continue with the Status Quo of the Golan. Neither I, nor you, can know definitively what the outcome on this point is.
I suspect the Syrians would become busy for the next few years concerning themselves with rebuilding the country. The Golan in my view would become a peripheral issue. But then again, maybe “other actors” will try to exploit the situation in the Golan for their own nefarious reasons (a la Lebanon).
So we don’t really know what will happen. And we don’t really know if there will be war, or if there won’t be war.
But the very fact that the system is democratic, in my view, and in the view of many others as well, does not factor into this decision.
Your point that the “approach” to going to war for a Democracy is different from that of a Dictatorship is noted, and I agree with it. But those are details. Yes, in one case, the country needs the acquiescence of its population, and in the other case it doesn’t. In one case the government may need to work to convince the population it is doing the right thing, in the other case it doesn’t.
Big Whoopdeedoo. Details. Irrelevant to the central point of the discussion.
As for Egypt and the War of 1967. Look, if you’re going to start stipulating which actions are Acts of War, and which aren’t then we are going to go in endless circles.
Really? Closing a strait is an act of War? Why? Israel could’ve gone through the Mediterranean. Or why did it not just limit its “War” to the Strait, instead of grabbing East Jerusalem as well.
AIG, we don’t have DODO written across our foreheads. Please don’t insult our intelligence.
Also. Thanks for clarifying that in 1948 “All Arab Countries” declared war on Israel. I grew up in the Gulf, and don’t recall the last time I had a conversation with any of the Khaleejis reminiscing about their contribution to the war of 48.
Yes, the Khaleejis are still ‘at war’ with Israel. The word Israel is purged from all the maps sold in the country. But they are not ‘at war’, by which I mean people are there fighting.
And you last question about whether I would fight or not fight.
Don’t make this personal. It wouldn’t work. The entire Middle East is a cesspool that is not worth fighting for. What would I fight for? My view is simple… a nuclear bomb should be dropped there so that we can all stop hearing all the Whining and Complaining, and all the “Holy Places” can be no more!
If there were democracy (and there isn’t), and I felt that it was sincere (and I don’t think it is, or will be in the next 5-10-15 years), then maybe there is a chance that I would fight for it.
Posted by Gabriel | March 29, 2012, 1:09 pmGabriel,
Of course we do not know for a fact what will happen in the future. That is a poor argument.
“Big Whoopdeedoo. Details. Irrelevant to the central point of the discussion.”
You cannot be more mistaken about this. Governments which are accountable to their people very rarely go to war, especially wars they cannot win because then they will be voted out of power. So yes, it is CRITICAL whether a country is democratic or not in the decision as to whether to go to war. It is not a mere detail. It is what this discussion is all about. My assertion is that a democratic Syria is much less likely to go to war with Israel. In fact, I believe it never will. They will talk a lot like the Lebanese politicians, but do nothing.
“Don’t make this personal. It wouldn’t work.”
Not only will it work, it is a knockdown argument that you cannot answer. That is because in democracies war is personal, the people get to decide and if most of them do not want to fight, chances are there will be no war. In a dictatorship only the regime honchos decide on war and the public is not listened to or consulted. And just as you do not want to fight or send your kids to die, Syrians in 5,10 or 15 years will not want to fight if given a choice, and certainly not for the Palestinians.
“Really? Closing a strait is an act of War? Why? Israel could’ve gone through the Mediterranean. Or why did it not just limit its “War” to the Strait, instead of grabbing East Jerusalem as well.”
First, I thought it was obvious but closing a strait is a clear act of war. Check any reference you want. And as for you second point, are you joking? So if Israel blockaded all Lebanese ports and told you to use Tartous or Latakia, that would not be an act of war just because you have alternatives? As for East Jerusalem, you really need to read history. Israel begged Hussein not to take part in the 67 war and did not attack him until he started shelling East Jerusalem without any provocation from Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#West_Bank
Posted by AIG | March 29, 2012, 1:55 pmI’m sorry AIG,
You’re right.
Israel is right.
They’ve never done anything wrong.
They’ve only ever gone to war for righteous reasons.
They are after all a democracy, and their citizens would never let the government do otherwise.
Posted by Gabriel | March 29, 2012, 2:19 pmGabriel,
Running away from addressing the points?
Where did I say Israel was always right? Israel does not go to wars the public does not support. Whether these wars are right or wrong is a completely different issue. And when Israelis are deceived about the goals of the war, like in 1982, the politicians pay a heavy price.
And again, let me remind you that the discussion is whether a democratic Syria is likely to go to war for the Palestinians. So don’t change the subject.
Posted by AIG | March 29, 2012, 2:27 pmIsrael’s Secret Weapon
And again, let me remind you that the discussion is whether a democratic Syria is likely to go to war for the Palestinians.
AIG,
Will a democratic Iran go to war for the Palestinians?
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 29, 2012, 2:59 pmAIG:
Look, this conversation is highly insulting.
I am not really running away from it. It’s just gotten to the point where really, everything you are writing is insulting my intelligence.
It’s not for you to decide when an action is an Act of War. If that were the case, the continued occupation of Arab territory (like the Golan) is an Act of War that Israel is commiting. And 1973 becomes a War very much of Israel’s choosing.
If Israel really just took Jerusalem because Jordanians joined in the defense of Egypt in 67, why didn’t Israel let go of the West Jerusalem as it did with the rest of the West Bank. Why is it still holding on to it, and insisting that Jerusalem, in its entirety is the Undivided capital of Israel?! Why are various Western governments itching to recognize it as such.
Really. Jerusalem has nothing to do with the equation?
Come on. Get serious. Or be honest.
As I wrote before, I don’t have DODO written across my forehead.
If you want to continue the discussion, begin by approaching it with honesty.
The 1982 war was unpopular? Politicians paid the price for it in Democratic Israel? Really? Sharon, who spearheaded the movement became Prime Minister!
What more do you want.
Are you here bent on turning this conversation into a Joke?
Was the war unpopular because it was made under False pretences? Or because it failed? Because Israel got embroiled in a bigger mess than it would have liked? Because it didn’t last for 6 days like the ’67 war?
Get real.
Posted by Gabriel | March 29, 2012, 3:14 pmAP,
That is a good point. Just another example of how strange the position that Syrians will fight for Palestinians is.
Posted by AIG | March 29, 2012, 3:14 pmAIG,
This has and always will be, the over-riding justification for the Arab despots and muslim theocracies to remain in power: we’ll continue “The Resistance™”.
I guess we’re waiting for the dust to settle to see what the first priority is for the arab people. I don’t think it is “resistance”.
Perhaps this is what Gabriel is saying: the two aren’t mutually exclusive, ya’ani, democracy and resistance can exist together.
We have no proof, but I think you’re right. Time will tell.
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 29, 2012, 3:29 pmGabriel,
You are using the methods of Arab dictators, trying to change the subject to Israel. Well, let me repeat again, the question at hand is Syria and whether a democratic Syria is likely to attack Israel if things stay the same. What does Jerusalem have to do with this? Nothing at all. You are just obfuscating because you lost the argument.
And of course you are mistaken about all the points you raise. There are tons of precedent that has led to an international agreement as to what constitutes an act of war, and a blockade is an act of war:
A blockade is defined by the Encyclopædia Britannica as “an act of war by which a belligerent prevents access to or departure from a defined part of the enemy’s coasts.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade
As for Sharon he lost his job because of the First Lebanon War and only became prime minister 20 years later. So of course he paid a price. Otherwise he would have been prime minister much sooner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon#Political_downturn_and_recovery
As for Jerusalem, the facts are there for all to see. If Jordan would not have joined the 67 war, Israel would not have taken East Jerusalem just as Israel did not attack Lebanon in 67 because Lebanon did not attack Israel. You can deny this clear historical fact as much as you want. Find me ONE serious historian that agrees with you. Good luck. Even Hussein admitted that it was a mistake on his part to take part in the Six Day War.
Posted by AIG | March 29, 2012, 5:07 pmAIG:
Please stop this argument. I said you were right a few posts ago. We should never argue with Israelis. They are always right
And I am arguing like an Arab dictator, if that makes you feel better about your arguments.
Just for your reference. I appreciate the link you provided for the legal definition of a blockade.
In the future, if you provide a link, please don’t read it selectively, and use quotes in it to suit your (non) argument.
Ironically, this Wiki entry refers to the Egyptian and Israeli blockade of Gaza.
Thanks for bringing it up. It seems Democratic Israel is always engaging in Acts of War (See your Definition of Blockade) against the Arabs.
This is not a principled or honest discussion. You are picking and choosing when a Cassus Belli is legitimate, and of course you pick and choose the ones that suit Israel.
There is no surprise there.
Just don’t come here and try to pass off your arguments as though they are intellectually coherent. They are not.
End of Discussion.
Posted by Gabriel | March 29, 2012, 6:18 pmGabriel,
Obfuscating again. Let me remind you what we are discussing:
Is a democratic Syria likely to go to war with Israel?
As usual you evade the question and deal with things I did not say. Where did I say that the blockade of Gaza is not an act of war? Of course it is. Israel is at war with Gaza. I am not picking and choosing anything. And by the way, the international community viewed the Egyptian blockade as a legitimate cassus belli, not just Israel.
What you are trying to argue and is of course false is that since Israel has engaged in acts of war against Arab entities, then the Egyptian blockade is not a legitimate cassus belli. The Egyptian blockade stands on its own and gave Israel a legitimate cassus belli. If you want to argue that Israel’s actions give Arabs a cassus belli, be my guest, but that is a completely different argument.
Are arguments are clearly not to the point and irrelevant or you argue against some imaginary thing you think I said.
Posted by AIG | March 29, 2012, 6:32 pmLook AIG,
Once and for all. Let me try to explain it again. And for the last time (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt- perhaps it is a language barrier for you).
(1) The discussion was about a Democratic Syria not initiating a war, because the population would not support it (you continued to mock the idea that Syrians would actually send their children to die for the Palestinians).
This argument- THAT YOU MADE- is so puerile, illogical, senseless, and unworthy of a discussion.
Democracies go to war all the time. Sometimes for imagined Cassus Bellis.
Speaking as a Supporter of the War in Iraq, many poor American families sent their children to Iraq to die in a foreign land to fight a foreign foe that doesn’t even affect them. And America is a “Democracy”.
You really think that it is unthinkable that Syrians, if they were a Democracy, would go to war against Israel. Are you really that Stupid?
(2) Enter the Palestinians:
I did not bring up the Palestinians, as you so very stupidly suggested, because I am “trying to obfuscate” and muddy the waters.
Let me explain it to you in simple terms.
I don’t care about the Palestinians, or the Jews, or the Arabs or the Syrians, or the Lebanese.
I am probably one of the few people here that says the Palestinians should probably stop their whining, give Jerusalem to the Jews, and stop complaining about their land lost. They can stop being Cry babies, and let the Cry Baby Jews get what they want.
Or if the Israelis want to be mature and humanistic about it. They should all stay and absorb Gaza and the WB and create one big Kumbaya happy family.
Either way, I don’t care.
I brought up the Palestinians because it ties in with Point (1) above.
The point is simple. If there is a “Democracy” in Syria, it is less likely to want to engage in War with Israel if Israel is not bombarding Gaza or blockading Gaza, or, or, or.
That is not to say that will go to war if Israel does all those things. But in the balance of probability, the likelihood that Syrians would not want to go to war with Israel is higher if there is some peaceful resolution to the conflict.
This point really is not that difficult. A monkey would understand it.
So the first point you made in this very silly post above:
Yes, that’s what we are discussing. Now Read points (1) and (2) above over and over and over again.
If you the light bulb doesn’t turn on, and you have some modicum of decency to concede and inch, please don’t bother responding.
Posted by Gabriel | March 29, 2012, 7:31 pmNow to deal with your frivolous post…..
1) I did not expect you to deal with things you did not say
2) I never said you said that you did not consider the blockade of Gaza an act of War. You simply imagined that’s what I said. Continue reading…
3) You are picking and choosing lines from the Wiki article. You obviously posted it to try to justify your argument that Blockades are Acts of War. However, within the same Wiki article, I quoted a section that states that blockades may be considered legitimate if they are deemed to be so by the UN Security Council.
That is to say you shouldn’t really have made reference to the Wiki Article.
4) As per point 3) above, that is not to say that you are inconsistent. You may well agree that Israel’s blockade is an Act of War committed by the Israelis against the Palestinians, as they are “at war”.
5) That same WIki article gave an example of British/French reactions to Brazilian blockades, and explained how Britain chose to not interpret this as an Act of War….
6) All this is to say that the reference YOU made justifying Israel’s 1967 war, took a more nuanced view of Blockades, and when they constitute an Act of War.
7) If Israel didn’t start a war with the Egyptians (by which I mean a “War” in which they Fire at the Egyptians, and not “War” as in a blockade of a strait), who knows… maybe the Jordanians would not have attacked East Jerusalem.
8) Hence maybe Israel would not have felt the need to conveniently take West Jerusalem.
But we will never know, will we?
Posted by Gabriel | March 29, 2012, 7:56 pmJoke of the Day
What a way to punish Sharon for going into war under false pretenses.
Make him miinister of trade and industry, housing construction, a member of “foreign affairs”, and “defense commitees”.
But Hey… Had he not lied and misinformed the People of Israel… he may have been prime minister 20 years sooner!
The Democratic movements in Israel sure as hell knew how to punish Sharon for lying to the electorate!
Posted by Gabriel | March 29, 2012, 8:22 pmGabriel,
I see you are doubling down on your imbecilic argument. How does the false statement “democracies go to war all the time” even if it were true lead to the conclusion that it is likely that a democratic Syria will go to war? You are back to using weasel words like “unthinkable”. We already went over the point that it is of course possible or thinkable that Syria will go to war. But the argument is that it is UNLIKELY it will go to war. You of course evade this argument and retreat again to your irrelevant argument about it being possible.
I spelled out many reasons why Syria is unlikely to go to war. You did not address even one of them. You just keep saying the obvious which is that it is possible that Syria will go to war. Well, duh.
And of course the Palestinians are irrelevant because I granted from the beginning that the situation stays the same and that the Palestinian situation does not improve and argued the even in that case it was unlikely that Syria will attack Israel. So how does saying that the way the Palestinians are treated will change the chances of war matter at all? That is just an obvious triviality that does not help you at all in your argument. You have to show that Syrians are LIKELY to go to war and because of the Palestinian situation and in doing so pay a huge price and risk trashing their country. I have not seen one sensible argument from you why they will do such a stupid thing. All you say is that it is possible. Again, duh.
And your second post is even more imbecilic. You try to sneak in the fact that a blockade is different than a shooting war in that it justifies less going to war. Well it doesn’t, it is an act of war just like shooting. A casssu belli is a cassus belli. And then you base your argument on some hypothetical and say we can never know what could have happened. Another obvious and trivial statement that doesn’t help your argument. Hussein could have gone either way, but he chose to initiate an attack on Israel, that is what matters, not what could have happened. And you are really confused about Jerusalem. The Jordanians were in East Jerusalem and attacked the West. If you want hypotheticals why just not say that if there was no Israel the mid east would have been a paradise. To quote you: We can never know.
As for Sharon, he was punished. You do not like his punishment, that is your problem. But the fact is that he had the most important cabinet position after prime minister and after 1982 he held much lower posts. Furthermore, Labor power grew at the expense of Likud after that war.
When are we going to see a good argument explaining why it is likely a democratic Syria will go to war with Israel if nothing changes? I am coming to believe that never.
Posted by AIG | March 29, 2012, 9:42 pmI give up.
Today, March 29, 2012. I have officially changed my position regarding the Arab Israeli conflict.
We are apparently at War with Israel. And that’s Casus Belli enough for me. Why with all the Casus Bellis going around, we need even more Casus Bellis.
May we have many more Decades of Hizballah.
Mo, Schmo, 3issa, and all the rest… I’m sorry I ever argued the point with you.
Posted by Gabriel | March 29, 2012, 10:14 pmIs it time for a post on what is going on in LEBANON ?. according to al- Akhbar paper, PM Miqati, claims that some “Ministers” will be getting kickbacks for the proposed Electricity generating ships. What a shocker !
So much for Taghyeer and Islah
http://www.al-akhbar.com/node/61306
Posted by Vulcan | March 29, 2012, 10:17 pmAIG,
In 305 you reference international law as to what constitutes an act of war vis a vis the egyptian blockade. This leads me to believe that you are in favor of nations complying with international law.
Well, an extremely important international law (Geneva convention) also forbids countries from annexing or indefinitely occupying conquered lands as a result of war. Of course Israel is not in compliance, inspite of UN resolutions.
In my view, you can’t have it both ways. Invoke international law when it suits you, and ignore it when it doesn’t.
Posted by Ras Beirut | March 29, 2012, 10:24 pmDakheel Rabak ya Ras Beirut,
Akhoona byektob “International law” 3azo2u.
Posted by Gabriel | March 29, 2012, 10:30 pmYa Gaby,
Treko, ma twaje3 rassak. Hayada ma 3aref shou 3am ye7keh.
We’ve crossed this bridge with AIG before. He basically wants to keep the stolen goods, and wants you to send him a dozen roses come Valentines day.
Posted by Ras Beirut | March 29, 2012, 11:14 pmGabriel,
Again you ignore the argument and spout unrelated nonsense.
You are welcome to as many decades of Hezbollah in Lebanon as you like. But I hope you do not believe you have any say in the matter.
Posted by AIG | March 29, 2012, 11:41 pmRas Beirut,
International law is a joke. I have said that many times.
The concept of cassus belli was around centuries before international law was conceived and a blockade is an act of war. You can try spinning it any way you want but what Egypt did in 67 gave Israel a cassus belli. You may want to argue that Israel shouldn’t have gone to war despite the cassus belli, but really, the responsibility is always with the side that caused the cassus belli whether it is Egypt or Israel. In 67 it was Egypt.
I have said on this blog so many times that I expect most Arabs to hate us, so why would you say that I want to be sent roses? I argued that Lebanese and Syrians would not want to normalize relations with Israel, again contrary to what you are trying to say.
If you want to argue that a democratic Syria will likely initiate war with Israel, I would be happy to hear your argument. I have not heard one argument from Gabriel to support this position.
Posted by AIG | March 29, 2012, 11:52 pmI wouldn’t strongly argue that a democratic Syria would be more likely to initiate war. But in my view, the odds would be higher than the current overly accomodating regime. The reason I say this, is because in a democratic system, wisdom would have it that the Golan issue and what it would take to return it would be more openly debated. Exposing the public to the difficult choices, and who knows the syrian people could be willing to take the risks involved.
It is a hypothetical question to start with, but that would be my guess.
Posted by Ras Beirut | March 30, 2012, 12:42 amAIG,
One more thing on your Cassus Belli. History is full of flimsy Cassus Bellis (set ups) that allowed certain nations to use them as guises to steal someone else’s land.
The behavior of Germany in WWII was a prime example of the trumped up Cassus Bellis. That was the main objective of the Geneva Convention to address this abuse of power.
You might not like it, but that’s international law and it is accepted overwhelmingly by the nations of this planet.
Posted by Ras Beirut | March 30, 2012, 12:56 amAP, Agreed trade’s a drop in the bucket.
Thanks for the clarification on the kibbutzim. I had always thought they were the forebears of the settlements. I didn’t realize they were inside Israel proper.
I also am under the impression that the settlements are ag producers that rely on hydroponic and other less water/soil intensive production technologies. For me this is the main area where I would like to see increased trade with Israelis. I want some of that R&D!
I believe Rani, if he shows up, can settle the settler farm issue for us.
Posted by Johnny | March 30, 2012, 2:53 am@320
When did Israel respect any international law?
Israel ignores international law and conventions from its inception, it is not going to change anytime soon!
Posted by Linear | March 30, 2012, 3:10 amNothing beats the R&D in the Bekaa
Posted by Vulcan | March 30, 2012, 3:19 amVulcan you joke, but in the 80s, a lot of investment was made into R&D in the Bekaa. We brought in Turkish experts to teach us how to grow opium and process it into heroin. If only, we would do the same for tomatoes and peppers!
Posted by Johnny | March 30, 2012, 6:45 amI also am under the impression that the settlements are ag producers that rely on hydroponic and other less water/soil intensive production technologies.
Johnny,
The West Bank does not have the kind of earth condusive to most agriculture. It’s very rocky limestone. Olive tree groves seem to work out and some citrus, but they need a lot of pampering. I don’t think there are many farms outside the green line where tractors and groves amass much produce.
OTOH, there are farms all over the coastline which the kibbutz movement, in its heyday, and still now, have been able to supply cotton, fruits and vegetables domestically and for export. Even in these areas, special drip irrigation has helped reduce water consumption.
For me this is the main area where I would like to see increased trade with Israelis. I want some of that R&D!
There is a lot the Israelis could help the Arab world with, but there aren’t enough people like you who aren’t burdened with the anti-Israel disease.
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 30, 2012, 7:51 amRas Beirut,
Any law is only worth anything if it is fairly arbitrated and enforced. That is just not the case with international law and therefore it is a joke. Also, it is used mainly as a political tool and not out of principle.
For example, Assad kept talking about international law when it came to the Golan, but completely ignored it when it came to implementing the basis of international law, the declaration of human rights, inside Syria. It really amuses me when Arab leftists talk about it. If they care about it so much, let them lead by example and first implement international law in their own countries. I think the video of Asma Assad criticizing Cast Lead is especially hilarious and it symbolizes the bankruptcy of all the Arab leftist discourse on human rights and international law.
Regarding Syria and war with Israel, the open discourse will lead to exactly the opposite of what you say. Any person advocating war would have to explain how Syria could win such war and why the potential losses are worth the risk and also discuss the downside. That is an impossible argument to make. Furthermore, every politician that supported such a war would be held accountable when the venture turns out a catastrophe. In addition, are the Syrians that much different from the Lebanese who hate Israel but vehemently do not want a war? Of course not. Plus, a war will halt any economic progress and make Syria even poorer. So no, the likelihood that Syrians will go to war as a democratic country is almost zero. In a democratic Syria politicians will be judged mostly by how they make the life of citizens better, and much less by how belligerent they are towards Israel.
Posted by AIG | March 30, 2012, 9:10 amMain Source of Violence NewZ
Saeb Erekat said:
For 44 years this policy of colonialism, which has prolonged the occupation, has been the main source of violence in the region and the single most menacing threat to the two-state solution,” said the chief Palestinian peace negotiator, Saeb Erekat.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17560066
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 30, 2012, 9:18 amMarvels of the English Language
# 295:
#318:
Conclusion:
Yes AIG. Israel went to war of its choosing.
Posted by Gabriel | March 30, 2012, 9:50 amGabriel,
You again argue trivial truisms by equivocating on the meaning of “chose”. Of course Israel could have ignored the cassus belli and let Egypt blockade Eilat. The US could have also ignored Pearl Harbor and not have gone to war with Japan. Instead the US made a “choice” to go to war. But that is not what we mean when we say a country chose to go to war. We mean it went to war without a cassus belli, without being attacked first.
No country would let its harbors be blockaded if it can do something about it. That is economic strangulation and no country would accept that if it had means to fight back. Nasser started a stupid war and paid the price. He underestimated the abilities of Israel and overestimated his own capabilities.
Posted by AIG | March 30, 2012, 10:55 amAIG,
Not to worry, Obama has your back…
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 30, 2012, 11:15 amThanks Sherlock.
I therefore reserve the right to Retract my original statement in #293.
Syria/Egypt had Casus Belli to go to War, in 1948 and in 1973.
So the statement now becomes.
Happy?
Posted by Gabriel | March 30, 2012, 11:15 amGabriel,
You can retract whatever you want. Since you never make an argument for your position, it is all arbitrary anyway.
The Arab countries had no cassus belli in 1948 because Israel did not attack them and for fans of international law there was no UN resolution allowing them to intervene. And in 1973, the fact that Israel had taken the Golan and the Sinai in 67 is not a cassus belli. Since they lost land in a war they started, the Egyptians and Syrians cannot claim the right to start a war to get it back. Plus, they accepted the cease fire in 1967 that ended hostilities which determined the new status quo. Any military act contrary to this agreement is unjustified and therefore they had no legitimate cassus belli.
Posted by AIG | March 30, 2012, 11:29 am#331:
Why do you come to these forums?
To make sure you constantly remind the Arabs why they should hate you?
Is that your goal?
Or is your goal to come here and build bridges?
If it’s the latter, you’re doing a terrible job. Do yourself (and Israelis in general) a favour and stop writing.
Posted by Gabriel | March 30, 2012, 11:40 amBTW A$$hole:
The US were “bombed” at Pearl Harbor. Yes, they could have chosen to ignore the fact they were bombed. But they were bombed no less.
I can argue the Straits of Tiran should fall within the Territorial waters of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Therefore what happened in 1967 wasn’t technically a “Blockade”.
For definition of Territorial Waters, use your best friend Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters
And hence not really even a “Casus Belli”.
12 Nautical Miles puts the exit of the Strait well within Egyptian territorial control.
Your ships shouldn’t have gone there. By going there, you encroached on Egyptian territory hence Casus Belli back on you!
Posted by Gabriel | March 30, 2012, 11:46 amThat someone could draw harmless old Gabriel into such a protracted shouting match speaks volumes about … I don’t know. Something.
Sorry for the absence. I’ve been trying to finish this dissertation, which is almost bloody done.
Posted by Qifa Nabki | March 30, 2012, 11:50 amAIG,
You have exposed the psyche of the real likudnick Israeli. Occupy other nation’s land and then say; well they started the war. Good analysis and logic. You would love that all Arabs open their borders to you and be domocratic; while Israel treats its Arab population as second and third class residents (remember you don’t want to give the Palestinians citizenship; and yet keep them under occupation).
If sixty years did not teach AIGs a lesson that by brutalizing people you will never get far! You will still live in fear of bombings and war and almost forced (bribed) emigration of Russians or others to populate that sliver of a land.
Your cool aid solution that envisions all residents of neighboring Arab countries treating you as humans as you go on dehumanizing your own residents would only sell in Jonestown.
If you try to define on what is acceptable scenario for the Palestinian people then we can push this further. You would love to live in a bubble and forget that Arabs have brothers and sisters in Gaza and the West Bank. Ya! Be democratic and forget that Israel is killing your kin. As much as I hate PLO for screwing up my country; you (with your nonsensical approach) seem more of a savage then them… if that was ever possible.
Sweet dreams!
Posted by danny | March 30, 2012, 11:55 amGabriel,
You can argue that the straits of Tiran are in Egyptian waters, but you can’t make an argument that because of this Egypt has a right to blockade them to stop traffic to Eilat. Thus your argument is irrelevant.
I am merely arguing a position that is accepted by most people: A blockade is a legitimate cassus belli. I really do not understand why you are freaking out about this and talking about bridges and hate. Emotion has no place in this historical debate. I don’t get angry at people I don’t agree with, yet you seem to be losing it.
Posted by AIG | March 30, 2012, 12:09 pmDanny,
You are arguing against yourself. My views on solutions have nothing to do on how we got to where we are at. It is a fact that Egypt, Syria and Jordan brought the predicament of losing land on themselves. Lebanon did not attack Israel and did not lose one square millimeter of land in 1967. And if you make a mistake you usually pay a price. I reject the view that if you start a war and lose land then you are entitled to the position that you should get the land back. If you like the land so much, don’t start the war. Having said that, I am not against finding solutions based on returning land.
And of course you misrepresent my views when you say:
“Your cool aid solution that envisions all residents of neighboring Arab countries treating you as humans as you go on dehumanizing your own residents would only sell in Jonestown.”
I don’t know how many times I have said that I expect nothing from neighboring Arab countries and that Israel should prepare for the worst. That does not mean I do not want good relations with our neighbors, but I have very low expectations. And if you want Israel to be like Denmark, make sure first that the Arab countries are like Norway. Otherwise, keep your double standards to yourself.
“You would love to live in a bubble and forget that Arabs have brothers and sisters in Gaza and the West Bank. Ya! Be democratic and forget that Israel is killing your kin. ”
No, you live in a bubble. I expect the Arabs to forget nothing and to always hold the Palestinian cause dear to their heart. I never said otherwise. But it is just a fact that this does not translate to willingness to fight a war for Palestinians. One just does not follow the other. When Arabs start forming an army of volunteers to fight Israel, let me know and I will change my mind. The fact is that the Syrian diaspora cannot even form an army to get rid of Assad. So these people are going to fight Israel? Yeah right,
Posted by AIG | March 30, 2012, 12:25 pmActually, I can make the argument very well. You see, the Egyptians didn’t actually BLOCKADE traffic to Eilat.
Traffic to Eilat could have continued quite easily. Ships could have gone from through International Waters in the Mediterranean, into Israeli Territorial Waters in Tel Aviv, and then over-ground to Eilat.
See, Simple.
But NO. You think Israelis have every right to go into Egyptian Territorial Waters.
You interpret the Law as you please.
Maybe Hizballah should sail boats next to the Israeli coast down to Egypt. And if Israel complains, they can argue they have been “Blockaded”. Hence there is a Casus Belli!
We are not in a court room here to argue legalese of what “Choose” means and “Blockades” mean, and when things comply with or don’t comply with International Law. Something you conveniently pick and choose from as it suits your arguments and Israel. There is something somwhere in International Law that says that Land cannot be amassed by war. I’ll let the lawyer types find it for you and pin it on your forehead so you don’t forget it.
AIG. Enough is enough. You think you can win this argument by bogging it down with Legalese, interpretations of words. You don’t have the necessary skill set.
Posted by Gabriel | March 30, 2012, 12:44 pmGabriel,
I already dealt with your infantile argument before. You are arguing that if Israel blockades all of Lebanon’s ports that is not a act of war because ships can go to Tartous or Latakia and then by land to Lebanon. I hope you see how ridiculous that is.
Since any ship from Lebanon can go to any harbor in Egypt without going through Israeli territorial waters, your Hezbollah example is irrelevant. If the only way to get somewhere is through Israeli waters, then Israel must let any peaceful ship through. The Bosphorus is of course Turkish water, but closing it to Russian shipping would be an act of war against Russia.
Not that I care one bit about international law, but nowhere in international law does it say that if you start a war and lose land, it should be returned to you. So do not be so certain about you think you will find.
I will let the readers decide who is losing the argument. Proclaiming that he is winning did not work well for Nasser also.
Posted by AIG | March 30, 2012, 12:57 pmNewsflash to the Resident Moron.
Tartous and Latakia, last I checked are in a country called Syria. Not Lebanon.
So yes.. if Israel blockades all of Lebanon’s ports, then that would be Casus Belli.
AIG is just Another Idiotic Guy
Q.E.D.
Posted by Gabriel | March 30, 2012, 1:00 pmJoke of the Day: This moron think that because I previously ignored his silly statement he actually “Dealt” with my point previously.
Posted by Gabriel | March 30, 2012, 1:04 pmGabriel,
Of course Latakia and Tartous are in Syria. So what? You could easily move goods over land to Lebanon, which is the crux of your infantile argument that if there is an alternative it is not a cassus belli. And if Israel only blockaded one of Lebanon’s ports, that would not be a cassus belli? Of course it would be even though Lebanon could get goods in through other ports.
And it is strange that you think it is ok to blockade Eilat and have ships go all around Africa to get to Israel unless you have no idea about Israel’s geography. Take a look at them map and understand what your ridiculous suggestion means.
Posted by AIG | March 30, 2012, 1:34 pmCan someone with brains help me explain this point to our budding Einstein here?!?
Yes, AIG… Lebanon could move goods over land through Syria. If Syria doesn’t close the border on them.
That is Syria would have Lebanon by the balls. .
My example was completely different. Israel would move goods entirely on its own territory understand the difference?
Posted by Gabriel | March 30, 2012, 1:48 pmGabriel,
Since we are dealing with hypotheticals it is obvious that part of the example is that Syria does not block anything. Furthermore, you failed to address the issue of one port being blockaded and you failed to address the issue that what you are suggesting is a detour of thousands and thousands of miles around Africa, adding basically a whole month to any shipping time to Israel from the Indian Ocean and the Far East. As usual, you neglect the major thrust of the argument and focus on irrelevant points you invent.
Posted by AIG | March 30, 2012, 1:58 pmNo AIG.
The problem is that you selectively read definitions and you are incessantly trying to shove them down peoples’ throats.
By definition, a Blockade is a Blockade. And I’ll throw you the proverbial bone, and allow you, yes, allow you to say that it is a Casus Belli.
But only if you adhere to a strict definition of the word Blockade.
Now you want to be “flexible”. It is a blockade, not because the goods were prevented from going out or coming in, but because there was a “factor of time” involved.
You see, you want to pick and choose definitions as you please (typically the metric is whatever way suits Israel best).
In order to attempt to pass off your pseudo-analytical propaganda as something reasoned, you threw in a few gotchas. But you failed for reasons that I have already outlined… You don’t have the skill set to make your argument work.
My scenario was not a Hypothetical. Syria does in fact block the border, and has done so many times in its course of relations with Lebanon.
Look, as I said many times before. Please end this discussion, because from a technical merit point of view, your arguments score a big fat Zero.
Posted by Gabriel | March 30, 2012, 2:05 pmGabriel,
A blockade is in place even if there is an alternative route that involves land. You invented a “strict” definition of blockade that nobody but yourself uses and the funny thing is that you are accusing me of bending the definitions!
The fact is that many countries agreed with Israel that it had a casus belli if the Straits of Tiran were closed and in fact warned Egypt against doing so. No one, and I mean no one ever argued your ridiculous position that it is not a blockade because ships can sail around Africa to Israel. And no one argued this because if they did, they would be laughed at. What the Arab countries attempted to argue was that they had the right to blockade, not that the act was not a blockade.
Posted by AIG | March 30, 2012, 2:18 pmJust as an FYI.
You write as those the expectation- your expectation- is that I address your points.
Truth be told, I stopped actually reading through your whole point. I read through the first paragraph, get sufficiently offended at your attempt to insult my intelligence (you deign to try to explain words to me as well! Go figure!), that it is hardly worth my time to continue reading, or responding to your other points.
Why should I bother responding or addressing your points when you don’t even have the decency to say that “Yes- I made a foolish analogy when I brought up Tartous and Latakia”.
If you had at least done that much, I would say that you are here sincerely to have a conversation.
But you didn’t do even that much. You are sticking to your twisted logic. Which means you are not here to engage in any meaningful, serious or honest way.
So with all due respect, bugger off.
Posted by Gabriel | March 30, 2012, 2:20 pmGabriel,
To see that you really believe the BS you are spouting, can you confirm that if Israel stops shipping to only one of Lebanon’s port, that is not an act of war? I wonder if even one Lebanese would agree with you.
Posted by AIG | March 30, 2012, 2:23 pm#346:
Yes AIG. Many countries agreed with Israel. Britain and France went to war with Egypt at one point, did they not?
They too have economic interests.
But Might does not make Right.
I started this whole discussion with a very Israel-friendly description of events: A war not of its choosing (1948), one of its choosing (1967), and another not of its choosing (1973).
How much more Israel-friendly a characterization do you want?
And yet, instead of taking it, you decided that you wanted to bust balls, and try to convince me that pretty much every war that Israel was not of its choosing.
Why you decided to remove the 1982 war from that list is beyond me! It seems logical to me that if Lebanon allowed Palestinian activity from its borders, Israel should have every right to Defend itself. Bless Sharon. Casus Belli!
If we follow your logic to its absurd conclusion, every Crazy Muslim out there- from Pakistan to Indonesia, should have Casus Belli to go blow themselves up in Israel on account of its treatment of other “Members of the Umma”.
In short, don’t use the Casus Belli argument willy nilly. Even if I agreed that genuinely Israel had ‘Casus Belli’, it should have chosen not to exercise its rights. That’s what a country with Good intentions would have done. By endorsing the argument, you are simply digging the trench deeper and confirming that Israel had nothing but Bad intentions.
Posted by Gabriel | March 30, 2012, 2:29 pm1) Yes, I can confirm this point. If Israel stops shipping to only one port in Lebanon, I would not consider that Casus Belli. In the same way that I don’t consider Israel’s continued Occupation of Lebanese territory Casus Belli.
2) So yes, that means I really do believe the BS that I am spouting. I hope you rest easy now.
3) You can wonder away whether 1 Lebanese agrees with me. I don’t care if 1 Lebanese agrees with me or not. Given the number of people opposed to HA acitivity in Lebanon vis-a-vis, I would suggest that likely many Lebanese would agree with me. But hey, what do I know. Still it is obvious that there are many Lebanese who think just like you do. They cry Casus Belli at any given opportunity. I used to think not very highly of them. You have managed in this thread to single-handedly change my mind on the topic.
They were right all along.
Posted by Gabriel | March 30, 2012, 2:33 pmGabriel,
“If we follow your logic to its absurd conclusion, every Crazy Muslim out there- from Pakistan to Indonesia, should have Casus Belli to go blow themselves up in Israel on account of its treatment of other “Members of the Umma”.”
That is just not true. If Christians are prosecuted in a Muslim country it is not a cassus belli. Mistreatment of people in a country is not an act of war. People are even debating if genocide is a cassus belli and it seems that even in the case of genocide you would need a UN resolution to make intervention legal. Just as in cases of common law, what we have today is built on precedents and mistreatment is not one of the precedents accepted as cassus belli.
” Even if I agreed that genuinely Israel had ‘Casus Belli’, it should have chosen not to exercise its rights. That’s what a country with Good intentions would have done.”
This is the point I guess we really disagree about. The Israeli public was terrified before the Six Day War and was sure that Israel would be strangled to death economically if it were not annihilated as Arab leaders promised. If Nasser had succeeded in blockading Eilat, he would have been seen as a huge hero in the Arab world and would not have stopped there. And in fact, he didn’t stop there. One week after closing the straits he said: “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight.” At some point Israel would have had to draw a line in the sand and it was best to do it on Israel’s terms and not Egypt’s. Based on the historical facts I believe war was inevitable but of course some may disagree.
Posted by AIG | March 30, 2012, 2:56 pmGabriel,
Well I see you are “biting the bullet” on the issue of stopping shipping to one port. But you really do not have to based on the distinction you made in a previous comment. A blockade on any port is a cassus belli, but having a cassus belli does not mean one HAS to go to war.
Your Hezbollah friends are right. Israel overflights are a cassus belli. If Lebanon or any other country tries to fly over Israel without permission, it will be seen by Israel as an act of war. So obviously, when we fly over Lebanon without permission it is an act of war and Lebanon would be within its rights to shoot any of our planes down and take military action to stop further overflights.
So I think the distinction you should adopt is that calling an action cassus belli is not the same as advocating war. You can still be against war with Israel while agreeing with your Hezbollah friends that Lebanon has a cassus belli. And you should agree that Israel blockading even one Lebanese port is a cassus belli against which Lebanon would be justified to go to war against Israel even if you think that Lebanon should not use this justification to go to war.
Posted by AIG | March 30, 2012, 3:09 pm“It is a fact that Egypt, Syria and Jordan brought the predicament of losing land on themselves. Lebanon did not attack Israel and did not lose one square millimeter of land in 1967″…
wHAT A CROCK OF shit!Gaza belonged to Egypt, West Bank to Jordan and Golan to Gaza and the rest of Palestine to Palestinians!! Stop the Bullshit bullying! Israel is the thief and the agressor…so use that atgument to your country. What the freaking hell happened in 1982? who occupied parts of Lebanon for 18 years?? Jump in the lake dude!
Posted by danny | March 30, 2012, 5:32 pmAIG:
#352 is a vast improvement from what you have been writing to date. At least it reads coherently.
You are also technically “correct” (for once) on the definition of Casus Belli. If correctness adds value to the discussion that is.
Yes of course, there may be Casus Belli, but no Belli! Also, the Casus might be “Righteous”, or “Acceptable”, or “Unacceptable”. But we are not here to get into the intricacies of Just war or Jihads or other such nonsense.
My distinction is quite simple. There is no real reason to even bring up Casus Belli, unless there is a Belli involved. So there is no point for me to say that Hizballah has Casus Belli, but I don’t support them going to war.
Also, if you are freely admitting to the fact that Israel has given much Casus Belli for Lebanon to retaliate, then let’s hope we don’t see you here next time Hizballah rains Katyushas on North Israel.
Now most people today would say that International Law defines when a Casus Belli is legitimate. According to your dear friend Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli), there are 3 such scenarios:
1) In Self Defence
2) In support of an ally under a mutual defence act
3) Sanctioned by the UN
I am not sure how overflights qualify as Casus Belli, under this legal definition. Or Egypt closing its own waterways.
I suppose you can argue they are acts of “Self Defence” under “International Law”, which you sometimes support, and sometimes you don’t support.
But if you can argue that as “Self Defence”, then you can argue Jihadis coming to help each other in Self defence as well.
Posted by Gabriel | March 30, 2012, 5:34 pmWow. A fresh of breath air. The first honest thing you wrote about the incident!
Yes, it was a choice that Israel made to draw the line when it did- on its terms, and not on Egypt’s.
You may be right, Nasser may well have been emboldened, and he may well have escalated beyond closing the Straits.
Or maybe he wouldn’t have. We don’t know, nor will we ever know. Because Israel pre-emptively took the step to “Fire” first.
All we can say for certainty is that Israel, and the Israelis, weighed what was presented to them at the time and decided- chose- to take a course of action that involved them dropping bombs on Egypt.
There was no reason to complicate the story beyond this very simple, basic point.
Posted by Gabriel | March 30, 2012, 5:43 pmStop the Bullshit bullying! Israel is the thief and the agressor…
danny,
If on June 1, 1967, Israel did not occupy any arab land, why was there a state of war with all the surrounding arab states, and why were they preparing for war with Israel and why did they kick out UN peacekeepers in the Sinai and block the Red Sea?
I’m surprised you can Israel the “thief and the aggressor”, unless you’re some jihadist in sheeps clothing. I thought you were pro-Israel (to some extent).
Anyway, how the discuss got to this point after we posted our opinion on the likelihood of a Syrian war on Israel if Syria was a democracy is beyond me…
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 30, 2012, 6:32 pmPardon the interference, but this whole discussion turned into a pissing contest in hypotheticals and meaningless play on words, maybe the focus of both of you intelligent people should be on constructive ideas or insight on the future of the region, instead of wallowing in this egotistical tête-à-tête.
Posted by Vulcan | March 30, 2012, 7:25 pmQN, where art thou. its the weekend and we need a new subject or a Qnion piece. hurry up with this dissertation ! do you need us to bribe or whack anyone ? sorry for the nagging.
Posted by Vulcan | March 30, 2012, 7:30 pmGabriel…you’ll will NEVER hear a honest thought from AIG. Or to be fair, it is UNLIKELY that you will :o)
AIG, would you be kind enough to “adress” the question asked earlier, why the hell are you posting here?
Danny, lollllll, his highness AP though you were pro-israeli….(in hasbara terminology it means anti-arabs) How did you managed to get such credentials from the white man??
Posted by 3issa | March 31, 2012, 7:59 amAIG:
I want to ask you something (out of curiosity), and please don’t bog it down with Wiki definitions, or Encyclopedia Britannica definitions.
I’ll make the question non-personal.
Two countries, A and B. B is completely landlocked and encircled by A.
They get into a scrap. No fighting. But A decides to close off all its land borders to B.
Is that a Casus Belli for B?
Posted by Gabriel | March 31, 2012, 8:50 amAP,
There is no jihadists here. I am all for one or two state solution and establishing of neighbourly relations with Israel. However; when AIG spouts out claims that Israel does not invade or occupy land; I will take offence to that as well as his and your contention that Israelis beyond reproach. AIG’s idea is isolating the Palestinians and dump them into the garbage bin of history.
AIG seems to think that Arabs or people who speak Arabic are buch of morons or ingrades with no national pride or traditions…
Don’t worry again dude; I am still “pro Israel” NOT Pro murderous and bullying Israel.
Posted by danny | March 31, 2012, 8:59 amGabriel,
Of course it is a cassus belli if it is done without agreement and if the previous status quo was that the borders were open.
Your notion of not calling something a cassus belli if you do not plan to go to war over it is ridiculous. You just don’t understand the meaning of the term. Yes, you can invent your own language, but that will get you nowhere. There is a long history of what constitutes a cassus belli and you ignore it at your peril like Nasser or Nasrallah. The argument that one side can commit an act of war but the other side is wrong for retaliating for it is ludicrous. The whole responsibility for loss of Arab land in 67 lies with Nasser. The loss of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is the fault of Hussein. War is a serious thing. Don’t take your sword out if you don’t plan to use it. And if you take your sword out and threaten others, don’t be surprised if they attack you and you pay a price.
Posted by AIG | March 31, 2012, 10:21 amDanny,
Again you are putting words in my mouth. Why don’t you quote where I said what you claim I said?
Saying that Arabs are not willing to fight for the Palestinians is somehow equated in your mind with the notion that I think “Arabs or people who speak Arabic are buch of morons or ingrades with no national pride or traditions”. But there is just no equivalence. After 48, there is a lot of sympathy for the Palestinians but little actual willingness to fight for them. I just don’t see the “Let’s Free Palestine” brigades and their thousands of volunteers. And the fact is that during Cast Lead, no one, including Nasrallah came to help the Palestinians. With all his bravado, he did not shoot one rocket when the Palestinians needed him the most. Let’s be frank, yes you have national pride, but exactly because they are not morons, Lebanese like you are sending their children to the US and Europe and not to fight Israel. So what are you getting riled about?
I am also for a two state solution as an historical compromise.
What I find ridiculous is the notion that for example Syria starts a war with Israel, loses the Golan, and then quotes international law to get it back. Sorry, in my book, if you start a war, you deserve nothing. You may not like that, but there it is. Wars are so horrible that it is good that there is a heavy price for people who start them. Yes, they only pay that price if they lose, but so what? At least in some cases things turn out right.
We can debate the fine points of this all day, but pre-67 the Arab countries were clearly against negotiations with Israel and for annihilating it. If they would have proposed to make the 48 cease fire lines a permanent peace border, you know very well that pre-67 Israel would have immediately agreed. But they chose the path of brinkmanship and paid a heavy price. To blame the results of 67 on Israel is just not historically reasonable.
Posted by AIG | March 31, 2012, 10:42 am#362:
So I don’t understand your point about the All Ports Closed versus 1 Port Closed (#352, amongst others) not being different scenarios. You said it as though there were no distinctions between the two cases.
Israel was at war with all its Arab neighbors (with whatever ceasefire arrangements they had).
Access to the border and through the enemy territory was barred. That is a given.
Why should Egypt not disallow passage of Israeli ships through its territorial waters. And why is that case a blockade then?
Posted by Gabriel | March 31, 2012, 10:57 amGabriel,
Because Egypt gave international promises to keep the straits open and they were in fact open for a long time before Egypt closed them. So they changed the status quo without agreement and therefore what they did is a cassus belli. It goes the other way also. If Israel would have let the Egyptians close the strait for years without doing anything, at a certain point in time, not doing anything amounts to agreeing to it. So if Israel had allowed Egypt to keep the straits closed for 10 years, it could not wake up and say after that time that it is a cassus belli. That is the reason also that Israel cannot say that not granting it access through Arab countries is a cassus belli. Israel agreed to this situation in the 48 cease fire agreements and the situation persisted for many years thus cementing the fact that Israel agreed to this arrangement.
This is all based on a very old principle called “estoppel”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel
Posted by AIG | March 31, 2012, 12:08 pmAP,
There is no jihadists here. I am all for one or two state solution and establishing of neighbourly relations with Israel.
Whew! You have me concerned!
However; when AIG spouts out claims that Israel does not invade or occupy land; I will take offence to that as well as his and your contention that Israelis beyond reproach. AIG’s idea is isolating the Palestinians and dump them into the garbage bin of history.
Danny, I didn’t read anything like this in AIG’s writing. Granted he doesn’t seem to think of the Palestinian predicament in the same way you do, but I think think they are somehow sub-human. I just think most Israelis and Jews believe that the Palestinians can negotiate without anyone’s help and the fact that they don’t is just their conscious choice. Right now, IMHO, it’s a stalemate like two people who are buying something, but they can’t agree on a price.
AIG seems to think that Arabs or people who speak Arabic are buch of morons or ingrades with no national pride or traditions…
Perhaps – I’ll let AIG respond to that if he wants. Personally, I think Arab pride is a major factor, however I think it prevents the arabs from looking more within themselves to produce change. If the Syrian opposition succeeds, I think this will do a lot to increase “arab pride”.
Don’t worry again dude; I am still “pro Israel” NOT Pro murderous and bullying Israel.
OK, thanks for the feedback…
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 31, 2012, 12:18 pmOy…another botched mass of typos…
Should read, “Granted he doesn’t seem to think of the Palestinians predicament is the same way you do; and I’m sure he doesn’t think the Palestinians are sub-human. They’re people like everyone else.”
Posted by Akbar Palace | March 31, 2012, 12:22 pmFair enough.
This is the end result of the World as you see it.
1) Really, Israel, the Bully, has every right to establish a State in the Middle East, as it pleases.
2) It has the right to establish the ground rules for all its borders, land or maritime. For example acquiescing to a “blockade” of land borders with Jordan/Syria/Lebanon/Egypt after the 1948 war.
3) That Egypt didn’t “blockade” formally in 1948 the Tiran Strait means that it defacto was not part of the 1948 agreement to end hostility.
4) Any change from this status quo is a green light for Israel to go to war, because no prior agreement has been made.
5) Any land that Israel takes as a change from this is a land lost, legitimately, through war, and Egypt formally “declared” war by changing the status quo.
6) Israel can itself give Casus belli to its enemies any time it wishes (for example blockading Gaza, or having overflights in Lebanon).
7) While those are legitimate Casus bellis, they are not really violations of agreements on the ground because Israel is already technically at War with all those parties.
8) Those parties should know what is best for them, and because Israel is a much stronger army, they really should put up and shut up.
9) While it may be true that Israel constantly gives Casus Belli to Hizballah by flying over Lebanon. Hizballah’s action of kidnapping those soldiers was an even bigger Casus Belli, authorizing Israel to bombard Lebanon back to the stone age.
Given those very basic, sensible ground rules, that would stand up in any court of International Law, it seems obvious to me that Israel should really simply continue attacking the Arabs whenever it wants.
Really, they should just throw us all to the sea.
It is remarkable what one thread can do to someone.
I am now officially Hizballah’s biggest fan.
Posted by Gabriel | March 31, 2012, 12:29 pmGabriel,
You can keep distorting my view but that will get you nowhere.
Here is what I believe based on your points.
1) The Jews have formed a state in the middle east and we don’t plan giving it up. I think that is so much clearer than talking about “rights”. Since most Arabs do not like this state, we have the IDF.
2) Through diplomacy and war, Israel has established the ground rules for its borders, just like any other country. But of course it takes two to tango. Lebanon can always shoot rockets at us or facilitate attacks from its land against us if it wishes.
3) Not only that, Egypt gave explicit international promises not to do it.
4) Any change that is an accepted act of war (like a blockade) is a justification for Israel to go to war, not a green light.
5) An act of war is and act of war. You don’t want to accept this but it is a simple fact. A blockade is an act of war. In addition, Israel for years said to the Egyptians that closing the straits would be an act of war. So it is not as if the Egyptians didn’t know. They did it any way. They started a war foolishly.
6) That is a truism. Israel does fly over Lebanon and does blockade Gaza so of course it can do these things.
7) I never said this. The Lebanese government has always protested the fly overs and never agreed to them. The fly overs violate the cease fire agreements, no one denies that. However, in my opinion, they are good for both Lebanon and Israel because they reduce the chances of a future war. And just so you understand, if Lebanon shoots down an Israel fighter over Lebanon, it would NOT give Israel a cassus belli since Lebanon would be acting in self defense.
8) Where did I say that? This is a complete distortion of what I am saying.
9) Just like an Israeli jet going into Lebanese air space without permission is a cassus belli, Hezbollah crossing the blue line to attack Israelis is a cassus belli. What is so difficult to grasp? There is no big or small cassus belli. The aim of war is to bring quiet for a long time. It is hard to calibrate what the right reaction is but in one respect the 2006 war was a great success. The Lebanese-Israeli border has never been so quiet. If Israel would have ignored this or done something small, Hezbollah would still be actively trying to free the Sheba Farms and shooting rockets into Israel. Could Israel have done something smaller and achieved the same results? Maybe, it is difficult to tell.
And as for the hyperbole about Israel attacking Arabs whenever it wants, if you really believe it, you should be a Hezbollah supporter. Better still, build a strong country and strong army to counter Israel. The truth is that Israel and Lebanon can sign a peace agreement tomorrow and Israel would never attack Lebanon, just as it did not attack it in 67. Israel asked the UN to delimit the border between the two countries and Israel has agreed to it. What more do you want?
Posted by AIG | March 31, 2012, 1:10 pmAIG:
I would like to explain to you what Danny meant when he talked about pride. perhaps to show you how disconnected you have become from the conversation that is going on.
It is true that you didn’t explicitly say that Arabs have no pride, but it is implied in everything that you wrote.
Even this last post to Danny… It is there… Implied if not explicitly stated.
Maybe you didn’t intend to make this implicit statement… But this is precisely how your posts read…. In an Arab forum.
when you come here and say freely that Israeli overflights in Lebanon were casus Belli… And suggest that “smart” Lebanese have honour and want the best for their children… So they send them to the US and Europe… That is insulting.
Do the Jews have no such metric?
They stick around the most hostile environment, risk wars that you say could annihilate them… Yet they stick around and fight.
Why don’t they smarten up and send their children to the US and Europe and Canada!
Or are those Jews valiant and honourable… Weeping to fight and protect their land.. willing to fight even when Egypt changes three status quo of a strait!
Yes.. You did not say it. But it is written all over your thoughts, and it is highly insulting.
Posted by Gabriel | March 31, 2012, 1:27 pmYou are being tiresome AIG. Points 7 and 9 are not coherent.
Basically, you say that overflights are acts of war.. And Lebanon has only one recourse to this act of war… Shooting the plane down.
Crossing into Israeli territory is however not an accepastable retaliation, and it is justification for Israel to bombard the country. So said 100 points ago, yu really just want to write the rules book a you please.
Posted by Gabriel | March 31, 2012, 1:37 pmGabriel,
You can be insulted by whatever you like. You can find meaning where there is not. If it is insulting to you that Lebanese in general would prefer to send their kids to study in Europe and the US if they can, and not join an army to liberate Palestine, it is really not my problem. If it is not true, I will retract it. But from my experience it is true. There are many Lebanese abroad and not one “Free Palestine” brigade. If the facts are insulting, change the facts, don’t blame the messenger. And of course you cannot deduce from the fact that I am pointing facts out that you have no pride.
I did not say Lebanese are not willing to defend their country, of course they are. I did say they are not willing to fight for Palestine. Why would you be insulted by that? I am not willing to fight for any other country except Israel.
It is even more surprising that when I admit the Israeli over flights are a cassus belli you find that insulting also.
Where did I say that Jews are different? They also do not want to fight for anybody else.
Posted by AIG | March 31, 2012, 1:55 pmGabriel,
Where did I say that Lebanon has only one recourse? I said that if it shot a plane down, it would not give Israel a cassus belli? You also object to that?
Lebanon is free to take any action that it deems appropriate to stop over flights. If the only way is to invade Israel, Lebanon has the right to do that.
You are frustrated by the limited options that Lebanon has. Fine. But that is a Lebanese problem, not an Israeli one. No one is stopping you from developing your country like Israel did. It is not as if we have some secret formula.
Posted by AIG | March 31, 2012, 2:01 pmAIG,
Albert Einstein?
Posted by Monolith | March 31, 2012, 4:05 pmCharles Darwin ?
Or Moses ?
Posted by Monolith | March 31, 2012, 4:06 pmAIG,
I wonder what is a bigger threat to you … Iran under the Mullahs or Iran turning into another modern democratic Turkey.
Posted by Monolith | March 31, 2012, 4:36 pmsyria and lebanon need to have a chat , they are close arab friends and neighbor . they are one nation in 2 countries , they need to be the best friends . Hopefully that will happen soon . God bless lebanon and syria
Posted by syria lebanon chat | March 31, 2012, 7:20 pmThis discussion is awesome!!!
Posted by dontgetit | March 31, 2012, 8:35 pmAIG:
I am not entirely sure why you didn’t put a sock in it, oh I don’t know, 100 posts ago. Instead you keep digging yourself deeper and deeper in.
I am going to do you a favor and string together your various quotes so that you can understand how absurd every assertion you made is.
Before I do this, I should say that Post#368 was about as accurate a depiction of your worldview as anyone can right. And you very poor retort (Post#369) was nothing but incoherent, nonsensical drivel that contradicts everything you said.
Let me begin by addressing Post #373.
In Post #369, Item 7, you wrote, and I quote:
Yes in Point 9, you wrote:
So those 2 recourses are OBVIOUSLY not equivalent in your mind. You are either LYING in #373, or LYING in Item 9, Post #369. Which is it.
Either Lebanon has the right to invade Israel as a recourse to overflights (to have them stopped), or it doesn’t.
In fact, you made a clear distinction between the two recourses. One gives Israel a Counter Casus Belli, but the other apparently does not.
It doesn’t stop there.
The real issue with your whole argument is one you made to Danny earlier, in Post #337, and again I quote:
So, if I piece all these items together, as I did quite accurately, despite you feeble attempts at arguing otherwise, in Post #368:
1) Israel has the right to flagrantly disregard ceasfires, no-fly zones, etc.
2) While you concede and acknowledge that this gives Casus Belli to Lebanon, you have limited Lebanon’s “allowable” recourse to shooting down Israel’s Supersonic planes.
3) The other recourse- which at one point you say Lebanon is entitled to do, and that is to cross the Blue or Red or Magenta or whatever line is NOT acceptable, because it gives Casus Belli back to Israel.
4) By giving Casus Belli back to Israel, Israel then has the authority to use the full force of its army and Grab and Steal Lebanese Land.
5) In which case you CAN ALWAYS argue that you REJECT the view that Lebanon is entitled to claim lost land back… because after all, it crossed that line, and gave Israel Casus Belli!
This, dear sir, is the absurdity of the line of reasoning that you are coming here to try and convince us, is sensible.
I suggest before you carry on this conversation you think very, and I mean very deeply about how to string your thoughts together in a sensible way.
I cannot be more repulsed.
Posted by Gabriel | March 31, 2012, 10:29 pmAnd my last post to you…. (because you are not worth my time)
#372:
Your problem AIG is you actually think we are still talking about Palestinians and Palestine.
This is how disconnected you are from your own arguments.
Newsflash. Somewhere around the time you started talking about Israel’s overflights to Lebanon, and admitting they were a Casus Belli, and basically pompously saying that there is nothing we can do about it….
… the conversation became about Lebanon.
And yes, shame on ANY Lebanese who accepts to be talked to in this manner . It is their national duty to defend their land and country.
Long Live Hizballah.
Posted by Gabriel | March 31, 2012, 10:39 pm194 nations signed the Geneva Convention.
Lebanon, Israel & Jordan signed in ’51
Egypt in ’52 & Syria in ’53
As of today Israel is not in compliance with the treaty because of its occupation & settlements activities, among other things. This is the position of the UN and pretty much the entire world, and this includes the official & public position of the US. Can’t sugar coat these facts no matter how hard some folks try, especially if they are a signatory of the treaty.
Posted by Ras Beirut | March 31, 2012, 11:31 pmGabriel,
You are really going out of your way to try to twist what I said. So let me simplify this for you. The cassus belli of the overflights applies to Lebanon, not Hezbollah. If you want to argue that Hezbollah was representing Lebanon, why would you complain about Israel fighting against all Lebanon? In fact the Lebanese government went out of its way to say that it was not behind the action and it was only Hezbollah. And Hezbollah of course had no cassus belli. I thought this was obvious but apparently I have to spoon feed you.
But this is not surprising as you are feeble minded enough to change your world view because one Israeli does not agree with you.
And yes, there is nothing you can do about the overflights. It is just a sad fact about the state of Lebanon. I do not know why you take this personally. Israel is not wasting jet fuel over Lebanon for the fun of it. It is gathering intelligence about Hezbollah. Nasrallah keeps threatening Israel and Israel needs to counter this threat. There is no way for us to collect the intelligence we need without flying over Lebanon. If there were, we would not do it. The more Israel knows about what Hezbollah is doing, the more deterred Hezbollah is and the greater the chance of avoiding another war. So suck it up or fight back, it is your choice. Either way Israel will not stop until Hezbollah is no longer a threat.
But somehow I get the impression that you are more of a talker. I was ten years in the IDF. How many years were you in the Lebanese army? When are you planning to come back to Lebanon to fight? You were never in the Lebanese Army and you never plan to fight. So why are you spewing nonsense? It is not as if Israel was not repeatedly flying over Lebanon before we started this thread. So why weren’t you “insulted” and “fighting” and “pro-Hezbollah” before? It seems that what bothers you are not the flights themselves but some words in a blog. You have a serious problem.
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 1:29 amRas Beirut,
Lebanon is not compliant with UN security council resolutions also, 1559 and 1701. But the thing that disgusts me the most is that when Israeli captives were held in Lebanon, there were never allowed visitation rights by the Red Cross, a most basic tenant of the Geneva Convention. In fact, Hezbollah would not even say if the captives from 2006 were alive or dead. And this was supported by most Lebanese. So go play this game with someone else. If you piss on the Geneva Convention you have a lot of guts to use it as an argument against others. That is just vile hypocrisy on your part.
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 1:38 amQN:
You are connected, and know all sorts of politicians in Lebanon.
Next time you have a word with people in the Know, once you are done the dissertation that is, tell them that the very intelligent AIG, on your forum has given Lebanon the Green Light to Invade Israel (Not Hizballah). He has also given us his commitments that if Lebanon would Invade Israel, it would not retaliate…. simply because that invasion would be its fault.
There is no reason for them to go out of their way and say they don’t endorse Hizballah’s actions.
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 7:29 amAIG, you despicable sod….
While you were with the IDF, the Israeli Defense (Not Offence) Forces protecting Israel, risking your life to make sure that Israel stays safe from the Crazy Arabs around it, itching to destroy it….
… my father was one of the “intelligent” Lebanese. He left Lebanon, got a job in the Gulf, put me through school. Then sent me to Canada so I can get a passport worth something. I am now proudly Canadian.
All so that I can be repulsed, from a great distance, to look at a computer screen, an be repulsed when a pompous, arrogant member of the “IOF” (not IDF) comes here and deigns to tell me what I should and I should not accept as behavior from the IDF.
No I don’t know about guns and how to use them. All I have is a functioning brain and good values, neither of which you appear to possess.
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 7:40 amRas Beirut…
When it suits his argument, Hizballah becomes the Lebanese State, and its violation of the Geneva Convention is apparently the Lebanese state’s violation of the Geneva convention. This is because apparently, Hizballah is “supported by most Lebanese”.
When it doesn’t suit his argument, Hizballah, which is “supported by most Lebanese”, somehow has not inheritted the Casus Belli that he so graciously granted us because of Israel’s continued violation of whatever.
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 7:46 amAIG,
As Grabriel indicated, HA is not the state of Lebanon. Unfortunately, Lebanon has had a very weak state over the last few decades, and this is well understood worldwide. There is plenty of blame to go around as to why it is so.
As to what led to the extreme hostilities between Israel and HA over the years, you have to also take into consideration that the IDF occupied the south for 18 years and mistreated the population. Many also think that Israel was trying to create a West Bank like situation, and one thing leads to another, thus the fierce response.
I’m one of the folks who has been hoping for an end to the eye for an eye state of affair, and for the pursuit of an honorable resolution of the entire conflict. Unfortunately, in my view, Israel is not willing to go this route, as it seems to value the occupation more than a peacefull coexistance.
Posted by Ras Beirut | April 1, 2012, 9:59 amGabriel,
So your father did not sign himself up to fight for the Palestinians? He did not sign you up either? Instead he sent you to the West. So clearly he and you are an example of Lebanese that would rather improve their economic condition than fight a war a Israel for the Palestinians. But when I say that most Syrians given a choice would do the same, you get insulted, all while you are a living example of what I said! How intellectually dishonest you have to be to take your position… A then you double down on this position and admit that all you plan to do is sit in front of your computer. What I am saying is not arrogance, it is the truth and you yourself are proof of that.
And as usual you always read more into what I write than is actually there. Where did I ever say that since Lebanon has a cassus belli because of the overflights I would not retaliate against it if it attacked Israel? Of course I would. If you are attacked you defend yourself even if the other side is justified in attacking you. As usual you make the unwarranted inference from thinking that if you are justified in attacking someone than you can expect that other side not to defend himself. It is basically the way you argue. You invent arguments that you imagine I made and argue against them.
And again, I never said Hezbollah was the Lebanese state, I said that most Lebanese supported Hezbollah’s position about not granting access to the Red Cross to visit Israeli prisoners. Not ONE Lebanese politician said a word about. Not ONE Lebanese organization in Lebanon or outside said anything about this. Not ONE Lebanese journalist wrote about this asking Hezbollah to follow the Geneva Convention. So Lebanese are for the Geneva Convention only went it suits them. That is called vile hypocrisy. You have zero standing to say “Geneva Convention” in an argument.
You whole argument though is completely bogus because as I pointed out in a previous comment, the over flights were on going long before we started this exchange. So why weren’t you “insulted” and “fighting” and “pro-Hezbollah” before? It seems that what bothers you are not the flights themselves but some words in a blog. But of course you chose to ignore this because your position is irrational.
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 10:01 amRas Beirut,
See above my answer to Gabriel regarding the issue.
Let me add that in 2000 Israel left Lebanon and had the UN verify that it is not occupying one square millimeter of Lebanon. Did that lead to peace or even non-war? No, Hezbollah continued attacking and harassing Israel until the war in 2006. You whole argument is bogus exactly because of the Lebanon example. One would have expected the Lebanese border to have been quiet following Israel’s withdrawal, and the opposite happened. So why won’t this be the case in the West Bank also? Do you think Israelis really care about excuses such as “Unfortunately, Lebanon has had a very weak state over the last few decades”? If you can’t or are unwilling to control your militias, why would anybody think that a peace agreement with you is worth the paper it is written on? When Iran starts funding some Hezbollah clone in the West Bank, and rockets fall on the densely populated regions of Israel which are 10 miles from the West Bank, all you will have is excuses. Well, you know what you can do with them.
I want a solution also, I want the Palestinians to have a state of their own. But it won’t happen unless Israel has airtight guarantees that the Lebanon example will not repeat itself.
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 10:14 amAIG, please for the love of Moses, stop.
For the love of your people, please stop.
Maybe the words you are typing into these forums are not the words you are intending to type. But the message they convey is exactly what I have summarized them to be.
Do yourself a favor, and copy and paste the entire discussion I had with you in a separate Word document.
Then run a Search and Replace function through the text.
Where I wrote Lebanese, replace it with the word Jew. Where I wrote Jew, replace it with the word Lebanese.
And for a moment, imagine that what scenario emerges from this simple Search and Replace is in fact reality.
Then you come back and tell me, with a straight face, that you accept your arguments.
As I said, maybe you haven’t thought properly through your arguments. Judging by the very poor job you have done to date, I cannot imagine you have.
In fact, I am a little confused and surprised that you have not polished your arguments after many years of visiting Arab forums and arguing in them.
What matters is that whatever else you may have intended to say, nothing matters more than perception.
For a while now, I have come here and argued that Hizballah should be disarmed. That we should de-escalate the conflict. I have even said many posts ago, that I don’t consider the overflights a Casus Belli, or blocking 1 port a casus belli, or even occupying Lebanese land a Casus Belli!
Ironically, it is in this same thread that I was arguing earlier, with Mo about how hypocritical the Arabs/Muslims are because they spent centuries expropriating land and territory.
How precisely do you expect people like me to, with a straight face, continue this type of argument on this forum?
What we are discussing here is not new material. It is not hypothetical situations. It is past events. Yes, it does not need to be said that Lebanon really does have limited options in what it can do. But do you really need to pompously admit to as much… in a Lebanese forum?
As I wrote many posts ago, I am not entirely sure what your goal here is. Is it to find common ground, build a more peaceful future? Or is it simply to use the occasion to come and make sure Arabs see nothing but a vulgar side of Israelis?
I would have like to think that Reason dictates it is the former. But your postings tell me you are here for the latter reason.
And as I wrote before…. do yourself and the Israelis a favor, and stop posting or change the subject.
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 10:29 am1) I am not Ras Beirut, so it is not my argument.
2) Why, pray tell, should ONE Lebanese politician, Journalist, organisation say anything about it?
3) You freely admit that Israel disregards proudly the Geneva convention, (in fact you outright reject portions of this document that YOUR country signed on to).
4) Since Israel’s disregard for the Convention comes long before the Lebanese one, then I don’t think any Lebanese Politician/Journalist/Organization should say a word about it.
5) When Israel shows good faith that it is willing to respect the convention, then and only then are the Lebanese under any obligation whatsover to comply to the convention.
6) There is nothing hypocritical in this view, and certainly nothing vile… Just plain common sense.
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 10:48 amAIG said to Gabriel:
But when I say that most Syrians given a choice would do the same, you get insulted, all while you are a living example of what I said.
AIG said to Ras Beirut:
Let me add that in 2000 Israel left Lebanon and had the UN verify that it is not occupying one square millimeter of Lebanon. Did that lead to peace or even non-war?
Danny, Gabriel, Ras Beirut,
In light of AIG’s comments,
What is preventing a peace agreement, now, between Israel and Lebanon?
Posted by Akbar Palace | April 1, 2012, 10:58 amAP#388
You can read my comments in #386.
AIG also freely said that Israel has been in consistent violation of treaties because of overflights.
Not only that, he freely said that it is Casus Belli. Meaning AIG believes that Israel has been declaring war on Lebanon over and over again. Once for each overflight!
Before you get ahead of yourself and start talking Peace Agreements, let’s stick to a situation when neither side violates basic common sense principles.
So, please take up your issues with AIG, and have him explain to you, Jew to Jew, why he feels it should be ok for Israel to violate ceasefires on the one hand (giving Lebanon Casus Belli, for which he proudly admits they have no reasonable recourse for), and having the Lebanese run to Israel to sign a peace treaty on the other hand (or as Ras Beirut put it… he’s expecting the Lebanese to send him a dozen roses come Valentine’s Day).
Which of your toes should we all prostrate and line up to kiss?
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 11:18 amGabriel,
Do yourself a favor and stop being so insecure. You are finding insults where there are none. How is saying that Lebanon has limited options pompous in any way shape or form? It is just a fact. You seem to think that when someone disagrees with your argument citing facts, that you admit are true, this person is in fact insulting you. I suggest you grow up.
Our argument started because you took offense from the fact I said a democratic Syria would not go to war with Israel for the Palestinians and would rather improve the economic conditions of its citizens. Now it turns out, that this is exactly the position YOUR family took! Yet, you were riled and insulted by this. You still haven’t explained why.
Then you chose to change the subject to the over flights. But again, I showed how irrational your position about this is because the overflights were on going long before we began this thread and yet you were not “pro-Hezbollah”.
You somehow seem to think that discussing things in a direct and honest manner is “vulgar”. What a weird notion. Bridges are built on truth and reality, not on BS and trying to create a false perception. But no, I am not foolish enough to think that I am here to build bridges, that would be rather pompous. Why do I need a “bridge” to a Canadian anyway? Canada is already one of Israel’s best friends. I am here to read other people’s views and to give my 2 cents.
You also seem to think that what I argue should influence how you argue with fellow Lebanese. That is also very strange attitude. You should argue what you believe and the fact that you think one Israeli is “vulgar” should not change your beliefs unless you are of course very weak minded.
I think you argument basically is that an Israeli cannot speak the truth to Lebanese because they are so fragile and will be insulted easily. I reject that out of hand. And of course if the shoe were on the other foot, I would not be offended. Israel has many faults and problems and I don’t get insulted when anybody points this out.
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 11:22 amGabriel,
Regarding the Geneva Convention it is quite simple. If you believe in it, you follow it irregardless of what the other side does. We can get into the argument who violated international law first, and you would surely lose because it was Lebanon that disregarded the 1947 UN partition resolution and declared war on Israel on May 15 1948 with Israel being 1 day old and having done nothing to Lebanon and as you even admit, they did not have a cassus belli.
The Lebanese proved that they do not believe in the Geneva Convention as anything but a political tool against Israel. When the real test came, when they had to comply with its most basic foundations they failed miserably. So to make any argument against Israel using the Geneva Convention is vile hypocrisy.
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 11:32 amAP,
I will leave it very short. AIG and people like him are what HA loves! Bullying and thinking that anyone but Jews don’t have any rights! i like simple and clear conversation. Not forever going back and forth at Wiki…
Let me ask you a question. If you had a million Jews in Egypt that were treated as second class or third class humans (mind you not citizens) would any Israeli government say; screw this shit! Let’s have peace and let other people die.
Again; since you and AIG seem somehow in tune with world affairs…Do you think Lebanon; even if it had a real ‘independent” one…would be in such ease to have a neighborly relations with Israel all the time having 20% of its population of Palestinian refugees with relatives in Israel.?
First question; then the second.
Gaby; let go of AIG. I don’t know what kind of “conversations” these people had with each other…But it seems like one between deaf and mute
Posted by danny | April 1, 2012, 11:33 amGabriel,
What is worse, Nasrallah, a prominent member of the government of Lebanon saying publicly every couple of weeks that he plans to annihilate Israel and march to Jerusalem, or Israel violating Lebanese air space in order to make sure he doesn’t actually try anything?
So let’s begin by no Lebanese party, especially one in the government and perhaps even controlling it, threatening to annihilate Israel. After that, you would have some standing to complain about violation of Lebanese air space as an obstacle to peace.
I want peace with Lebanon, not a peace agreement. Signing an agreement with Lebanon now is worthless because the Lebanese state is weak and cannot guarantee the agreement will be honored by Lebanon. I hope you are not insulted by this truth also. I don’t want roses, or agreements. What I want is for Lebanon one day to become a responsible state and until then, let’s have a few wars as possible.
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 11:43 amAIG, if you actually read and understood anything I wrote, then you would not have believed that is why I got insulted (and just to be clear… that is NOT what I found insulting).
It is clear from this statement that you either, despite the many many posts I wrote, did not understand what I found insulting, or …
… you did understand, and are simply dismissing it because you couldn’t care less.
Either position means there is no point continuing this conversation.
Posted by Gabriel | April 1, 2012, 11:57 amDanny,
The Arab Israelis on average, have more rights and are more educated and also richer than the average Lebanese not to mention the average Palestinian in Lebanon that are really second class residents because you won’t grant them citizenship. So cut your BS.
As for the West Bank and Gaza, they are not part of Israel. The reason there is no Palestinian state and there are Palestinians in Lebanon is not only Israel’s fault. Before 67, who was stopping the Arabs from creating a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza? Did Israel force Lebanon to declare war on it in May 1948? Did Israel force Lebanon to accept the Cairo agreement?
There is no simple solution and we are all carrying a lot of historical baggage. But getting insulted when someone has a different point of view will get you nowhere.
And again, I don’t expect Lebanon to come to Israel asking for peace. Where did you get that idea?
Posted by AIG | April 1, 2012, 11:58 am