Posted by dealer3
please read whole article, not bits hear and there, and maybe you may understand Hamas' views and situation...
Amid rising tensions between the newly formed Palestinian Hamas government and Israel, Erica Silverman in Ramallah interviews Hamas member and Parliament Speaker Abdul-Aziz Duwaik
What is Hamas's short-term and long-term strategy for achieving Palestinian statehood?
The main strategy of Hamas is to succeed in fulfilling its obligations and its platform. Hamas is a real, moderate Islamic movement with a comprehensive platform in terms of the socio-economic aspects of Palestinian life. It also realises that it is still in the stage of resisting the occupation; resistance by all means, not just military. Its success is good for the Palestinians and for security, stability and peace in the region. The failure of this movement will invite, by all means, radicalism into this area that will usher in a new round of violence.
This is one aspect of Hamas: a combination of resistance by varied means, including arms if necessary. Since March of last year Hamas declared a truce, or a ceasefire, with Israel, with the Palestinian Authority (PA), and under the supervision of Mahmoud Abbas, our president. Until now the ceasefire is holding and since the elections were held on 25 January there has been absolutely no fighting. Yes, other Palestinian factions have conducted operations; most of them were in reaction to Israeli atrocities and the assassination of their leaders, the destruction of homes, and land confiscation.
So far, I believe Hamas has been working hard to fulfil the needs of the people.
Is there a phased plan of action for statehood, and how will you prepare the PA institutions?
Hamas has been given a four-year mandate by the Palestinian people. I think putting the Palestinians on the right terrain will be a process that will encompass these four years. We hope the people will be convinced that this movement is fulfilling its obligations and working for the betterment of Palestinians.
How will a Hamas-led government restore law and order to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank? What steps will be taken within the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) to resolve the security crisis? Last week Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh stated that security forces would try to "pull our civilian gunmen off the streets". Which armed civilians will be disarmed and how will their weapons be collected?
Ismail Haniyeh meant the following: any kinds of weapons used for resistance against the enemies of our nation are acceptable, but weapons that are being used against our institutions and our citizens are harmful to our society and our security. These arms, displayed on television, are harmful to the reputation of our people. When he spoke of arms he meant these weapons, which threaten the well being of our people.
Those who publicly display their weapons are harming the interests of our people and fuelling insecurity; this phenomenon must come to an end.
How would the determination be made regarding smaller factions, for example offshoots of Fatah and the Abu Reish Brigades, whether their weapons are being used against an occupying power or that instigate internal violence?
Frankly, disarmament should occur in a gradual manner. Haniyeh has just taken office. The public show of weapons is made by some of the warlords to tell the government "we are here and we have weapons." There are internal feuds within factions, and members would like to show they are armed and they can fight. I believe order will gradually be restored when national security assumes a role. Within a few weeks, everything will be resolved. We have a goal. We must convince the armed militants that what they are doing is harmful to their interests and the interests of the people.
Before this it will be necessary to achieve some economic progress. The ministers of economy and finance must meet the needs of the people. When the people are satisfied they will realise that justice is coming and that the old methods, of double standards within the PA, have come to an end.
Our people are well educated; they just need examples in the leadership; they need orientation and direction.
How will Hamas implement Islamic (Sharia) Law?
We began by implementing Sharia law in our own way, and we will continue. Eighty per cent of women have a cover on their heads according to the principles of Islam. We did not force anyone, we just preach according to the principles of Islam and the people accept it. Concerning alcoholism, it is forbidden in Islam, and even the West says it is wrong to be addicted to alcohol. Experience in Germany, the United States and Switzerland proves that what Islam taught us 1,400 years ago is still valid.
The majority of Palestinians do not consume alcohol. We will preach and give examples from a scientific point of view, and by doing so there will be diminishing demand. Even those who sell alcoholic beverages; I think they will find it is not good to continue with their business. But, it will be in a peaceful way that will increase the ethics of the people and their adherence to core principles, in a democratic manner.
We are not going to cut off the hands of thieves, even though they deserve it. We are not going to force any woman to cover her hair; women are doing this by their own choice. What is not known in the US is the appeal of Islamic principles, because it is intrinsic in the hearts of the people. A human being is born with these principles -- we oppose thieves and alcoholism by nature. Islam is the religion of the true and ideal human being. Islam prohibits adultery because fidelity is good for the woman and it is good for the man -- for his health, for her health, for their offspring.
The religion of purity; this is Islam and how we see it. In terms of moderate Islam, even the holy Quran called upon us to become moderate in our lives; whenever you push someone to act against his will, it brings injustice into his life.
When you use the term "moderate Islam", is there a particular model or school of thought that you are following?
I consider Hamas at the middle, if you have a circle. At the middle of Islam is Hamas; it is a real, moderate movement. Why? It is a comprehensive way of life and it does not go to any extreme, whether to the right or to the left. I believe this and I reject extremism, but we will not leave behind the principles of Islam in order to please others. We will apply Islam by setting an example; by preaching, by showing the greatness of the principles of this religion. This is what we do for Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
This is the beauty of Islam; this is how we understand Islam -- no alcoholism, no adultery, etc. Even the West is suffering from so many afflictions stemming from alcoholism, gambling, usury, and so on -- all have been forbidden by Islam for 1,400 years.
God is unique and He is just. I am very much an optimist.
Will actual legislation be implemented that is in accord with Sharia law? If so, how will the interpretation of the laws be determined? Will Waqf (PA-appointed Islamic religious authority) be involved or other religious leaders local or abroad?
We will implement Islamic law by democratic means; if the majority of people will accept we will go ahead, if they will say "no", we say no.
Would these decisions be made by referendum?
Yes, it might be through a referendum. If we wish to develop our community in terms of sustainable development, we have to implement the rules of democracy. There should be -- and must be -- grassroots participation all the time. People must go to the polls for every election so that we can understand what the people want.
What are the drawbacks in refusing to negotiate with Israel, and in turn, what are the benefits?
Negotiating with Israel since the Madrid Conference has undermined our position. For our people, a parallel has been drawn between concessions and negotiations. So far, Israel has not given the Palestinian people anything.
The Israelis can come here and imprison the speaker of the Palestinian parliament. They can bombard this building and no one will stop them. The Israelis have not shown the Palestinians anything in the way of a sincere intention to negotiate.
If you look at the map since the Madrid Conference -- 14 years ago until now -- Israeli policies have been unilateral; gaining time, confiscating land, and enhancing Israeli settlements while building the separation wall and implementing the "Judaisation" of Jerusalem. Israel has imposed de facto borders on the ground. So whenever we come to negotiations with Israel we have nothing to negotiate with them over.
Yitzahk Rabin once said, "we are the citizens and the Palestinians are our guests." In 1922, Zeev Rabotinsky, after the Balfour Declaration, said the land is for a Jewish state and the state will have control over Palestinian civil affairs.
I am calling for Israel to take any steps to show the Palestinians that Israel intends to respect Palestinian national rights and to respect international law, and to put an end to its ugly occupation.
I define the Palestinians as freedom-seekers, and we know that we must be free of the slavery of occupation. We continue to call upon our Arab and Muslim brothers, and upon those in the free world who are friends, to free our people from occupation. The slavery of occupation is the worst kind of slavery in this world.
Is there a way to recognise Israel and recognise its right to exist, while asserting that Israel has not abided by previous agreements?
Which Israel do you want us to recognise? I am ready. Which Israel, just tell me, with what borders? Why don't you ask Israel to recognise us? We are the victims. We are the people whose land has been taken by force and Israel did not even bother to implement any international agreements, not even the ruling of the International Court of Justice [declaring the "separation barrier" illegal] determined two years ago. Israel did not even bother to read it, let alone implement it.
Who is supposed to recognise the other? I think Israel is supposed to recognise us.
How will Hamas manage the PA budget after the United States and Europe have decided to withhold aid funds?
The West in general -- the US and the EU in particular -- wanted to promote democracy in this region and we accepted. To their amazement the Islamic movement within Palestine accepted the rules of the game and we entered the elections. Our people, who are the most educated in this area of the world, chose their representatives. To the astonishment of the world, the EU and the US did not accept the final results of democracy. They wanted democracy, but a designed democracy, not free elections.
Our people read the political map, saw the practices of the PA, of Hamas, and cast their votes. We have not heard a word of congratulations. Those who promoted democracy promoted hypocrisy; they turned a blind eye to transparent elections. By punishing the people for their democratic choice, I think the West is increasing the hatred of Western values.
Despite this, I am laying the groundwork for enhanced democracy because it is a practice that will bring betterment to the life of our people.
Why has the Bush administration decided to cut links with a Hamas-led government?
Bush is causing the United States a great deal of harm; first of all, to its reputation all over the world. Frankly, in my opinion, Bush is the worst president the US has ever had.
Republicans will lose in the coming elections because of the behaviour of Bush. I am not the one to judge his behaviour; I will leave it to the American people who I know will not accept it.
Instead of sending congratulations to the Palestinians, saying, "we are ready to cooperate with the representatives of the Palestinians," he is trying to punish the Palestinians. Why is that? If he really believes in democracy he should have a dialogue with us.
I am ready to explain our position to him in frank terms and to Congress. Violence is a term that is not in, and would never enter, our dictionary. Why? Because we are the victims of violence. He would say "recognise Israel," and I would say, "why doesn't Israel recognise us? We recognised Israel for the last 15 years and what has Israel given us?"
The results of the 25 January elections showed the world that we are not convinced with this so- called "peace process". We would like to change the rules of the game so that our national rights are recognised, our well-being is recognised, and our basic human rights recognised. Israel -- since its establishment until now -- has turned its back on international law. Why are you demanding that we have to recognise international law and you did not ask Israel to fulfil the requirements of hundreds of UN resolutions? Israel even turned its back on the Geneva Conventions.
We want the world to understand our suffering and to reflect upon our suffering. We consider occupation as slavery. I am calling upon the free world for help to put an end to this slavery.
Have you articulated your position in Washington?
They did not give us the chance. I am the speaker of the parliament and people -- not only in Palestine but also all over the Middle East -- listen to me. We understand the rules of the game, we know where we are and we are reasonable and civilised. So many Israelis have said for so many years, "they are going to throw us into the sea." What sea? We do not even have access to the sea. We do not even have the ability to import medical supplies. We do not even have access to the Grand Mosque in Jerusalem. What are they talking about?
We respect human life; at the same time we would like to see others respect our basic human rights, not only our lives. This is the whole issue.
if you would like to know more...
visit:
www.aqsa.org.uk
www.interpal.org
if you would like to donate money to the palestinian cause, a well-known British chairty dedicated to the cause is Interpal, www.interpal.org.uk
any help is appriciated...
kindest regards
Posted by Jim
It was not a good example to march down the streets with rockets, machine guns and kids around in joy ... . When I saw those images I was pretty shocked to see 7 years old shooting around while they don't even know what's going on. No wonder that the "West" has twisted feelings about the situation right now.
I think both country's have an ego problem, none will do something if the ennemy doesn't do something first. It's just a loop.
Posted by PeterKay
Its shocking to see them army tankers demolishing houses and killing innocent children at the same time, the world knows who the real enemies are but don't do nothing about it.
Posted by Jim
Yeah but on the other end you have suicide bombers ... what is it now ? Like I said, both are picking each other, looks like 6 years old kids with the "he started first" excuses.
Posted by Sammy_boy
This one can be argued till the cows come home, then go back out again....
No one side imho can claim the moral high ground, both sides have committed atrocities and made dubious decisions, and have extremists in them.
Long and short of it? There's probably no solution everyone will be pleased with. Give Palestinians a homeland? Israeli hardliners will create a stink, probably end up creating another terrorist organisation or something. Don't bother giving them a homeland? Then we carry on as before.
It's almost tempting to say ship everyone out, drop a huge nuclear bomb on that area, then maybe folk will stop fighting over that area once it's being turned into an irradiated wasteland!
Posted by absinthebri
> No one side imho can claim the moral high ground, both sides have committed atrocities and made dubious decisions, and have extremists in them.
Correct. And one country is occupied, and one is the occupier. One is attempting to defend itself from occupation and one is attempting to expand according to alleged promises made 4000 years ago. One seeks independence for its people and one has invaded at least four of its neighbours and attacked others. One commits 'terrorist' acts on the streets of Europe while the other openly kidnaps and murders innocent people on the same streets. One of them has had 'unlawful killing' (murder) verdicts returned against her in two British court cases in the past month over the deaths of two British citizens.
_________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
[ This Message was edited by: absinthebri on 2006-04-16 16:48 ]
Posted by amnesia
Suicide bombers within their own country that are sacraficing their own lives to get rid of people that they feel are invading their land.
I don't agree with it, but it just goes to show that they'll go to the extent of killing themselves if it can lead to getting rid of those that hurt their families.
When those suicide bombers, marchers and so on, go to the US and start attacking cities and saying "We're doing it to protect ourselves because we feel a threat" THEN I'll agree with what the US does
Posted by fatreg
cant we just nuke em all?
job done.
fatreg
Posted by PeterKay
nah, thats the easy way out
Posted by Dart5
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD[....]04/17/telaviv.blast/index.html
Posted by JK
And Now Irans backing Hamas!!! Yay finally the Islamic countries are standing together!!!
Posted by PeterKay
about time.
Posted by JK
U think the US will go for Iran??
Posted by PeterKay
they will go for any Muslim country, as thats all they wanna do.
Posted by Sammy_boy
| Quote: |
|
I'm not sure whether that scares me or not!
Though having said that if the US really does invade or start taking action against Iran, even me with my fairly moderate views is going to start thinking the US (and I suppose us) are on some sort of 'crusade'!
If this turns into a religious world war, I'm leaving the bloody planet!
Posted by PeterKay
don't leave the planet, esato needs you
Posted by JK
They also said they gonna attack the us and the brits!!
Posted by axxxr
This was bound to happen at some point....we can well and truly hold the U.S responsible if some sort of war kicks off....but i am pleased the Iran has joined forced with the Democraticaly elected Government of Hamas.
Posted by fatreg
im still going with the lets nuke em policy.
if you cant behave you get nuked, simple enough policy to stick to aint it??
aftreg
Posted by axxxr
That policy sounds very american to me..
Posted by fatreg
ermm theu would be the first people to get nuked!!
its a very fartregy policy
fatreg
Posted by axxxr
yeh thats what i was going to say...
Posted by JK
We'll have to wait for the 28th to see what happens!
Posted by scotsboyuk
| Quote: |
|
The aggressive stance taken by the Iranian government having nothing to do with it of course ...
Posted by axxxr
| Quote: |
|
Israel and the U.S have been showing their fists to Iran for decades now,so what if Iran chooses to do the same...they are a sovreign country and have just as much as a right to say anything like any other free country.
Posted by Jim
| Quote: |
|
Allright, what about that Danish cartoon incident then ? "Right to say anything", doesn't seem so ...
Posted by axxxr
| Quote: |
|
Thats was an direct attack on a religion,completely different scenario...religion is a sensitive subject for most people,so its best to avoid that..we have discussed this in depth in an earlier thread
Posted by scotsboyuk
| Quote: |
|
I don't seem to recall an American President or Israeli Prime Minister calling for Iran to be wiped off the map. It takes two to tango and and in this situation Iran is making the situation worse with the rhetoric we have seen so far. Hence the cause to avoid a war is not being helped by the Iranian government.
Under the terms of the NPT Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. So one might ask why the West is worried. There are three points here:
Iran hid its nuclear programme for years.
Iran has vast energy reserves already, nuclear power is not essential for Iran.
The Iranian president has said that Israel should be destroyed and that it would be in a 'storm'.
If one takes these three factors together one can see why there is concern over the Iranian nuclear programme. Furthermore it is important to point out that neither China or Russia is actively against the Western nations in their opposition to the Iranian nuclear programme. Both no doubt realise that it would simply make the Middle Eas even more volatile.
Iran wants to be the regional power and we have seen moves towards that recently. Neither Iran nor the U.S. want a war in my opinion. Iran doesn't want a war because it knows it would have no chance of winning it. The U.S. doesn't want a war because it would make the global situation even worse as well as affecting the global economy and taxing their already stretched military forces.
| Quote: |
Thats was an direct attack on a religion ... |
... or satire as many see it.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-04-21 20:00 ]
Posted by Jim
| Quote: |
|
So saying that a country should be wiped off the map is not a direct attack ? I think it's as sensitive as religion when your country is targetted ... (and with, maybe, future nuclear weapons on top).
Posted by JK
Iran and the rest of the world know that d us has a hidden agenda, they also just allowed china nuclear access n in the next breath askd Iran to stop theres. Hypocritical dont u think!
Posted by scotsboyuk
@786KBR
I think the U.S. are being quite open about the fact that they oppose the Iranian nuclear programme.
China's nuclear programme predates the NPT. The NPT effectively says that five countries are allowed nuclear weapons and that they are not to help other countries gain access to them. The five countries allowed nuclear weapons are the U.S., UK, France, China and Russia (formerly the U.S.S.R.). Other countries are permitted to develop nuclear energy programmes for peaceful purposes.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-04-22 19:51 ]
Posted by JK
They were also very "open" to Iraqs possesion of WMD's!
Posted by scotsboyuk
@786
The U.S. said Iraq had WMD (which we now know to be untrue) so it is logical to expect them to oppose that, especially where a nuclear capability might be involved. Iraq is a signatory to the NPT so they are also banned from developing/possessing nuclear weapons.
Realistically the U.S. accepts the major powers having nuclear weapons and would arguably also accept certain allies developing nuclear weapons e.g. Japan.
Posted by JK
So what percentage would you give to the us having alterior motives going in to this war?
Posted by scotsboyuk
@786
Which war? Do you mean the Iraq war or a possible war with Iran?
In the case of Iraq I think the motives are quite straightforward. The U.S. probably considered Saddam to be dangerous to the stability of the region, he had already invaded Kuwait and wanted to portray himself as the strong man of the region. Then there is also the case to be made for oil interests. I don't think control of Iraqi oil was the sole reason for the war, but certainly the prospect of American companies being given contracts for Iraqi oil and to operate in Iraq after the war would no doubt have been an incentive.
There is also the issue of America losing control of Saddam. Iraq had been a U.S. ally during the Cold War when the U.S. had supported Iraq against Iran. When that relationship broke down the U.S. would have then had a loose cannon on their hands.
As for Iran I would again say that the reasons are straightforward. With Iraq weakened Iran now has an opportunity to dominate the region. The U.S. obviously doesn't want a country that it isn't on friendly terms with dominating in the Middle East. The Iranian nuclear programme, whether or not it really is just for peaceful purposes, does take Iran a step closer to nuclear weapons and thus increases in status and power.
If Iran did gain nuclear weaponry then it would have the potential to plunge the region into a major war as the current Iranian regime appears to be very hostile towards Israel, which has its own nuclear weapons. A nuclear war in the Middle East would have devastating consequences, not just for the Middle East, for the planet as a whole.
One should remember that the bulk of the world's oil comes from the Middle East. Strife in that region can cause the price of oil to rise as we have already seen. That impacts the U.S. a great deal because the U.S. is so dependent upon oil, especially Middle Eastern oil. The U.S. would probably like all Middle Eastern countries to be democracies, but I daresay it would (and arguably already does) settle for them being monarchies, theocracies, etc that maintained stability and peace in the region.
Yes Israel is a U.S. ally, but the U.S. won't want Israel causing trouble anymore than it will want the Arab nations causing trouble; the end result is the same. What the U.S. seeks in the region, in my opinion, is simply stability and the dominance of friendly countries. Hence we see the U.S. supporting Israel, Kuwait, the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia.
For the same reasons we see the U.S. and EU withdrawing support from the Palestinian Authority. The Fatah government was willing to work with Israel and vice versa and hence there was a greater chance of a peace deal and stability. Hamas don't even recognise Israel's right to exist and hence the chances for instability are increased. The U.S. therefore doesn't want to enourage or support something, which has the potential to cause major problems.
The U.S. involvement in the Middle East is actually very simple when you break it down. They want stability and peace to protect oil prices and the global economy and they don't want an unfriendly country becoming too powerful in the region so as not to jeapordise American economic interests.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-04-24 18:20 ]
Posted by absinthebri
| Quote: |
|
What of Israel, who had invaded Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon and attacked Iraq? Is that begaviour not "dangerous to the stability of the region"?
Posted by scotsboyuk
| Quote: |
|
Which war are you referencing since those countries have been at war on more than one occassion? Some of those countries have attacked Israel and Israel has launched pre-emptive attacks on them.
The difference between Israel and say Iraq is that Israel is a very close ally of the United States. The U.S. has considerbaly more influence over Israel than it does Iran or Iraq under Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. In fact during the first Iraq War the Americans put pressure on Israel not to retaliate when they were targeted by Iraqi missiles.
As I said before, the U.S. seeks stability in the region and the dominance of its allies, which includes Israel. Whilst the U.S. isn't likely to want Israel to be engaged in a war, if it is then the U.S. will most probably support its ally.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait the U.S. could have accepted the situation, but because it was no longer on friendly terms with Iraq it realisticaly had to act. If it had been Saudi Arabia invading Kuwait I think we would probably have seen a much different reaction.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-04-24 18:58 ]
Posted by absinthebri
> and Israel has launched pre-emptive attacks on them.
Yes; she has attacked them. Agression is agression.
Posted by scotsboyuk
@absin
I'm not disagreeing with you. However, it should perhaps be noted that Israel launched a pre-emptive attack, which started the Six Day War, in response to certain conditions, notably the re-militarization of the Sinai, the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and the formation of an Arab military alliance, which surrounded Israel.
The U.S. apparently had attempted to hold Israel back.
Posted by absinthebri
| Quote: |
|
Well, the actual fact are somewhat different from what you suggest:
Some history...
The Jews committed massive atrocities. Indeed, according to the former director of the Israeli army archives, "in almost every village occupied by us during the War of Independence, acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes'... Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, goes one step further, maintaining that every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs."
One very famous example among many.
"For the entire day of April 9, 1948, Irgun and LEHI soldiers carried out the slaughter in a cold and premeditated fashion...The attackers lined men, women and children up against the walls and shot them,... The ruthlessness of the attack on Deir Yassin shocked Jewish and world opinion alike, drove fear and panic into the Arab population, and led to the flight of unarmed civilians from their homes all over the country."
And 1967...
"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68
The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman stated that there was "no threat of destruction" but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could "exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies." Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." New York Times, August 21, 1982 and Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
Moshe Dayan (the Defense Minister in 1967) who gave the order to conquer the Golan Heights, said many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and that the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland... Dayan stated "They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land... We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was... The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us." The New York Times, May 11, 1997
Posted by soulframe
| Quote: |
|
I think you'll find that it's Israel that has considerable influence over the US (especially their foreign policies in the middleast).
Just in case anyone forgot, here's some information that you might find useful:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
Actually this is more connected to my post:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/lrblobby.html
_________________
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER
www.davidicke.com
www.infowars.com
www.prisonplanet.com
[ This Message was edited by: soulframe on 2006-04-24 19:23 ]
Posted by scotsboyuk
| Quote: |
|
Whilst those incidents are awful what exactly do they prove beyond the fact that man can be cruel? The Arabs committed atrocities against the Jews too. In the 1930s for example, Jewish farms were destroyed and Jews killed. Such attacks led to the formation of Jewish militias and also to the British White Paper of 1939, which can be seen as having pushed some sections of the Jewish community to extremes. During WWII the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem collaborated with the Nazis against Jews.
Both sides have done terrible things to the other so I see little point in debating who is right or wrong in such matters. The bottom line is that both sides could not peacefully coexist with one another at that time.
| Quote: |
|
The re-militariztion of the Sinai was not the only factor I mentioned. Israel at that time was surrounded by hostile countries, which had formed a military alliance. Then there is also the closure of the Strraits of Tirana to Israeli shipping. A blockade can be considered an act of war.
It is also worth considering the speech Nasser made on 30th May 1967, in which he said "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ... while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world." Algeria, Kuwait, Iraq and Sudan were also mobilising their armies. The threat therefore was not simply an Egyptian threat, but a pan-Arabic force.
| Quote: |
|
Interestingly Nasser made a speech in 1967, in which he said "If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle will be a general one... and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel." It is important to note that he says if Israel attacks, but equally important is the objective he sets out. He does not say that the goal will be to defeat Israel and contain it, rather he says that the goal will be the destruction of Israel. Clearly the political will for Israel's destruction was there.
Syria had also been operating raids into Israeli territory prior to the war and Israel had been shelling Syrian border villages so tensions were obviously high there.
The decision to launch a pre-emptive strike against the Egyptian airforce made perfect sense in military terms since it was the most powerful of the Arab airforces and the most able to present a threat to the Israeli airforce in the looming war.
| Quote: |
|
The Israeli government voted unanimously to return both the Sinai and the Golan Heights to Egypt and Syria respectively. However, the U.S. apparently did not pass on this offer and the evidence suggest neither nation received it. The fact that there was a unanimous vote to return the Golan Heights would seem to suggets that the Israeli government wasn't necessarily committed to siezing and holding land at any cost, but rather looked to use such acquisitions as bargaining chips.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-04-24 20:55 ]
Posted by scotsboyuk
| Quote: |
|
The bottom line is that Israel would likely not be in existence today were it not for American support. Israel received a great deal of aid, especially military support, from the U.S., which has ensured that Israel remains the most powerful nation in the region.
This gives the U.S. considerable influence over Israel as Israel effictively relies upon the U.S. for its survival. Israel and the U.S. essentially want the same things in the Middle East although perhaps for different reasons.
As I said before the U.S. would no doubt like to see a peaceful and stable Middle East to protect their economic interests and the global economy. It also wants to see its allies dominating in the region. Israel no doubt wants the same things, but because they want security.
If the Middle East were to run out of oil tomorrow then I can almost guarantee you that the U.S. position on the region would change overnight. The U.S. is interested in supporting Israel because it is a powerful and friendly face in the region that can act as a block to unfriendly regimes like Syria. It could be argued that Israel is important to the U.S. because the Middle East is important to the U.S. not the other way around.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-04-24 20:07 ]