News – Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced Wednesday that Israel and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, were resuming the suspended peace talks, one day after Abbas had refused to publicly commit to a resumption.
Fatah are the moderate Arabs...they only want to kill the jews moderately.
The Abbas-led part of Fatah is nothing but a ZionCon puppet. The increasing genocide in palestine is the result of letting ZionCons run our foreign policy in the middle east. Keep in mind that those running it (Elliot abrams) are criminals previously convicted for lying to Congress. Americans are paying dearly for their treason.
Elliot Abrams' uncivil war
... In the immediate aftermath of the Hamas elections, last January, Abrams greeted a group of Palestinian businessmen in his White House office with talk of a "hard coup" against the newly-elected Hamas government â;; the violent overthrow of their leadership with arms supplied by the United States. ...
http://www.conflictsforum.org/2007/elliot-abram...
Dual Citizenship -- Loyal to Whom?
Do No Evil â;; So, you might ask, are there any other dual Israel-American citizens who hold US government positions that could compromise American security? Yes....
http://donoevil.propeller.com/story/2008/03/05/...
Serving Two Flags
Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush Administration
Stephen Bryen
Richard Perle
Michael Ledeen
Douglas Feith
....
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/nc-green...
I don't think this Abbas gets it right. Someone should tell him that ANY peace process with opportunistic politicians from USA WILL NOT bring peace there.
He has to engage and include Syria, Jordan, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Hamas in order to make any progress. A united Arab front peace plan will have more credibility to negotiate with Israel INSTEAD of ANY other plan brokered by USA.
USA wants to be there to protect its OIL interests and would not care less about peace and tranquility.
Please explain what oil interest we have in Palestine.
The world according to nikkibabe:
Every single country in the world has oil, and thats the only reason we care. The Bush's control all of the world's oil. Everyone who isn't an atheist is a terrorism...except those peace loving "freedom fighters" in Iraq who behead 11 year old boys and feed them to their families.
> He has to engage and include Syria, Jordan, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Hamas in order to make any progress.
As long as none of the above are willing to make peace with Israel (except Egypt and Jordan, of course) this is a bit tricky to achieve, don't you agree?
On the other hand, I've already explained that if and when these countries (excluding Hamas) will decide to make peace with Israel (collectively or individually) Israel will not refuse. If and when Hamas will become the legitimate Palestinian governing body and as such will renounce violence and ask for peace negotiations it will be eligible, too.
Rockets on one side.
Peace on the other.
It's all very confusing.
> It's all very confusing.
It is... You know, if you pretend being an idiot for a long time and if you try really hard people will believe you.
Got that evidence, yet?
Of course. You've convinced me.
Regarding evidence, people with average and better intelligence here already know that I usually can support each one of my statements by proven facts and relatively simple logic.
If that were true you would have explained why the Israelis are withholding evidence that proves Iran is developing nuclear weapons as they claim.
So your answer to my question: No.
Thank you.
> ...you would have explained why the Israelis are withholding evidence that proves Iran is developing nuclear weapons as they claim.
First, Israelis are not withholding anything. Second, I've already explained several times how thee available evidence suggest that Iran IS developing nuclear weapons:
1. During the last several years Iran spent hundreds of millions on nuclear-capable medium range range ballistic missiles that are completely unusable without warheads;
2. During the very same period of time Iran spent additional hundreds of millions building facilities to enrich uranium. Iran claimed that it was going to use it for nuclear energy purposes DESPITE the fact that Iran is the second larger exporter of oil on the planet, that Iran does not have its own oil refineries and has to import oil products from other countries and despite offers of other countries to supply enriched uranium to Iran fir power stations.
1. According to the source YOU gave me:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/inde...
Iran only possesses missiles that can reach Iraq. They are not even capable of reaching Israel. You are alleging Iran bought missiles to hit a target the missiles they bought couldn't even reach? Powerful argument indeed. And do the missiles have to have nuclear payloads? Is that the criteria for a serious threat? Should we tell the Israelis to get over Palestinian rockets being fired at Israel because they are non-nuclear?
2. Iran does not have refinery capabilities, so why should they not build up an alternative energy source so they don't have to use their valuable commodity on themselves? The Iranians are LEGALLY allowed to develop nuclear energy. Why should they be dependent on someone else for THEIR energy security. Don't a lot of Americans talk about wanting energy security? Why are the Iranians not be concerned about it?
So essentially, your argument is:
"The Iranians are engaging in legal activities, so they must be engaged in an illegal activity."
Laughable.
Again where is the PROOF Iran is engaged in nuclear weapons development?
We know you have conjecture. We also remember the LAST time someone brought conjecture about a country being engaged in nuclear weapon development. What happened THAT time? Iraq was destabilized and the after effects still have the potential to destabilize the entire region.
So don't give us conjecture. Give us proof.
Don't give us circumstantial evidence. Give us evidence that Iran is developing the nuclear payload.
The Israelis disagree with the US NIE and say that Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons. Where is THE PROOF?
> According to the source YOU gave me:
> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/inde...
> Iran only possesses missiles that can reach Iraq. They are not even capable of reaching Israel.
This is a lie. According to the source I gave as well as many other sources Iran now has missiles with ranges or 3,000 kilometers and more. The distance between Iran and Israel is about 1,000 kilometers.
That's a lie? Do you not know what the word inventory means?
In your source:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/inde...
The longest range missile Iran has in inventory travels 700 km.
I have already told you once - READ YOUR OWN SOURCE.
Your client needs a new counselor. LOL
> Iran only possesses missiles that can reach Iraq. They are not even capable of reaching Israel.
As I've said this is a lie:
Since the turn of the century, Iran has pursued a number of other missile projects, although it has not yet flight-tested a new medium-range or long-range ballistic missile. One project involves modifications to the Shahab-3. In August 2004, Iran tested a Shahab-3 with a bulbous nose cone reportedly capable of accommodating a nuclear warhead.[3] In August 2005, Iran stated that it had increased the range of the Shahab-3 to 2,000 kilometers. Iran again tested the Shahab-3 in January 2006 and May 2006, and the January 2006 test may have involved a more advanced North Korean Nodong-B missile.[4]
"nose cone reportedly capable of accommodating a nuclear warhead."
Reportedly? By whom? Again, we don't want conjecture. We want FACTS. Why can't you provide FACTS?
Not to mention, this article is not about INVENTORY.
Facts, why can't you produce FACTS? Not conjecture, but FACTS.
> Iran only possesses missiles that can reach Iraq. They are not even capable of reaching Israel.
Someone is not telling truth here, either you or this Iranian General:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3dpfY3SgJE
Somehow I suspect that it's not the General who is not telling the truth...
"Someone is not telling truth here, either you or this Iranian General:"
It's not me, chief, it's the source you gave me. Why don't you tell me how many Shahab-3 missiles has from the source you gave me:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/inde...
Are you now disavowing your own source? Are you just throwing up crap to see what you can hopefully stick to the wall?
Let's get back on point.
FACTS give us FACTS that prove Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Where are YOUR FACTS?!?
> And do the missiles have to have nuclear payloads? Is that the criteria for a serious threat?
No, it is not. It IS, however, a criteria for alleged idiocy. One has to be an idiot to pay $30 Millions in order to deliver a conventional payload from Iran to Israel... especially considering the experience Iraq had with similar adventures 15 years ago. Do you suggest thtat Iranian leaders are idiots?
> Iran does not have refinery capabilities, so why should they not build up an alternative energy source so they don't have to use their valuable commodity on themselves?
Because it makes very little sense given the tremendous amount of oil Iran already has. Again, one has to be an idiot to invest billions in alternative technology while selling readily available oil to others.
> Why should they be dependent on someone else for THEIR energy security.
You tell me. After all, it's YOU who is saying that they should not build oil refineries instead.
You just GAVE ME A SOURCE where an Iranian general was talking about the alleged destructive power of the Shahab-3 which in another source YOU GAVE ME said Iran did not have an inventory of such weapons.
The general EXPLAINED where the destructive power came from. Your rebuttal is, "Nun-Uh, it's for them nukes." Where is your PROOF to make such an allegation?
I don't have to explain Iranian energy policy. Stop asking me to, as my opinion is irrelevant to the point at hand. Iranians make their policy and they are ENTITLED to create nuclear fuel for energy use.
You say, "They must be making weapons."
Where are your FACTS?
Having weapons that reach Israel does not equate to having nuclear weapons.
Making nuclear fuel for energy does not equate to making weapons.
Stop trying to move the goal posts. Stop with the red herrings. Stop trying to push conjecture as facts.
Give us PROOF to the allegations Iran is engaged in nuclear weapons development.
> Where are your FACTS?
> Having weapons that reach Israel does not equate to having nuclear weapons.
No, it does not. It DOES, however, equate to YOU lying when you've said "Iran only possesses missiles that can reach Iraq. They are not even capable of reaching Israel."
You mean when I used the source you provided?
I notice you keep ducking the request for you to point out where Iran is reported to have an inventory of Shahab-3 missiles on the FAS site.
Why is that?
Hopefully, this will satisfy your curiosity:
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/militarysum...
In the future, if you're interested in particular details of anything about anything (for example, in guano inventory in Argentina) try Google.
> You just GAVE ME A SOURCE where an Iranian general was talking about the alleged destructive power of the Shahab-3 which in another source YOU GAVE ME said Iran did not have an inventory of such weapons.
Well, yes. You see, the first one showed the Iranian missiles inventory in 2001 or earlier while the General's speech was made in 2008. One does not have to be a genius to realize that while Iran was ONLY PLANNING to have long range missiles in 2001 it actually was able to obtain them in 2008.
To make it easier for you to understand this dinamics I'll give you an example: in 2001 my neighbor's son was 11 years old. He did not have a driving licence and did not drive a car. Today the very same boy is 19, he has a license and he drives his girlfriend in a shiny new Viper...
The general's speech was made in 2008?
Your source says it was from 11/12/2006.
Again you provide a source to which you are blissfully unaware of what is even ON IT.
Again you say that it would be foolish for Iran to arm those missiles with a conventional payload, but that's exactly what the general says is on them. So once again, you have disavowed the very source that you do not know the contents of. How do I know the general is telling the truth of even having an arsenal if you claim he is not being upfront about the capabilities of the alleged arsenal?
To make it easier for you, do this next time:
Get EVIDENCE to back up YOUR CLAIMS and don't expect others to do YOUR HOMEWORK.
Let's cut to the chase now:
The Israelis have not presented any EVIDENCE for their claim that Iran is still developing nuclear weapons for one reason - There IS NOT ANY.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury:
Mr. Iran Tehrani repeatedly declared that he was going to kill my client, Mr. Israel Yerushalmi, and his entire family.
I can not show you the smoking gun as it would only smoke AFTER the murder is committed. I have, however, shown you the (yet non-smoking) collection of assault rifles Mr. Tehrani spent 25% of his salary for. In addition, Mr. Tehrani purchased lead purifying equipment that can be used for making bullets, spending additional 25% of his salary. Yes, Mr. Tehrani and his advocates claim that he was not and is not going to get any bullets for his new guns but would you believe him considering the evidence I've listed above?
One can and should understand the concerns of my client considering the deadly threats Mr. Tehrani made, the rifles he got and the lead-purifying equipment he employs as we speak.
Mahatma Gandhi said " the greatness of a statesman belongs in his ability to meet, talk, persuade & negotiate with a counterpart who holds a gun to your head".
That is what he did exactly to the British who put him in prison with armed men around. He met the King of England on his terms, wearing traditional Indian dress!
If no country wants to engage Syria, Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Hamas & Fatah in the same room, there is no ray of hope for any peace.
> If no country wants to engage Syria, Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Hamas & Fatah in the same room, there is no ray of hope for any peace.
This is true. Fortunately, Israel, the US and other countries ARE willing to engage all them in the same room. All that is left to make it successful is to convince those in your list to agree to negotiate. As of now all of them (except Egypt and Jordan) REFUSED to negotiate and demanded Israel to be destroyed no matter what.
Israel can not follow Gandhi's advice and "meet, talk, persuade & negotiate with a counterpart who holds a gun to your head". In this case, the counterpart will pull the trigger as fast as he can making subsequent meetings, talks, persuasion and negotiations irrelevant.
Only when the Arabs will be WILLING TO NEGOTIATE PEACE will peace become possible.
Only when israel gives up racism and ethnic cleansing will theri be peace. The world should pout an end to zionist crimes against humanity.
In Clear Sight of Yad Vashem
Religion â;; Yad Vashem, the jewish site for rembrance of the Holocaust is within sight of Deir Yassin, the symbolic starting point of nearly six decades of Palestinian dispossession and ethnic cleansing.
http://religion.propeller.com/story/2008/03/06/...
A brutal ethnic cleansing accompanied by dispossession, pillage and massacre... terms surely familiar to any Palestinian.
But no matter how similar the Jewish and Palestinian histories of suffering may seem, the similarities conceal important differences:
First, according to any version of the events, what was done to the Jews of Europe took place a long distance from Yad Vashem. What was done to the Palestinian people took place right there at the village of Deir Yassin and right there throughout the whole of Palestine.
Second, the perpetrators of the atrocity against Jews had nothing to do with Palestine or Palestinians, while perpetrators of the Palestinian tragedy were and are Jews.
Third, the perpetrators of the atrocity against Jews have been roundly condemned over the years and punished for their crimes, and have mostly shown contrition, while the perpetrators of the massacre at Deir Yassin have been honored for their crimes, continue to take pride in them, and live on in their ideology and in their deeds.
Fourth, what befell the Jews had a beginning, a middle, and an end, while the assault on the Palestinians goes on with no end in sight.
The United States can't be a broker of peace in the region. There needs to be a sort of consortium.
Reading between the lines, US policy in this arena seems to be based on banging heads together and believing that when the sufferers say yes, yes,in order that they should stop! this will have some significance and validity.
The conditions in Palestine are somewhere between critical and catastrophic and have been that way for a very long time.
Legitimate negotiation requires and presupposes a level playing field. Until there is some relief for the people there - REGARDLESS of all the damn blood-minded politicians on every side and of every faction - its not possible for either the Palestinians or the Israelis to even negotiate freely and in good faith.
The solution will have to be reached through proxies who are outside the problem and who have the trust of both sides.
It seems extremely unlikely that the US will be one of those and meanwhile all the head-banging in the world will be in vain.
> The conditions in Palestine are somewhere between critical and catastrophic and have been that way for a very long time.
If it was the case, Palestinian leaders would try to negotiate a better deal. Their insistence on continuation of the conflict means that they're happy with its results. It also means that it makes little sense for their advocates to complain about "critical and catastrophic" conditions of Palestinians as long as the Palestinians themselves are happy with these conditions.
Sorry thinker but there is a gap in your thinking.
That is the ASSUMPTION that the Palestinian leaders truly represent their people and their wishes and desires..
What is your evidence for that?
Naturally pressure from the outside creates an impetus to push back. This is a very small part of the story.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
57)
Interesting. One wonders how the Arab street will react to this?
The arab street knows that Abbas is only in power because of a US-Israeli sponsored coup. He no longer has any credibility with palestinians.
US-Israeli Sponsored Coup d'Etat: Overcoming the Conspiracy against Palestine
... This letter is a small but vivid piece of evidence to add to the existing mountain, of the conspiracy in which the Abbas leadership is involved. In the month since Abbas' appointment of a Vichy-style "emergency government" headed by Salam Fayad, historic Fatah leaders, such as Farouq Qaddumi and Hani al-Hassan have signalled their opposition to Abbas' actions, specifically rejecting his order that Palestinian resistance fighters disarm while Israeli occupation continues unchallenged.
This underscores that the split among Palestinians today is not between Hamas and Fatah, nor between "extremist" or "moderate," or "Islamist" or "secular," but between the minority who have cast their lot in with the enemy as collaborators on the one hand, and those who uphold the right and duty to resist on the other....
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=...
I thought that Hamas was the one that assumed power through a violent takeover last June.
They'll ignore that
That simply shows you haven't been paying attention.
Hamas was democratically elected the government of Plaestine and Abbas broke the palestinian constitution with his actions. It is only through force and weapons supplied by the US and Israel that Abbas has been able to maintain his position. What's more, we know that zioncon fanatics in the US government were behind the coup in Gaza.
The Gaza Bombshell
Politics â;; With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, David Rose reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/03/03/...
> One wonders how the Arab street will react to this?
They'll declare victory.
They will never make good on any agreement Palestinian government signed, and blame Zionists, united states and Abbas.
Peace negotiations are pointless at this time. It is good old poor me card they keep playing. I thought there was a chance after Arafat died. But now it is lost and business as usual.
Palestinians fire rockets from densely populated area, israel respond with incursion, palestinians will claim excessive force, complain to UN, chant death to Israel and fire more rockets.