Peres wins Israeli election

[MC Habber]

Duster, thanks for the thoughtful response.

The reason I tend to respond to statement's like "Iran is doing X" by saying "Well, the US is doing it too" is that I'm trying to show that it's a terribly weak justification for taking action against Iran. My arguments are deliberately a little biased because it seems like there's a huge bias the other way that saturates all political discussion. Listening to politicians, it often seems like they are debating policy in a fictional, fantasy world where "we" have God on our side and the favourite target of the day is pure evil.

duster said:

Hmmm. And what does the phrase "regime change" mean when uttered by members of the Bush administration?

In Bush's world, it means Ahmadinejad is no longer President and a return to power of the so-called moderates. Simple things for simple minds.

Actually, I was referring to the "regime change" that's occurred in Iraq.

In 1948, the Arabs were the aggressors and in 1967, they were getting ready to repeat the attempt. It explains the word "pre-emptive" when describing the Israeli actions that began the Six Day War. The conflict during Yom Kippur in 1973 was initiated by Egypt's crossing of the Suez Canal into Sinai. Elsewhere, Syria occupied Lebanon from the late 70's to until recently. Meanwhile, Iraq tried to seize parts of Iran in 1980 and invaded Kuwait in 1991. The only reason Egypt and Jordan are not occupiers is because they failed.

That sentence (of Reese's) was perhaps badly worded. I think he meant that none of those countries have WMD. I'm not sure whether that would be a true statement.

But they do provide financial and military support to Hizbollah and Hamas. Both are sworn enemies of Israel. Hamas, in particular, preaches war without end against Israel and extermination of all Jews in Palestine/Israel. It's reasonable to assume that Iran supports and agrees with their agenda. This support is tangible in the form of money and weapons.

I don't really agree. I don't assume that the US administration really believes in the agendas of every group it supports and I don't make the assumption in the case of Iran either. Like the US, Iran supports those who it is convenient for them to support. This relates to your final point:

As for the United States' latest claim that Iran is supplying weapons to the Taliban, I simply don't believe it. The U.S. government has lied and lied to the American people. It has zero credibility. Iran is a Shi'ite country; the Taliban are a fanatical Sunni sect. Iran volunteered its assistance during the initial American attack on Afghanistan. Why would Iran suddenly change its mind?

I agree to a certain extent. The Bush administration is not known for telling the truth. It's not altogether impossible though and to simply refuse to believe it out of hand is foolish. To paraphrase a certain 19th Century politician "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests." and then, there is " the enemy of my enemy is my friend" school of thought. Why can't any of this be applicable to Iran and the Taliban?

As pointed out on the Daily Show the other day, according to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," Al Qaeda would be a friend of the US. Sure, it's not impossible that Iran is now helping the Taliban, but it would be foolish to accept any such statements by the US government as justification for whatever their next move will be, given their lack of credibility. It also seems to me that when it comes to starting wars (and related actions), the US government is in a giant conflict of interest. Looking at the massive profits being made in Iraq, it's not clear that they have any incentive to achieve the things they claim they want to achieve.

[Cranky]

machabby said:

Duster, thanks for the thoughtful response.

My arguments are deliberately a little biased because it seems like there's a huge bias the other way......

By doing so you actually provoke an equally biased response.

machabby said:

Looking at the massive profits being made in Iraq, it's not clear that they have any incentive to achieve the things they claim they want to achieve.

I am assuming you are talking about Halliburton and company. If you are talking about the US "stealing" oil then....

[Disgruntled70sHab]

skilly said:

disgruntled70shab said:

A new use (to me anyway) for Gabion baskets!!

Actually, the rock being used is volcanic rock (or so I was told back in '96). It absorbs the heat, which can get pretty high during the summer months.

If you go on the Syrian side of the Heights, a lot of their defensive positions are made from the same rock for the same purpose.

As an aside, you might have heard of Eli Cohen. He was an Israeli operative that went undercover in Syria and befriended several high-ranking Syrian government and military officials.

One of the complaints Syrian soldiers had in the Golan Heights was that it got too hot once they were out in their positions. Having the ear of the military heirarchy, he suggested that planting eucalyptus trees around fortified positions and mortor positions might provide natural cover. The Syrians did this and Cohen reported it back to Israeli intel.

When the Six Day War broke open, all Israeli jets had to do was remove any and all trees on the Heights, which eliminated most of the positions right off the bat. The story is well known in the Heights but there's no supporting documentation to support it, as the link suggests.

Cohen was eventually caught by Soviet direction finding experts and he was eventually hanged as a spy. I saw a documentary on him once and he could have avoided this but felt he had to go back into Syria one last time to pass on vital information that Israel could use.

A sad story, but some spy stories are.

Cheers.

[MC Habber]

Hamas acted on a very real fear of a US-sponsored coup

Washington's fingerprints are all over the chaos that has hit Palestinians. The last thing they now need is an envoy called Blair

Jonathan Steele
Friday June 22, 2007
The Guardian

Did they jump or were they pushed? Was Hamas's seizure of Fatah security offices in Gaza unprovoked, or a pre-emptive strike to forestall a coup by Fatah? After last week's turmoil, it becomes increasingly important to uncover its origins.

The fundamental cause is, of course, well known. Israel, aided by the US, was not prepared to accept Hamas's victory in last year's Palestinian elections. Backed by a supine EU, the two governments decided to boycott their new Palestinian counterparts politically and punish Palestinian voters by blocking economic aid. Their policies had a dramatic effect, turning Gaza even more starkly into an open prison and creating human misery on a massive scale. The aim was to turn voters against Hamas - a strategy of stupidity as well as cynicism, since outside pressure usually produces resistance rather than surrender.

The policy shocked even moderate western officials like James Wolfensohn, the former World Bank chief, whom the Americans had appointed to help Gaza's economy before the Hamas election victory. "The result was not to build more economic activity but to build more barriers," he said this week while explaining why he resigned in disagreement with US and Israeli strategy.

It is also well known that Hamas was as surprised by its election victory as everyone else and that it offered its rival, Fatah, a coalition government of national unity. The offer was refused. If this was done initially out of wounded pride, Fatah's rejection of Hamas's regularly repeated overtures increasingly appeared to be coordinated with Washington as part of the boycott strategy.

Reports have been circulating for months of a more sinister side to the boycott. According to them, the US decided last year on a plan to arm and train Mahmoud Abbas's presidential guard in a deliberate effort to confront and defeat Hamas militarily. Israel has already locked up several dozen Hamas legislators and mayors from the West Bank. The next stage was to do the same in Gaza but have Palestinians, rather than Israelis, run the crackdown.

Arming insurgents against elected governments has a long US pedigree and it is no accident that Elliott Abrams, the deputy national security adviser and apparent architect of the anti-Hamas subversion, was a key player in Ronald Reagan's supply of weapons to the Contras who fought Nicaragua's elected government in the 1980s.

more