Friday, September 08, 2006

The right kind of noise?

The AP reports,

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has signaled that Israel might cede the disputed Chebaa Farms area to Lebanon if the Lebanese carry out all provisions of their cease-fire with Israel, including the disarming of Hezbollah guerrillas, Israeli media reported on Friday.

In a meeting with Russian Minister Sergey Lavrov on Wednesday, Olmert said if the U.N. decides the area is Lebanese, and if Lebanon implements U.N. resolutions ending the war, "we'll agree to discuss it," the Haaretz newspaper

... .

Is this just noise? Or is it a signal that things are moving in a direction that we all want them to move? Past experience has taught me to believe the former.

Besides, it's nothing new. The Lebanese Prime Minister has repeatedly suggested a similar exchange - except, in reverse sequence. Can Kofi resolve this sequencing problem, as he apparently did a few days ago?


abubalboola2 said...

It is a sincere offer.
To be clear to answer you question: Yes, it COULD mean that things COULD be moving in a direction that we all want them to move.

Former PM Sharon created left the Likud party to create Kadima party on especially the bases of another disengagement.
Olmert was elected for the same manifest and giving the Shebba farms matches that pattern and the mandate given to him.
He probably does not have the political support now for the West bank pullout. Lebanon and Shebba farm is a different story - still the Israeli public needs to see that something is given back in return (progress in the approach is an option).
If it wasnt for Syria/Iran/Hizballa, going to an agreement with Lebanon would be a similar process to the peace with Jordan.

Go back and read the Israeli statements and see that what was said, was done (i.e. the blockade but you can go further in time).

As for Kofi Annan..
Raja, lets be realistic on this. He is no more then a nice uncle who comes to visit.

Richard said...

I think it's mostly noise at this point though it's possible it could take on a more meaningful form sometime later.

I note that the Israeli foreign ministry press release about the meeting characterized Olmert's remarks in a much more cagey, tentative & shilly-shallying way:
"Regarding the Shaba Farms, Prime Minister Olmert said that if it is determined that the area is Lebanese and not Syrian, as UN Secy.-Gen. Annan has previously determined, and if Lebanon fulfills in full its obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions #1701 and #1559, including the disarming of Hizbullah, we would agree to discuss the issue. The Prime Minister said that he had no problem regarding meeting his Lebanese counterpart in order to discuss all issues."

"We would agree to discuss the issue" isn't the same as saying "we might cede the area to Lebanon."

BTW, that AP link above doesn't work for me.

abubalboola2 said...

Ofcourse it is not the same as saying "Yes, we will return it"!
It is a naive thinking to expect that anything will be given for free or even stated so early.

Such statements indicate direction and are meant to open communication channels between the sides.

You may dismiss the statement as noise, but in the next stage when the above channels will exist, such a statement will be taken as a serious one by both sides.

Just to remind you that the Shebba farms are not a serious obstacle to any agreement.
The importance of such a statement is not about returning them (It is obvious it will be done) but that it is another overture towards the Lebanese to show direction and signal the intentions.

Dimitry said...

So, to sum up: Israel and Lebanon agreed to abide by the UN-drawn border in 2000. The UN drew a border. Israel retreated to it, till the last millimeter (even though it meant the border passes in the middle of an (Arab) village, but since it gives nobody chance to condemn Israelis, nobody really gives a damn). Then, the Lebanese suddenly remember that they don't feel like abiding the UN-drawn line even though they agreed to before, and in fact there're some lands that are rightfully theirs, even thought there is no single map even remotely suggesting it. So they start killing Israelis, demanding this bit of land. And lo and behold, now it is being suggested that in exchange for them stopping killing Israelis, Israel would give them those lands.

Moral of the story? If you demand something from Israel that nobody else thinks should be yours, simply attack Israel and kill and kidnap Israelis while constantly repeating that this demand is rightful, and in half a decade, everybody would forget the demand wasn't rightful to start with (according to their own investigation!), and would think it would be reasonable for Israel to meet this demand in exchange for them stopping killing Israelis. To quote Chumbwamaba: "Do you suffer from a long term memory loss? -I don't remember..."

So, er, no. I can't say this is the direction I want things to do. It is the same road, but totally the opposite direction.

dany said...

Come on Dimitry, you can't be really suggesting that this land has been Israeli all along.
Granted, the way the Lebanese authorities have handled this is pathetic: first agree to a "blue line" then say that the 'blue line" is not really the border, then say that Chebaa is Lebanese (because the Syrians told you to say so, without ever supplying any proof) and the list of faux-pas continues...
The fact of the matter is that Chebaa is Lebanese. Because the Lebanese were unable to stop smuggling from Syria, they asked the syrians for "technical" help. The latter were happy to set up a police post INSIDE the area (within Lebanon) some 40 years ago. Then Israel invaded without even asking if this was Lebanese or Syrian land. Ever since, and until the Syrians "reminded" the Lebanese in 2000 this area had nobody thinking about it.
Terje Roed Larsen then decided (based on some unclear document) that it was Syrian and was outside the Blue Line, to which the Lebanese government opposed very timidly, at best.
This issue is being used artificially by Hezbollah (and Syria) to justify their continued "resistance" (along with the prisoners and the land mine maps, and...the liberation of Palestine...and what have you).
Israel should not return Chebaa as a reward to Hezbollah, but rather to remove one of their main excuses. As the same time, it would be screwing Syria as an added bonus. It is really a small price to pay, as Chebaa is frankly not worth the newspapers it has been mentionned in (forget the water and strategic location legends. As for international legal issue, we all know that Syria will not do Lebanon or Israel the favour of giving the signed maps surrendering possession of the Farms, but the legal issue did not really bother Israel when it invaded Chebaa, so why should it stick to it when clearing the area ?
This is a thorn in Israel's side, so swallow your pride, remove it and get it over with.

Tsedek said...

Raja, I think there isn't an Israeli who, when being treated fairly as well, would want to hold on to the Shebaa Farms. Media on tv are also addressing this small piece of land with the appropriate amount of sarcasm - since it is not a real big deal at all.

At least, that's the impression from observation.


Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

If the Israeli's are so stupid as to give up the farms FIRST, then Honestly, I will cease to be pro-Israel. They would have demonstrated themselves to be so damn stupid, near sighted and gullable that they wouldn't deserve to exist as a country or a culture.

To hand that over first would be giving HB a HUGE victory, and the problems would continue. They already walked out of Gaza, and they walked out of Lebanon years ago, and peace was not the result, just continued war. For the Lebanese PM to ask for it first is to ask the Israeli's if they are stupid and weak, and ready to surrender. Sadly, there will be many jewish voices saying "Yes"

Dimitry said...


My understand was that it was on the Syrian side of the border originally (originaly = thusly the holy French declret *snigger*), and it was leased to Lebanese. But frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. The relevant issue is that a more-or-less impartial outsider (any bias was in Lebanbon's favor, anyway) was invited to draw a border, both sides agreeing to abide by the decision. If Lebanon thinks the decision was based on faulty information (which I understand happened to be all the maps he had access to, but again that's beyond the point) I'm sure there're protocols to appeal. Killing the other side shouldn't be one of them.
Establishing that attacking Israel brings rewards is bad for Israel. Punishing those who follow UN's call after they said they would, and rewarding those who don't after they too said they would, is bad for UN.

I'm sure HA can thinks of 20 excuses a dime, I'll be damned if I'll actually be working on dealing with them one by one. Those who think Shab'a relevant would buy any other crap - those who don't, well, don't.

Of course, the relevant governments are dumb (except perhaps Syria). Israel should, everytime the issue is raises, say sweetly "but of course we'll leave there, all we need is Syrian official and signed confirmation that it was always Lebanese, and we'll be glad to give it to Lebanon then", and hammer this point home as vehemently as Nassrallah homes his. Hell, I'd go as far as signing the above as official agreement with Lebanon, or passing it as Law in the Knesset, or anything equally binding.

Yohay Elam said...

If the US would push hard enough, a full peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon would happen.

Bad Vilbel said...

As I state in my latest entry here, Israel has been abiding by 1701, and showing some goodwill (which is not something Lebanon has received much in the past). The ball is now firmly in the Lebanese court and in the hands of Siniora and co. This is an opportunity to make something happen (all rhetoric aside) and stop the useless posturing and empty sloganeering.

I have long maintained that Israel and Lebanon have no fundemental disputes (territorial or existential). These latest comments by Olmert confirm that Israel feels likewise. Now it's really time for Siniora and Lebanon to step up to the plate and start acting in the interests of Lebanon, and a lasting peace, rather than succumbing to the antiquated notions of arab fraternity or the interests of Syria, Iran or whoever else.

Fearless said...

(Daily Star, Sept. 8) BEIRUT: In its first meeting since the end of the war, the March 14 Forces launched an attack on Hizbullah describing its weapons as incapable of protecting the Lebanese people and their land.

The meeting which was held in Le Bristol Hotel was attended by top anti-Syrian leaders including Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt, Future Movement leader Saad Hariri, and Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea. It was also attended for the first time by former Free Patriotic Movement member Elias Zoghby.

"The war proved that any weapons that is under the command of the Lebanese government does not represent a deterrent force against any Israeli aggression, and therefore it did not stop Israel from launching its aggression," said a statement read by March 14 MP Samir Franjieh.

"And these weapons were unable to protect the Lebanese people's lives, villages and properties," added the statement.

The anti-Syrian forces reiterated their calls to respect the international legitimacy through respecting the UN-demarcated Blue Line and deploying the Lebanese Army in South Lebanon and implementing all international resolutions including UN Security Council Resolution 1701 which settled the issue of Hizbullah's weapons.

Resolution 1701 calls upon Israel and Lebanon to respect a permanent cease-fire and calls for the implementation of Resolution 1559, which demands the disarmament of Hizbullah.

The statement also criticized Hizbullah regional allies, Iran and Syria.

"We refuse to turn Lebanon into a battle ground used by Iran to improve its negotiations conditions with the international community about its regional role and by the Syrian regime to exercise its hegemony over Lebanon," the statement said.

It also demanded the Syrian regime acknowledge Lebanon's independence and sovereignty.

"Syria should acknowledge clearly and publicly Lebanon's independence and should normalize relations with it."

"The first condition for any country to be able to perform its duties is to have complete and exclusive authority over national security and be the sole defender of its sovereignty," it said.

The Bristol gathering's statement was amended to conform with the statement of the Council of Maronite Bishops - issued Wednesday - which criticized the presidency and called for the replacement of embattled pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud.

"The statement of the council proves and stresses once again that the existence of a president who has lost national legitimacy and Arab and international respect destabilizes the republics' institutions and jeopardizes the Taif Accord which necessitates solving this situation," the statement said.

The statement added that the postwar situation necessitates supporting Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's Cabinet and his seven-point plan and limiting the reconstruction process to the government.

Posted by: fubar | Friday, September 08, 2006 at 02:11 AM


I really don't understand the fuss about leadership both in Lebanon and in Israel. Lebanon has been on a collision course with itself first and with the world second ever since its inception. Not because it shouldn;t be there, but because it has failed to rise up to the challenge of the diversity that it includes.
Moreover, Lebanon lacks the ability to generate leadership because it lacks the machinery (in the form of party politics, as opposed to inherited sectarian loyalties and corruption).

More precisely, ever since the assassination of Hariri and the March 14 uprising, (Part of) Lebanon has been on a collision course with Syria as well as (another part of) Lebanon. This materialized in assassinations, threats and intimidation and finally cross border stunts by a HA struggling for relevancy and power ...

Given how Lebanon and the Lebanese people think and function (and here I don't mean a few hundred expat bloggers and like minded people, but the average Lebanese), it was (and still is) important for the government not to inflame the sects against one another. After all March 14's is nothing more than the sum of its sectarian parts, plus a few liberal and left leaning parties/groups/individuals.

My point is this, the situation in Lebanon is complicated by sectarianism and regional players as well as foreing interests. It is very delicate and explosive, with the absence of a democratic secular state, where sectarianism is not an issue and sects are not threatened by each other, or controlled entirely by one party or individual. Until we get there, we are doomed to repeat past failures in one way or the other.

As for Israel, since the moment that Olmert decided to go nuts and pass the one (or two) week mark of his offensive without clearly setting an objective, his government has been doomed. I believe I posted something about that on my blog 3 weeks into the war. I wouldn't talk about Israeli politics and judge its politicians or people because I have no clue as to the inclinations on the street, so to speak. But the vibe I am getting in general, is one of a knee jerk response. Attack Lebanon and bomb the shit out of it Mr Olmert, but then when you fail (because the mission was impossible since it had no achievable objectives), we'll get pissed off at you.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

There is no pushing from the US that will settle things, except arms. Syria will not negotiate unless they are bribed so heavily that they would go against Iran and their own shiite nutcases.

Unless you mean the US should push Israel into unconditional surrender, which is what Clinton tried to do.

Lirun said...

i think some people are confusing excuses with reality.. hiding behind the iranian so-treated superpower is the joke.. iran doesnt pull anything.. they can try to influence here and there.. but seriously.. the iranians only have the power that they are permitted by the west to appear to have..

this is smoke screening to the nth degree..

wishing peace to us all.. all this agenda rubbish is getting so boring.. it underestimates the relevant countries and overestimated the sophistication of the "baddies"

Sherri said...

I just want to point out that Olmert's statement which was quoted was Israel would consider giving up Sheeba Farms if Hezbullah was disarmed. I listened to speeches of Olmert and Tony Blair, that were supposed to have arisen from a meeting to discuss a resolution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Olmert stated Hamas had to disarm before there could be a peace deal.

I do not believe that any time in the near future we are going to see either Hezbullah or Hamas be disarmed. But it is possible that the Lebanese government and Hezbullah can agree on a role for Hezbullah to play in association with the Lebanese army.

As long as peace is conditioned by Israel on these impossible goals-- on forcible disarming of militias who the people view as legitimate resistance forces--, I do not believe there will be peace. Both Hamas and Hezbullah exist to resist Israeli aggression and Israeli occupation. As long as these conditions exist, there is a reason for their continuing existence.

What is needed is a genuine desire on the behalf of Israel to resolve these conflicts, with Lebanon and the Palestinians. Peace itself makes these organization's existence unnecessary.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

"What is needed is a genuine desire on the behalf of Israel to resolve these conflicts..."

Really? Why do you fail to mention a genuine desire on the part of Israel's enemies to resolve these conflicts? Why is the onus on Israel, they are the only ones who have tried. Every proposal from the Arab world involves the destuction of Israel. Every agreement made is violated by the Arabs. You have a very biased view.

Sherri said...


The more I think about this, the more angry I become at the international community, for not doing more about this problem. There is so much bad blood and so many bad feelings between Israel and the Palestinians and such a complete lack of trust for each others views. How can anyone really believe peace can be achieved without assistance from outsiders here?

You have a good point, the burden and blame here should not be all on Israel. But don't you realize the hate of the Arabs is directly tied to the failure of Israel and the Palestininans to resolve this conflict which Arabs place all the blame on Israel for? If resolved, you immediately will have many less enemies in the Middle East and any enemies left will have their support greatly weakened.

There needs to be an international effort to achieve a resolution to this problem, with countries coming forward as intermediaries between Israel and the Palestinian parties. Security issues of Israel have to be fairly addressed, as do the Palestinian issues of having their own state and what they and Israel can agree is a fair resolution of land that the state will include. Critical is getting what most Israelis and Palestinians can view as a fair and just resolution to the issues.

It is not important, the desires of Israel's enemies, who may want to further intensify the conflict for their own personal reasons. What is important is a fair resolution of issues of Israelis and Palestinians. Your statement that every Arab proposal calls for Israel's destruction is not true. Wasn't there a Saudi two state plan? It did not call for Israel's destruction.

I do not think I have a biased view. What I advocate is a peaceful resolution of the issue, that gives the Palestinians their own state and Israel security.

Sherri said...


On a more positive note, I read a news report that progress is being made on the discussed talks between Abbas and Israel going forward. Detailed information was not provided, but let us hope the parties are coming closer to being able to have dialogue with each other.

chuck said...


"If resolved, you immediately will have many less enemies in the Middle East and any enemies left will have their support greatly weakened."

and u answered it urself with this:

"It is not important, the desires of Israel's enemies, who may want to further intensify the conflict for their own personal reasons."

the problem is that it is importent.
the problem is that those countries or people who have an interest to keep this conflict in the middle east alive, r the ones whom r doing the most. they have the upper hand because it's a lot easier to ignite and keep the fire burning then to set it down.
so, as long as they have a desire to keep it alive,
as long as weapons r being delivered secretley or non secretly to the wrong hands,
as long as people r being called by religious leaders to keep up with the fight till their end,
as long as governments fund those organisations and train them,
and, like u said, as long as the international comunity doesn't really pressure the right people (pressuring Israel is not the only thing that will bring peace) to sit down and negotiate,
then nothing will realy change, and those people will keep igniting the area with flames.

i think that some of the rpoblem is that he international comunity is talking in defferent voices.
as long as leaders of some countreis say one thing and the other leader dissmisses it and say another thing then the only ones who will benefit from the confusion r the people who support this conflict, and wish to prolong it.

and that brings me to talk about the interests of each country in the international community, and it's interest of keeping the conflict alive, or bringing it to an end, or even ignoring it.
but this issue is too mush for now, maybe i'll write about it later...

chuck said...


i'm sorry i just didn't want to jump all around the blogg in order to look for the comments, so this is u'r respond for "desperate and stupid: a rant" from the botom of the bolgg posts.

u said:


I agree that Iran definitely has a problem with its priorities, when it allows its own people to suffer the way it does. But I see the same thing in the US, the suffering of poor people in New Orleans and the lack of health care for millions of people all over the US. At the same time, we start and maintain wars and support other's wars everywhere.

I do not think Iran suddenly started reporting on the Palestinian conflict. I think they always have done this, feeling they have to report on the suffering of fellow Muslims. What changed was the worsening plight of the Palestinians after the election of Hamas. This triggered Iran's assistance.

A similar thing happened after Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Iran reacted to Israel's attacks on Lebanon by helping to create Hezbullah and supporting Hezbullah. And it was not just the government. My husband was in Iran then. He remembers speeches and people giving all their jewlery and gold to support Hezbullah. Think about this. This is remarkable. This was in the middle of the Iran Iraq war, the bloodiest and most violent war since World War II. In the midst of this horrible war, when their resources had to be stretched, Iran reached out and helped to create Hezbullah. When confronted by the suffering of the Shiite Muslim population in Lebanon. Again, it was a response to suffering of Muslims."

i don't believe it !!
so u agree that iran is the one supporting hisballa. it is no longer a myth.

i felt u had some kind of affiliation to iran. u seem so eager to protect it.
i like iranian people. they r good people, i met a few during my trips in europe.
the first things they were saying to me when first meeting and declaring nationalities is that they have no hatred towards Israel, and that their regime doesn't speek their mind.

does u'r husband tells u about the connections between Israel and iran before the revolution ?

and how does iran allowas itself to creat an army inside another states land (lebanon) ? do u think that is right ?
do u think that the end purifys all means?
i don't want to get too intrucive, but why did u'r husband leave iran if it's such a great generous and sensitive country ?

Sherri said...


You say part of the problem is the international community talking in different voices. Maybe, there is a need initially for an international summit(not just a meeting of one group with its proposals) to address desirable goals, to clearly identify and prioritize goals of Israel and the Palestinians (not other country's goals) for a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

And a clear plan and a genuine commitment to see the plan through until it is accomplished. And an upfront discussion and addressing issues of other countries and groups that may be engaging in acts to sabatoge true peace and a plan and actions to deal with those interferences. Outside parties, groups and countries, should not be allowed to destroy peace prospects.

Did you read the news today? Al Queda declared war on Arab Gulf States (who they viewed as supportive of Israel in this last Israeli Lebanese conflict) and Israel. So, don't be surprised if Al Queda representatives start showing up trying to upset the cease fire between Israel and Lebanon, with suicide bombings and similar acts. That's all Israel and Lebanon need right now. And all Israel needs, you have Hamas and Hezbullah, why not bring Al Queda into the picture too.

If there are serious peace talks going on, and the Palestinian people can believe there is real hope for peace, this could serve as an incentive to suspend the violence.

I read other promising news reports today of Hamas and Fatah forming a unity government together and Hamas changing its position on the recognition of Israel somewhat. This may lead to a Palestinian government that Israel is willing to have dialogue with.

I know there have been so many failed attempts at peace in the past, but this should not operate to stop new attempts to resolve the conflict. A peaceful resolution to the Palestinian Israeli conflict benefits everyone. The Palestinians need their own state. Israel needs security. Extremist groups outside Israel lose the cause they have used to rally their supporters against Israel for so many years. Some groups lose their reason to even exist. I am speaking of the military component of Hamas and other Palestinian Resistance groups.

chuck said...

u can read my response to u on the post "Dissapointed" regarding the palestinian new government.

hamas just declared that they will insist on their right to ignor Israel and say it doesn't really exist.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Israel tried to give the Palestinians a state, hear of Oslo? The response was the intifada.

There has never been a nation of Palestine, but rather than settle for one, the Arabs want a "right of return", which means the millions of Palestinians who have bred like rats in the hate filled UN camps should be able to become Israeli citizens, so that they can promptly vote to kill all Jews.

Tell me I'm wrong.

The international community can only help by cutting off Arab/Palestinian aid until the people get tired of suffering for their own stupidity, or else have to spend all their meager resources on butter, with none left for guns.

Sherri said...


I do not appreciate your hateful comments, which lack basic humanity. Did you have any control over where you were born? Imagine you had been born in Gaza or the West Bank as a Palestinian. How do you live without any hope? What makes you get up each morning? You talk about UN camps with millions of Palestinians who have bred like rats, what if you had been born as one of those rats you refer to? Do you think they like spending their whole lives in refugee camps? If those in power have your attitude, the best think is just to genocide them all right now. Put them out of their misery. Like a horse with a broken leg, you just go shoot it and stop the suffering and pain and lack of hope they feel every single day of their lives.

Sherri said...


You would really like to take my last respose to you (last three sentences) seriously, would'nt you. I just read your blog, where you advocate essentially wiping out the whole Middle East. Napalm them all. That's what you said about Iran. Do you have a heart? Do you have a soul? Do you feel anything for other human beings?

chuck said...


if the international comunnity canot even vote unanimus on a matter like darfur (it seems that the arab countries r ignoring the masacre over there and the UN can't realy act against it) then how would they be able to settle more problematic conflicts (in a sense of identifying the problem and the causes, who is to blame and so on) like the palestinian matter or the lebanese matter...

the UN keeps showing like a force without any muscles, stuck in it's own problems that needs to be resolved, every time again and again.

it's just seems hopless. this is exactly what i mean when i say that the world is talking different voices. if u can't reach an agreement on a genocide then how would u agree on other matteres ?

u can't have peace anywhere on this planet unless countries would start putting peace as a number one interest.

when u have syrai and iran helping hisballa and hamas.
when u have russia helping iran build a neuclear factory without consaulting with the international comunity first and accepting it's deccisions. when u have the US helping Israel. when u have arab countries ignoring a genocide.
when u have pakistan supporting both the US and international community and on the other hand, helping and sheltering terrorists (sorry sherri but i can't find other word suitibale for such people other then terrorists), and the same with saudi arabia. and it goes on with north korea, chaina and so on.
if u have all of these forces acting against each other, then how can u have peace anywhere ?

by the way sherri,
i'm sorry but the palestinians r where trhey r not only because of Israeli occupation. their leaders have a bigger responsibility for that situation, the way i see it.
when u form a government of a hundred and so ministersthat don't operate as they should be, who put their main efforts in fighting, funding militant groups and buying weapons and so on (i'm tired of repeating this) instead of paying the people, instead of investing in urbanic constructions, coltural constructions, and nurturing society to blossom and not perish,
then u get people living on the streets and breed like rats. when u make the civilians into u'r own army, wether they like it or not, then u put the suffering upon them, u condemn them to be hurt.
same as what happened in lebanon with nasralla, making the lebanese people into his own army.

while Israel is pushing for negotiations with abu mazen, hamas still come out with statments against recognising Israel.
other then playing with honor, it has nothing productive to offer to the palestinians.

Ariya said...

As if Hezbullah is going to be disarmed... Heh...

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

I do have a sense of humanity. That doesn't mean I suckle the wolf at my breast (so to speak).

Palestinians breed like rats because it is convenient to the Islamic dictators in the area to have them do that. They are being used, and they are miserable because of it. I think it is a disgrace. I don't fault the children born there, I fault the adults who act like fools and animals. I pity the rabid coyote, but that doesn't mean that shooting it isn't the best thing for all concerned. In many ways, there are far too many Muslims who are like the rabid coyote, raised in misery and tought to hate and kill and completely unable to see the humanity of others. Palestinians are taught that killing infidel children is a blessed act, and one that guarantees paradise. How do you reason with such people? Many have tried, and failed.

You also were dishonest in your comments about my blog. I said if you have large groups of people gathered together shouting death to america, napalm them. That is not wiping everyone out.

Regarding my choice of where to be born, I would rather be born in a post-islamic radical society (after we clean them up) than into a current islamic society. Wouldn't you? Would you rather have lived through the 90's in Iran or Iraq, or be born today in Iraq? Or pick a non-radical islamic country. Is it not better for future generations of Palistinians to kill off the troublemakers now, and have a peace through their total defeat, rather than just keep the blood flowing at an acceptable trickle for decades more?

I am far more humanitarian than you give me credit for. I think getting it over now is far more humane than letting it drag on and on.

Sherri said...

(from the United States)

You say "getting it over now is far more humane than letting it drag on and on."

On your blog,, you say under a post entitled Saltpeter effect:

"We need to seal the Syria/Iraq border. Israel needs to go on a no holds barred drive until they can dip their bagels in the American soldiers coffee. Then we need to turn around and drive to the Afgan border right through Iran. Meanwhile, when those shi'its hold pro hizbolla rallies in Bagdad, we need to introduce them to Napalm. Think about it, 10,000 of the most passionate supporters of terrorism in one spot, waving guns in the air. How are they not a legitimate target in a "war on terror'? By definition, muslims holding pro-Hizbolla rallies are terrorists and our enemies, whether they are in Gaza, Bagdad or even Dearborn."

What were you saying here? You were calling for Israel to intensify the war, "Israel needs to go on a no holds barred drive until they can dip their bagels in the American soldiers coffee. Then we need to turn around and drive to the Afgan border right through Iran". You say we (I guess you mean the US)need to napalm Bagdad when the shi'its hold pro-Hizbollah rallies there, that any muslims that hold pro-Hizbollah rallies are terrorists whether they are in Gaza, Bagdad, or even Dearborn and are proper targets in the war on terror, and its better to get it over quickly. Are you advocating some type of genocide? Or just napalm any protests that occur? What about democracy and freedom of speech? And you consider that you are a humanitarian. Well, I cannot say that I agree with you. Unfortunately, I fear that there are other Americans who think like you.

I will still pray for peace, not war, and I will pray for you too.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Napalm is not a city-sized weapon, it is more limited to perhaps a few football fields at a time, perfect scope to take out chanting, gun waving terrorists and terrorist sympathisers.

They have the free speach right to say they support killing christians and overthrowing the govt, but we have the right of self defence, the ultimate right.

And yes, I advocate intensifying the war. Intensified, it will end when the fuel is depleted. As a low intensity conflict, it will burn forever, and cost many more lives and more generations of misery.

Sherri said...


In the US, we have the right to protest and have free speech(or I should say we are supposed to have this right). When people protest for the rights of Hizbullah here or the Ku Klux Klan or other unpopular groups, do you advocate napalming them here in the US too?

Sherri said...


Concerning potential solutions to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, there is an Arab Peace proposal and a proposal of the quartet, which the US is associated with. These two plans are probably inconsistent with each other, and are being controlled by their sponsors who likely act with respect to their own special interests and the party whose side they favor. Why can't issues be brought out into the open and dealt with, with involvement of the entire international community? Is it because Israel really does not want peace, does not want to give up land? Is it not obvious this conflict cannot be resolved by Israel and the Palestinians alone? There is unequal baragining power and way too much distrust on both sides.

The preferred method to deal with injustice and oppression would involve nonviolent resistance, like tecghniques used by Ghandi in India. This has not what has happened in Gaza and the West Bank. But this (the current violence and suicide bombings in response to Israeli aggression) was not the initial response of the Palestinians to oppression. Initially, there were peaceful protests and peaceful negotiations. Israel responded to these acts by deporting protestors and jaling women and men and closing schools to make Palestinian children ignorant and forcing people from their homes. Peaceful methods to resolve the conflict did not work and this led to escalating violence on the part of the Palestinians and groups acting for them.

chuck said...


i'm sorry, but i'v lived in Israel all of my life. i don't remember any single year that there was a peacfull protestof palestinians. the only peacfull time i remember was during the oslo talks. but it turned out that it was simply a cold war that arafat was handaling against Israel, smugling weapons and trying to build a force that will engage more attacks.

i do not recall any Israeli operation that involved the closing of palestinian schools.
one of the reasons that the palestinians kids r brainwashed is because of their schools that continue to operate, showing books that doesn't include Israel on the map, showing Jerusalem as the capitol of a palestinain state, having the flag of Israel and the US on the footsteps of the clasroom, so that kids that go in to the classroom will wipe their feet on these flags.
the schools r actually where the inciting begins.
so ISrael didn't close any schools. the school year even started now, and actually fatah people called for all childeren to avoid going to school in the begining of the school year, as a protest against hamas government, which hasn't payed sallary to teachers and official workers.

the fact is that the palestinians do have a choice of non violance. they simply choose to the violant way. why is it that negotiations can be made between Israeli foreign minister and fatah leader, and cannot be achieved with hamas leaders ? why is it that hamas leaders insist so much on this stupid argument of not acknoledging Israel, when acknoledging Israel (which is not such a difficulte thing) could mean returning to the negotiations table ? why don't u put this question to hamas leaders ?

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Don't lump them together.

People who advocate the overthrow of the US constitution, such as the Hezbos, they are declaring war on us. Reacting to this threat is prudent.

I know liberals think free speech rights mean liberals and their allies (communists, terrorists etc) should be able to say what they want without consequence, but everything has consequences.

Adam Ben Yoel said...

Do you not think that it sets a horribly dangerous precident? Israel givng Lebanon a piece of land that has NEVER been under the soverignty of the Lebanese Republic?