marcinmoka

Well what percentage do they constitute? I happen to know a few Israeli's and I have never, ever heard this opinion. No, peace is impossible due to the hostilities of those who want the terrain.

At least I sorta agree with you on one point. From a pragmatic standpoint, I don't think (as much as I hope at least) that they will renounce ALL attacks, but purposefully targeting civilians only takes away from their cause. Hubris (on both sides) makes people behave strangely. What many middle eastern nations are in dire need of is public relations firm. Guys with hooks and eyepatches showing off photos of infants dressed as suicide bombers are not ways to woo public opinion.

By referring to a tiny minority with almost no say? I like to focus on the majority, not an oddball few. How so? I figured anyone with at least a grade 5 geography class under their belt would comprehend this. In geography, there is a field of study called topography. It deals with the earths surface, and various highs and lows, be it valleys or mountain ranges. The west bank is hilly. In fact, up to 1000 meters above sea level. Giving up the West Bank to threatening neighbors would be akin to arming them with budget air power. No longer would they need airplanes to launch bombs because they have mountainous terrain LOOKING DOWN on Israel. This would be perfect for more affordable rocket systems. Furthermore, due to the fact that Israels neighbors outnumber them in terms of standing armies, this is an ESSENTIAL line of defense, prohibiting easy troop movements. If you were OUTNUMBERED by hostile forces, would you prefer to be elevated and protected, or open and exposed?

Don't know if you read my little opinion piece I just posted, but I genuinely believe there will be a pre-emptive air strike carried out by Israel once Netanyahu gets into power. And they will receive the "secretive" support from the Saudis. They have too much to lose if Iran goes nuclear.

And please, no hackery. I want to hear genuine analysis and critique: THE MIDDLE EASTERN TRINITY The other day, I attended a “cross panel discussion regarding the future of Iraq. I admit I was slightly taken aback by the limited scope of the views presented by the panelists, all of whom were academics. Of particular concern is how removed the analysis seemed to be from the Middle East as a whole. My view, which was equally reflected by one of the panelists, was of an eventual peace in the form of a multiethnic federated state. While no person can credibly provide a time table for this much anticipated event (though ensuring their own security would be a good start), we must also accept the fact that there is no other credible option on the table. One idea which occasionally gets tossed around is the division of Iraq into homogenous ethnic states. But this is an absurdly implausible idea since: a)Independent and very oil rich Kurdistan would only fuel separatist movements amongst Turkey’s large Kurdish population, angering NATO’s sole dependable Muslim ally. To lose the strategic and logistical backings they provide for the US, not to mention the only shred of credibility they have vis a vis the Muslim world would be a detrimental blow to America Foreign Policy. b)The sectarian violence would reach new heights. Borders spanning thousands of kilometers only exist on paper. As a result, the oil rich north would be looked upon with contemptuous eyes by the energy poor south, potentially escalating the bloodshed. But Iraq is just a microcosm of a more widespread conflict occurring in the middle-east. For a more accurate picture, focus should be paid to the three players who in my view, hold the true balance of power in the region. They are Iran (the Shi’a superpower), Saudi Arabia (the bankroller and Sunni superpower) and of course Israel (the military superpower), with Syria and Egypt holding considerable weight as well. The most pressing issue in the Middle East is no doubt Iran. While one would think they would be very concerned with the Iraqi situation, since their neighbors’ security is fundamental to their own, it’s hard to gauge accurately their intentions. (Remarkably enough that seems to be the only thing they have in common with the United States, in that they support the same side). All the attention however seems to get directed towards their nuclear program and Ahmadinejads vitriolic rhetoric. Iran claims they have as much right to “civilian” nuclear capabilities as any other nation. Wrong. To my knowledge, no nation protests Canada’s use of nuclear power. If Iran was a liberal democratic state, I doubt any objections would be raised. That which causes concern amongst every single nation is that it would actually be a tiny group of fundamentalist clerics with the nuclear capability. But other then pursuing diplomatic negotiations (which buys Iran precious time), America’s hands are tied, for it lacks the political and military capital for any further military action. This however brings us to the two other key protagonists in the tragic-comedy. While America is currently too weak to directly disarm Iran by force if needed, no one can exclude Israel. Iran possessing a nuclear weapon would be the single biggest threat to their own survival. Providing the eventual ousting of Ohlmert’s Kadima party, and if polls are an indicator, the arrival of Netanyahu’s Likudniks, Israel would not hesitate to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capacity. Last years purchase of 100 “bunker busting” bombs further shows they have given this option some thought. Although a much more complex operation then the destruction of the1981 Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq, they at least hint at the willpower to act. But perhaps the strangest narrative twist is that the third protagonist, Saudi Arabia. This year could very well see Saudi Arabia taking on a more prominent role in the mid east (though not due to goodwill, but the will to survive). The truth is, Saudi Arabia has almost as much to loose as does Israel. The recent “peace building” attempts carried out to heal a divisive Palestinian government are proof. But the real reason for this was to stem the influence of a Shi’a Hizbollah in Sunni Palestine. Iran, who is a big supporter of Hizbollah, would find itself newly assertive and more powerful in wider sectarian mid east politics, and making Saudi kingdom worry because: a)The instability of the region, even sans revolution, would have a drastic impact of global petroleum prices, and thereby knocking already fragile western economies off balance and blocking capital and investments needed so much in the middle East. An American or European recession is not in ANYONES interest. b)Of particular concern for the Saudi elite is the threat of a Sunni revolution in their kingdom, resulting from pressure to create a counterbalance to increasing Shi’a domination. While the Saudi’s cannot afford to appear friendly to Israel on the surface for internal reasons, this rising tide of middle eastern politics could very well align two very strange bedfellows all vying for the same goal, ushering a new era of (secretive) co-operation. Whether it will last, I doubt it. But regardless, what a funny twist of fate. Someone once claimed “politics is a game of chess”, I beg to differ, for in chess, there are but two players!

They have the right to pursue said policy if their intentions were legit. But I doubt that. After all, why did they refuse the Russian offer for nuclear fuel, one which would not produce quantities of fissile material?

And some people still long for the days of Stalin, what your point? "Some" denotes a small, undefined minority. Engaging in semantic gymnastics in an attempt to make the wishes of a handful of radical yet powerless dreamers as being representative of worldwide Jewry is well.....without foundation. Strategic geography and demographics. Assure Israel even an iota of security, and the situation would be much different. The same applies to question #3 dealing with Oslo.

But if they did, do you think they would think twice about using them? Yes, sending a suicide bomber is much more cost effective. This is true. They're just either killed, or join Fatah.

I agree with Melanies post, that legitimate criticism should be allowed. But on the other hand, am baffled at how political discussions and/or rhetoric all too often start with: "Israel is violating international law........" but somehow manage to end with: "......... Israel must be wiped off the map". In other words, legitimate criticism is very often used as a stepping stone, a means for "setting the tone" for what turns into an absurdly hateful provocation.

Now if only we could convince the Russians of that as well.

I think Borg hit the nail on the head when he said They are a minority, and their neighbours are vocal and VERY passionate about destroying them. If Israel wanted to, they could easily expand their borders for they have the military capacity, but all they want is to be left alone to eat their Mozza balls in peace and argue amongst each other about the Torrah. If there was a genuine, long term peace, then settlements would be out of the question. Israel has never experienced peace and acceptance, and their actions are the result of a "war" mentality. It was Catherine the Great who claimed the most effective way to secure her borders is to expand them.

I commented on the G&M regarding the recent promotion confered upon Sergei Ivanov, and I admit, that worries me a bit. He's too sly, populist, without the frankness which Putin does manage to deliver. For the replacement, I am hoping, at all costs that he "annoints" Medvedev. It is true that Putin will still be controlling the Russia from behind the scenes for a while to come. However, look at the past and you'll realize the great deal of deception in Russian (and Soviet politics). Putin will retain incredible (even majority) influence for a few years to come, but what's to say there will never be backstabbing and Ivanov, if elected, will refuse to yield the power he will have incurred in 8 years. In Russia, you must think long term.

“The British divided the land between the two. The Jews got the short side of the stick their” Not really. The Arabs were promised the land a year before. But due to spectacularly bad and very short sighted planning of the Brits, but I’ll forgo the history as many of you already have it. 1) What do you think the Palestinian side should actually do? Tough question. Even they are very, very divided, and that the only thing really linking the many groups (West Bank residents, Gaza , religious and secular, etc) is for the most part, a common hatred of the Jews. That would be a step in the right direction. More importantly, to start thinking long term and strategically, and not just the short, quick answer that is “pay-back” or “revenge”. That just escalates things. But pride is hard to overcome. Though this will not fly anytime soon, but introduce laws concerning secularity. As long as the majority are manipulated by the power/wealth seeking photo-op religious leaders, there will never be a solution. Religion is important to any given people, but it should not be their sole tenet, especially for perverted for political and fiscal gains. 2) What outcome do you think they should expect by adopting your suggestion (please provide specifics)? TRUST. Trust from Israel, Trust from Europe, Trust from America, Trust from other Arab governments. Israel has a right to be paranoid. Every few years, there are calls to destroy the Jewish people, something no other group can really claim has been taking place for thousands of years.