The saddest thing about the Israeli/Lebanese war

[Argus]

Is that the mold was broken, the neverending fractionalism between Labour and Likud which made all Israeli governments too unstable to take the chance of giving the Palestinians home rule. Olmert could have been the man to do that. But as has been said, the Palestinians never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity. They had to choose NOW to elect Hamas as their government, and Hamas had to choose NOW to attack Israel and kidnap an Israeli soldier. And now with Hezbollah joining in, and proving how hard it is to detect and root out determined rocket and missile launchers the chance of Israel pulling out of the West Bank has been reduced to virtually nil. The West Bank is too close to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Perhaps before this war Olmert could have promised that if the Palestinians started firing rockets the IDF would race in and crush them. But no more.

In all likelihood Olmert is finished, and a hard line Likud government, probably under Binyamin Netanyahu, will replace him. There will be no compromises with the Palestinians and no handover of land.

[B. Max]

In all likelihood Olmert is finished, and a hard line Likud government, probably under Binyamin Netanyahu, will replace him. There will be no compromises with the Palestinians and no handover of land.

That's a pretty safe bet. You can also bet that Iran Hezbollah and Syria recognized that Olmert and his government were in its self a sign of weakness that began with Sharon in his last couple of years. The people of Israel must be in shock over the handling of the war. Hopefully this ridiculous cease fire will serve at least the purpose of getting rid of the Olmert government and replace it with a Netanyahu government.

[geoffrey]

Because Max, those policies worked soooo well in the past. I mean, when Netanyahu takes power, his will alone will cease the terrorists.

Give me a break.

[B. Max]

Because Max, those policies worked soooo well in the past. I mean, when Netanyahu takes power, his will alone will cease the terrorists.

Give me a break.

Nevil Chamberlain likely couldn't have said it better. The policies of appeasement work as well today as they did in the past. Tell me, what do you offer someone who wants to wipe you off the map.

[Argus]

Because Max, those policies worked soooo well in the past. I mean, when Netanyahu takes power, his will alone will cease the terrorists.

And yet, what a significant number of people will think is that the Arabs didn't dare attack Israel when Sharon was prime minister because they knew what he was capable of. No doubt Netanyahu will appeal to that thinking in a way Olmert certainly won't.

[Black Dog]

Nevil Chamberlain likely couldn't have said it better. The policies of appeasement work as well today as they did in the past. Tell me, what do you offer someone who wants to wipe you off the map.

Reverse Godwin! A little known fact that amateur historians whose knowledge of diplomacy begins and ends with Chambarlain forget is that, in some cases, appeasement, as they call it, is nescessary to avoid pointless bloodshed and strife. And of course only a total ignoramous would invoke an analogy that likens the hardscrabble Palestinians to the Nazi war machine. And you're not that ignoramous, are you Max?

And yet, what a significant number of people will think is that the Arabs didn't dare attack Israel when Sharon was prime minister because they knew what he was capable of. No doubt Netanyahu will appeal to that thinking in a way Olmert certainly won't.

Sharon's alleged ruthlessness didn't stop the intifada. And it didn't stop Hizbullah. Nor was that the factor that kept Syria (the only Arab nation in a position to attack Israel that's not currently a U.S. client) at bay (that would be Syria's weakness). Olmert failed not because he was too soft, but because of the incompetence of his government and military leadership. Bringing in a guy like Netanyahu will compund that folly.

[Argus]

Nevil Chamberlain likely couldn't have said it better. The policies of appeasement work as well today as they did in the past. Tell me, what do you offer someone who wants to wipe you off the map.

Reverse Godwin! A little known fact that amateur historians whose knowledge of diplomacy begins and ends with Chambarlain forget is that, in some cases, appeasement, as they call it, is nescessary to avoid pointless bloodshed and strife. And of course only a total ignoramous would invoke an analogy that likens the hardscrabble Palestinians to the Nazi war machine. And you're not that ignoramous, are you Max?

Military resources are not the point of comparing people to Chamberlain. The point was that Chamberlain appeased people who were, by their very nature, dishonourable and incapable of abiding by agreements. No matter what you did, no matter how much you appeased them, they would not have lived up to their agreement, and would have been back demanding more. I don't see anything wrong with making that comparison to the likes of Hezbollah, for whom no appeasement is going to help do anything more than delay the inevitable. Hezbollah is a Jew-hating organization whose leadership have already stated they will not abide by any agreements regarding Israel as long as Israel exists. Appeasing them serves no purpose.

And yet, what a significant number of people will think is that the Arabs didn't dare attack Israel when Sharon was prime minister because they knew what he was capable of. No doubt Netanyahu will appeal to that thinking in a way Olmert certainly won't.

Sharon's alleged ruthlessness didn't stop the intifada.

No, the time to stop something like the Intifada is on the first day, not years into it.

And it didn't stop Hizbullah. Nor was that the factor that kept Syria (the only Arab nation in a position to attack Israel that's not currently a U.S. client) at bay (that would be Syria's weakness). Olmert failed not because he was too soft, but because of the incompetence of his government and military leadership. Bringing in a guy like Netanyahu will compund that folly.

Olmert failed, from what people are saying, because he was too gutless to endure the casualties a full-scale invasion would have cost when that was the only realistic way to crush Hezbolah. He delayed and delayed in his useless air war until there was too much world pressure on Israel and the US for him to give the go ahead. Now Hezbollah remains firmly entrenched in south Lebanon with the Lebanese government already going back on their agreement to disarm them.

[Black Dog]

Military resources are not the point of comparing people to Chamberlain.

Perhaps not. But it does take the edge off of such analogies when you realize that Israel and the west are he one's in the position of strength.

The point was that Chamberlain appeased people who were, by their very nature, dishonourable and incapable of abiding by agreements. No matter what you did, no matter how much you appeased them, they would not have lived up to their agreement, and would have been back demanding more. I don't see anything wrong with making that comparison to the likes of Hezbollah, for whom no appeasement is going to help do anything more than delay the inevitable. Hezbollah is a Jew-hating organization whose leadership have already stated they will not abide by any agreements regarding Israel as long as Israel exists. Appeasing them serves no purpose.

But no one here has said anything about appeassing Hizbullah. It's possible to marginalize Hizbullah without engaging them at all.

[Rue]

Is that the mold was broken, the neverending fractionalism between Labour and Likud which made all Israeli governments too unstable to take the chance of giving the Palestinians home rule. Olmert could have been the man to do that. But as has been said, the Palestinians never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity. They had to choose NOW to elect Hamas as their government, and Hamas had to choose NOW to attack Israel and kidnap an Israeli soldier. And now with Hezbollah joining in, and proving how hard it is to detect and root out determined rocket and missile launchers the chance of Israel pulling out of the West Bank has been reduced to virtually nil. The West Bank is too close to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Perhaps before this war Olmert could have promised that if the Palestinians started firing rockets the IDF would race in and crush them. But no more.

In all likelihood Olmert is finished, and a hard line Likud government, probably under Binyamin Netanyahu, will replace him. There will be no compromises with the Palestinians and no handover of land.

You are dead on with your analysis and Benjy is manouvering as we speak exploiting the vulnerability Israelis are feeling. The reality is though for any government to rule in Israel including his, it will still require the formation of a precarious coalition with Labour so any way you slice it Netanyahu will get elected sounding tuff, but from a purely practical point of view, there is a limit to what he can do. Olmert however is toast. His decision to rely on an air war as opposed to a ground war is already being widely dismissed.

[Rue]

Military resources are not the point of comparing people to Chamberlain.

Perhaps not. But it does take the edge off of such analogies when you realize that Israel and the west are he one's in the position of strength.

The point was that Chamberlain appeased people who were, by their very nature, dishonourable and incapable of abiding by agreements. No matter what you did, no matter how much you appeased them, they would not have lived up to their agreement, and would have been back demanding more. I don't see anything wrong with making that comparison to the likes of Hezbollah, for whom no appeasement is going to help do anything more than delay the inevitable. Hezbollah is a Jew-hating organization whose leadership have already stated they will not abide by any agreements regarding Israel as long as Israel exists. Appeasing them serves no purpose.

But no one here has said anything about appeassing Hizbullah. It's possible to marginalize Hizbullah without engaging them at all.

Its interesting you say the West and Israel are in positions of strength. I have no idea why you say that. Israelis certainly do not feel that way and perhaps that is why you constantly seem to mistate or misunderstand the psyche of an Israeli soldier or civilian.

Israelis are not stupid people. They do not see themselves as being in a position of strength. They are well aware they are a small minority in a small land surrounded by far greater numbers of persons who want them wiped out. They are vividly aware that with the exception of the U.S., they can not really count on anyone. So please do not think they think they are invincible and look down upon the Muslim world. They do not and never underestumate their vulnerability.

More to the point if you speak to anyone who is in intelligence or in military planning, anywhere in any Western nation, they all know that the West is dependent on oil and this makes them weak. Behind George Bush's public posturing is his Navy and Army intelligence telling him he's involved in civil wars he can not win and that the country's dependence on oil makes it vulnerable to venezuela, Iran, and extremists who could topple Saudi Arabia or seize the Gulf States.

So please, I am not sure who you are talking to, but those people I know in the military and who do political risk forecasting have some intelligence. Give them credit. Terrorism can happen anywhere at any time. So maybe you think the West is invincible but even most civilians in the West now realize how volnerable we all are.

[Black Dog]

Its interesting you say the West and Israel are in positions of strength. I have no idea why you say that. Israelis certainly do not feel that way and perhaps that is why you constantly seem to mistate or misunderstand the psyche of an Israeli soldier or civilian.

Israelis are not stupid people. They do not see themselves as being in a position of strength. They are well aware they are a small minority in a small land surrounded by far greater numbers of persons who want them wiped out. They are vividly aware that with the exception of the U.S., they can not really count on anyone. So please do not think they think they are invincible and look down upon the Muslim world. They do not and never underestumate their vulnerability.

I think this is one of those things that's been ingraine don the Israeli psych as they say. Unfortunately, it disregards the practical realties of Israel's military superiority, its nuclear capability and the unswerving support of the U.S. Israel's vunerability is a myth that has swelled to become part of the national identity, but the fact that Israelis beleive it doesn't make it so.

More to the point if you speak to anyone who is in intelligence or in military planning, anywhere in any Western nation, they all know that the West is dependent on oil and this makes them weak. Behind George Bush's public posturing is his Navy and Army intelligence telling him he's involved in civil wars he can not win and that the country's dependence on oil makes it vulnerable to venezuela, Iran, and extremists who could topple Saudi Arabia or seize the Gulf States.

A fair point.

So please, I am not sure who you are talking to, but those people I know in the military and who do political risk forecasting have some intelligence. Give them credit. Terrorism can happen anywhere at any time. So maybe you think the West is invincible but even most civilians in the West now realize how volnerable we all are.

I don't think the west is invincible. You've pointed out one of its main weak spots above. But the fact is, right now, the west enjoys the economic, polotical and military upper hand. Terrorism may threaten individual citizen's, but doesn't threaten that hegemony.

[Dikran]

Is that the mold was broken, the neverending fractionalism between Labour and Likud which made all Israeli governments too unstable to take the chance of giving the Palestinians home rule. Olmert could have been the man to do that. But as has been said, the Palestinians never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity. They had to choose NOW to elect Hamas as their government, and Hamas had to choose NOW to attack Israel and kidnap an Israeli soldier. And now with Hezbollah joining in, and proving how hard it is to detect and root out determined rocket and missile launchers the chance of Israel pulling out of the West Bank has been reduced to virtually nil. The West Bank is too close to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Perhaps before this war Olmert could have promised that if the Palestinians started firing rockets the IDF would race in and crush them. But no more.

In all likelihood Olmert is finished, and a hard line Likud government, probably under Binyamin Netanyahu, will replace him. There will be no compromises with the Palestinians and no handover of land.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Friends,

The following Open Letter to the Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs was transmitted and an acknowledgement from PMO was received on August 10, 2006. A copy was sent to the majority of the MPs.

The signatories of the letter solicit your endorsement and would like to know whether you would add your signature to the list. Please indicate your name, city, town and Academic titles (BA, MD, LLB etc) if you so wish. Address your approval via email to the person from whom you received this message and a copy to [email protected] if you so desire.

August 10, 2006

The Right Honourable Stephen HARPER, Prime Minister of Canada,

Honourable Peter G. MACKAY, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada,

The human tragedy in Lebanon and Israel is reminiscent of Guernica. Most sacred assets of humankind, people, are being sacrificed because of gross miscalculations on both sides of the conflict. Irrespective of what euphemistic terms are used, war crimes are being committed. As Canadians of Armenian descent, we are acutely aware of the implications of being under the threat of terror and perceived annihilation of a nation, a country or territories since we share similar genocidal experiences. However, when the right to defend one’s country transforms into indiscriminate killing then it is abhorrent.

Without eventual implementation of all United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding the Middle East Crisis, it is highly unlikely that peace will prevail in the area. It is beyond comprehension not ending the present slaughter in a just manner, and which has all the potentials of solidifying resistance primarily against western interests in the region. It will render all the more difficult to accept mediation efforts in future.

Soon the United Nations Security Council will pass new resolutions. One of the elements will include deployment of an international military force. In addition to others, incorporating Turkish soldiers has been suggested. This is an extremely ill-advised proposal. It will be looked upon as a provocation which in itself may cause further destabilization. The Martyrs’ square in the heart of Beirut is dedicated to the Lebanese victims, Christians and Muslims alike that suffered in the hands of the Ottoman Turks. Turkey may be an ally of USA or Israel, but the vast majority of the Lebanese will be unfriendly towards the presence of any Turkish units.

Signatories of this open letter do not represent any particular political party and they are not motivated by any political agenda. They have no illusions that power brokers will take this letter seriously, but they feel compelled to voice their conscience against war crimes in general and against atrocities committed thus far. They are strongly committed to Canada and Canadian values, and they are convinced that Canada can and will play a constructive role for brokering peace and eventual peacekeeping in the region.

Respectfully,

Ani Boghossian, Business Owner, Toronto

Artin Arzoumanian MD, Montreal

Artin Boghossian PhD, North York

Berge Minassian MD CM FRCP©, Toronto

Dikran Abrahamian BA, MD, Penetanguishene

Haig Misakyan P. Eng, North York

Harry Dikranian LLB, BCL, MA, Montreal

Jack Sevakian, Management Consultant, Thornhill

Katia Peltekian MA, Toronto

Marie Injeyan BSc, Kingston

Vahe Balabanian MS Eng, Ottawa

Vako Nicolian BE BSc, Scarborough

Viken L. Attarian P. Eng., MSc, MBA, Mount Royal

[Dikran]

Is that the mold was broken, the neverending fractionalism between Labour and Likud which made all Israeli governments too unstable to take the chance of giving the Palestinians home rule. Olmert could have been the man to do that. But as has been said, the Palestinians never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity. They had to choose NOW to elect Hamas as their government, and Hamas had to choose NOW to attack Israel and kidnap an Israeli soldier. And now with Hezbollah joining in, and proving how hard it is to detect and root out determined rocket and missile launchers the chance of Israel pulling out of the West Bank has been reduced to virtually nil. The West Bank is too close to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Perhaps before this war Olmert could have promised that if the Palestinians started firing rockets the IDF would race in and crush them. But no more.

In all likelihood Olmert is finished, and a hard line Likud government, probably under Binyamin Netanyahu, will replace him. There will be no compromises with the Palestinians and no handover of land.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Friends,

The following Open Letter to the Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs was transmitted and an acknowledgement from PMO was received on August 10, 2006. A copy was sent to the majority of the MPs.

The signatories of the letter solicit your endorsement and would like to know whether you would add your signature to the list. Please indicate your name, city, town and Academic titles (BA, MD, LLB etc) if you so wish. Address your approval via email to the person from whom you received this message and a copy to [email protected] if you so desire.

August 10, 2006

The Right Honourable Stephen HARPER, Prime Minister of Canada,

Honourable Peter G. MACKAY, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada,

The human tragedy in Lebanon and Israel is reminiscent of Guernica. Most sacred assets of humankind, people, are being sacrificed because of gross miscalculations on both sides of the conflict. Irrespective of what euphemistic terms are used, war crimes are being committed. As Canadians of Armenian descent, we are acutely aware of the implications of being under the threat of terror and perceived annihilation of a nation, a country or territories since we share similar genocidal experiences. However, when the right to defend one’s country transforms into indiscriminate killing then it is abhorrent.

Without eventual implementation of all United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding the Middle East Crisis, it is highly unlikely that peace will prevail in the area. It is beyond comprehension not ending the present slaughter in a just manner, and which has all the potentials of solidifying resistance primarily against western interests in the region. It will render all the more difficult to accept mediation efforts in future.

Soon the United Nations Security Council will pass new resolutions. One of the elements will include deployment of an international military force. In addition to others, incorporating Turkish soldiers has been suggested. This is an extremely ill-advised proposal. It will be looked upon as a provocation which in itself may cause further destabilization. The Martyrs’ square in the heart of Beirut is dedicated to the Lebanese victims, Christians and Muslims alike that suffered in the hands of the Ottoman Turks. Turkey may be an ally of USA or Israel, but the vast majority of the Lebanese will be unfriendly towards the presence of any Turkish units.

Signatories of this open letter do not represent any particular political party and they are not motivated by any political agenda. They have no illusions that power brokers will take this letter seriously, but they feel compelled to voice their conscience against war crimes in general and against atrocities committed thus far. They are strongly committed to Canada and Canadian values, and they are convinced that Canada can and will play a constructive role for brokering peace and eventual peacekeeping in the region.

Respectfully,

Ani Boghossian, Business Owner, Toronto

Artin Arzoumanian MD, Montreal

Artin Boghossian PhD, North York

Berge Minassian MD CM FRCP©, Toronto

Dikran Abrahamian BA, MD, Penetanguishene

Haig Misakyan P. Eng, North York

Harry Dikranian LLB, BCL, MA, Montreal

Jack Sevakian, Management Consultant, Thornhill

Katia Peltekian MA, Toronto

Marie Injeyan BSc, Kingston

Vahe Balabanian MS Eng, Ottawa

Vako Nicolian BE BSc, Scarborough

Viken L. Attarian P. Eng., MSc, MBA, Mount Royal

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Chibli Mallat Should Run For the Presidency Of

Turkey, Not Lebanon

August 18, 2006

By APPO K. JABARIAN

Executive Publisher

& Managing Editor

USA Armenian Life Magazine

In an August 10 commentary in The Daily Star of

Lebanon and the Turkish daily Sabah titled "Turkey can

help Lebanon into a new 'long peace,'" Mr. Chibli

Mallat, a Lebanese presidential candidate wrote: "The

United Nations Security Council draft resolution on

Lebanon currently being negotiated in New York

mentions the deployment of an international force, to

be included in a follow-up resolution. . We Lebanese

must have a say in the shaping of this force.. A

strong Turkish contingent is also envisaged. Lebanon

should strongly support Turkish participation."

Mr. Mallat concluded: "Successful Turkish

participation in a Lebanon force, alongside France,

would also help remove European obstacles to

accelerating Turkish membership in the EU. . So, from

Lebanon at war, this is an appeal for a robust Turkish

contingent to contribute to bringing about a new long

peace that we all can benefit from."

After a televised appearance on CNN Larry King Live,

Mr. Mallat was strongly criticized in an August 5

article titled "Out to Lunch" by Remi Kanazi of

"OneThousandReasons.org." Mr. Kanazi wrote: ". Chibli

Mallat-one of the leaders of the Cedar Revolution,

deep critic of Hezbollah and candidate for

President-as the voice of the 'Lebanese people' said:

'. He [Nassrallah] initiated the conflict, and all

this talk about a great plot between Israel and

America is out of place. The conflict was initiated.by

[Hezbollah's] reckless action through the Blue Line

that separates Lebanon from Israel. That was a grave

violation of international law and I think also a

grave violation of Lebanese law.'"

In a July 2003 opinion article in The Daily Star of

Lebanon, titled "George Weidenfeld's bright idea" non

other than Mr. Mallat eagerly acted as a cheerleader

for Mr. Geroge Weidenfeld who is known as "the Neo Con

of the Neo Cons." Mr. Mallat wrote: "the publisher and

tycoon George Weidenfeld, a member of the British

House of Lords, a grand old man of Churchillian

grandeur, offered a new idea: Why not work on joint

entrance of Israel and Lebanon into the EU?"

If Mr. Mallat's dream comes true, Mr. Weidenfeld would

serve as the "godfather" of the Israeli-Lebanese

marriage into the European Union, with Turkey serving

as an usher (next in line for candidacy for EU

membership), and Mr. Mallat as the "ring boy." All

this would occur without first solving the

Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the core problem of the

Middle East. And at the expense of the Arab people who

make up the overwhelming majority of the population of

the Middle East.

In an August 3 column, titled "Turkish Troops

Shouldn't Take Part In Peacekeeping Force in Lebanon,"

Sassounian, the Publisher of The California Courier,

brought to the Lebanese, Armenian and international

public attention the emerging specter of a tragedy

within a tragedy, unless it is averted.

Sassounian wrote: "The disastrous situation in the

Middle East is about to get even worse, thanks to

officials in Washington who have other agendas than

bringing peace to the region."

Sassounian concluded: "It is simply unacceptable that

in the pursuit of their political agendas, the

neo-cons in Washington encourage sending Turkish

troops to Lebanon. The international community should

not allow such irresponsible action that would

perpetuate the conflict in the Middle East rather than

bring peace and stability to the region."

What Mr. Sassounian is referring to is that Mr. Mallat

is a groomed candidate for the Lebanese presidency to

serve the interests of the Neo Cons in Washington DC,

Turkey and Israel in Lebanon.

If elected president of Lebanon, one can imagine the

type of repressive Ottoman Turkish-style regime Mr.

Mallat's presidency can impose on the Lebanese people.

Mr. Mallat may even contemplate a new Turkish-executed

"mutasarrifiey" (the infamous Ottoman Turkish

occupation and ruthless rule of Lebanon from

1865-1917).

Now it becomes clear why Mr. Mallat and the Daily Star

of Lebanon are the cheerleaders for strongly

pro-Israel Turkey's inclusion in the UN international

peacekeeping force on the border of Israel and

Lebanon.

Apparently, Mr. Mallat has forgotten the tens of

thousands of Lebanese martyrs that were killed. And

over half a million additional Lebanese that were

subjected to premeditated famine by Ottoman Turks

during their occupation of Lebanon until the late

1910's. Turkish atrocities were committed against all

Lebanese, including the Maronites, Sunnis, Druze,

Shias, Armenians, and others.

May be Mr. Chibli Mallat should run for the presidency

of Turkey, not Lebanon. He is in the wrong country to

be a candidate for the Presidency. I am sure Ankara

would be more than willing to grant him Turkish

citizenship.

posted by [email protected]

[B. Max]

Reverse Godwin! A little known fact that amateur historians whose knowledge of diplomacy begins and ends with Chambarlain forget is that, in some cases, appeasement, as they call it, is nescessary to avoid pointless bloodshed and strife. And of course only a total ignoramous would invoke an analogy that likens the hardscrabble Palestinians to the Nazi war machine. And you're not that ignoramous, are you Max?

Appeasement in this case as history will bear out, is the act of delaying the inevitable, more often than not leading to greater bloodshed.

Forget the socalled palestinians and try answering the question.

What do you offer someone whos intent is to wipe you off the map.

[Black Dog]

Appeasement in this case as history will bear out, is the act of delaying the inevitable, more often than not leading to greater bloodshed.

What is the inevitable you speak of?

What do you offer someone whos intent is to wipe you off the map.

The chance to not get wiped out themselves? Anyway, read my reply to Argus:

But no one here has said anything about appeassing Hizbullah. It's possible to marginalize Hizbullah without engaging them at all.

[Argus]

Is that the mold was broken, the neverending fractionalism between Labour and Likud which made all Israeli governments too unstable to take the chance of giving the Palestinians home rule. Olmert could have been the man to do that. But as has been said, the Palestinians never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity. They had to choose NOW to elect Hamas as their government, and Hamas had to choose NOW to attack Israel and kidnap an Israeli soldier. And now with Hezbollah joining in, and proving how hard it is to detect and root out determined rocket and missile launchers the chance of Israel pulling out of the West Bank has been reduced to virtually nil. The West Bank is too close to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Perhaps before this war Olmert could have promised that if the Palestinians started firing rockets the IDF would race in and crush them. But no more.

In all likelihood Olmert is finished, and a hard line Likud government, probably under Binyamin Netanyahu, will replace him. There will be no compromises with the Palestinians and no handover of land.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Friends,

The following Open Letter to the Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs was transmitted and an acknowledgement from PMO was received on August 10, 2006. A copy was sent to the majority of the MPs.

The signatories of the letter solicit your endorsement and would like to know whether you would add your signature to the list. Please indicate your name, city, town and Academic titles (BA, MD, LLB etc) if you so wish. Address your approval via email to the person from whom you received this message and a copy to [email protected] if you so desire.

August 10, 2006

The Right Honourable Stephen HARPER, Prime Minister of Canada,

Honourable Peter G. MACKAY, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada,

The human tragedy in Lebanon and Israel is reminiscent of Guernica.

It is nothing even remotely similar to Guernica. Making silly, emotional statements like this cause those of intelligence and logic to instantly dismiss the remainder of the message.

[B. Max]

Appeasement in this case as history will bear out, is the act of delaying the inevitable, more often than not leading to greater bloodshed.

What is the inevitable you speak of?

What do you offer someone whos intent is to wipe you off the map.

The chance to not get wiped out themselves? Anyway, read my reply to Argus:

But no one here has said anything about appeassing Hizbullah. It's possible to marginalize Hizbullah without engaging them at all.

The inevitable is a larger war with an even better organized and better equipped enemy.

The chance to not get wiped out themselves? Anyway, read my reply to Argus:

That time has long ago past.

[Black Dog]

The inevitable is a larger war with an even better organized and better equipped enemy.

I gotta ask: who? Syria? A somewhat scarier Hizbullah?

That time has long ago past.

Why?

[Rue]

In regards to the comments from the Armanian historical perspective I said in an earlier post that the idea of Turkish peace keeping forces given their record during the Ottoman Empire would be foolish. Of course if you are Armanian you remember genocide at the hands of Turks. We in the West forget such things however as we tend to look at history froma very instant, selective perspective and forget the past.

Once we are on the topic, I note Indonesia and Malaysia have indicated they want to send troops. It won't happen. Both nations do not recognize the right for Israelt to exist and have leaders and widely spread opinions that Israel should not exist and openly display anti-semitis and anti-semitic beliefs as wide spread accepted culture in their newspapers, radio and tv. So I doubt you will see any troops from Turkey or those two countries. It looks now as if it will be France, Belgium, Spain, Norway and Holland and possibly Bangladesh although again I would strongly doubt Israel would support Bangladesh as it is another Muslim country that technically does not recognize Israel and again is not known for its fondness for Israel.

I think the idea is to have UNIFIL forces that will be neutral although I fail to see how France is.

Now the interesting thing abotu France is they are openly anti-Israel to the point of absurdity given their own record in Algeria, Lebanon and Syria and given the things their own troops have done in Africa or the Middle East but on the other hand Hezbollah killed 58 French troops so the French military does not forget such things. The French military is interesting. While its government is very sympathetic to the Arab world some of its Generals are not and still remember Algeria. So they are one screwed up military. I personally do not think they should be in UNIFIL. Another country rumoured to be coming into UNIFIL is Finland.

[Canuck E Stan]

In all likelihood Olmert is finished, and a hard line Likud government, probably under Binyamin Netanyahu, will replace him. There will be no compromises with the Palestinians and no handover of land.

Looks like you got this one right.Olmert's popularity in a poll in Israel has plummeted to 48% from 75%.

Olmert's popularity plunges in Israel - poll

Rising Israeli casualties and constant Hizbollah rocket attacks have sharply eroded public support in Israel for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his defence minister, an opinion poll showed on Friday.

The survey in the Haaretz newspaper found only 48 percent of Israelis were satisfied with Olmert's performance compared with popularity ratings of more than 75 percent in polls taken in the early stages of fighting against the Lebanese group.

Public support for Defence Minister Amir Peretz fell from 65 percent to 37 percent, the survey showed.

[B. Max]

The inevitable is a larger war with an even better organized and better equipped enemy.

I gotta ask: who? Syria? A somewhat scarier Hizbullah?

I was speaking in general terms.

However, Syira is only a potential battle. The war is the one that the Islamics are promising. Global jihad and world wide Islamic conquest.

Hitler promised and laid out his plans, and then delivered. Aided and abetted by the appeasers of the day.

Fast forward to today and we could actually be in much worse shape. When one considers the infestation of cultural Marxism and its many faces, or better known as political correctness. It doesn't look good.

That time has long ago past.

Why?

Why?, because it has, when? is debatable.