Al-Zahar: We'll never recognize Israel

[scribblet]

Okay new thread. So here we have it again, maybe not only should the Arab States fund 'Palestine' but should take them all in, maybe they should annex the Pal. area .

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3327068,00.html

Al-Zahar: We'll never recognize Israel

Speaking to al-Sharq al-Awsat Palestinian foreign minister says Hamas will never agree to UN resolutions calling for two-state solution Roee Nahmias

Palestinian Foreign Minister and Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar told al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper on Sunday that his group will never "repeat Fatah's mistake of recognizing Israel ."

In a militant interview, which was conducted soon after the IDF's shelling of Beit Hanoun, al-Zahar explained why his group has no intension of recognizing Israel, accept a two-state solution and to accept the partition resolution adopted by the United Nations.

When asked what will happen if international pressure on Hamas increases, he said: "Hamas will never change its position regardless of the pressure's intensity."

[crazymf]

See, and that seems like the whole reason the Isrealie thing isn't getting resolved. Just about the time that a peace negotiation seems to be working, the Pals send in another 16 year old girl or similar to start the cycle of suicide bombing all over again. I personally can't understand the hatred the Pals harbor. I do not have much respect for the Palestinian cause any more though because of it and I'm not a particular Jew lover either. Isreal does seem to want to offer a peaceful democratic solution and isn't getting a partner out of the deal.

If I had the answer, I guess I'd be famous and maybe rich. I don't.

[scribblet]

I tend to agree with this particular point from Kofi Annan, although there a paragraph in there that ise rest of it decidedly biased against Israel.

However, it makes sense that ending this conflict will help to calm things down.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.j...subContrassID=1

Annan: Ending Arab-Israeli strife would calm Muslim-West tensions

By The Associated Press

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan said on Monday that any effort to stop growing violence between Islamic and Western societies must include an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Annan spoke after receiving a report from a high-level group of experts on ways to alleviate Muslim-Western clashes and misunderstandings.

"We may wish to think of the Arab-Israeli conflict as just one regional conflict amongst many," said Annan, who will leave his post at the end of the year. "It is not. No other conflict carries such a powerful symbolic and emotional charge among people far removed from the battlefield."

Annan said he would work along with his successor, Ban Ki-moon, to help implement the recommendations of the report, which called for renewed efforts toward the goal of establishing "two fully sovereign and independent states co-existing side by side in peace and security."

[August1991]

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan said on Monday that any effort to stop growing violence between Islamic and Western societies must include an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

At this point, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is only one facet of a broader problem.

While land is important, our disputes extend well beyond land. The Muslim world will come into increasing contact with the modern West. This is inevitable. These contacts will provoke conflict.

Put another way, if the Israeli-Palestinian dispute were to be magically resolved, we'd still have a problem.

----

I posted this elsewhere but it seems relevant here.

Perhaps you have heard of Maryam Farhat, who sits in the Palestine Legislature as a member of Hamas. Three of her six children were suicide bombers.

Here is what she said about peace and Israel (in December 2005):

Peace means the liberation of all of Palestine, from the (Jordan) to the (Mediterranean) Sea. When this is accomplished – if they want peace, we will be ready. They may live under the banner of the Islamic state. That is the future of Palestine that we are striving towards.

Dream2, Egyptian TV

Here's what Hassan Nasrallah (head of Hizballah) said about Israel (in 2000, his views have not changed):

I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called "Israel." I consider its presence both unjust and unlawful. That is why if Lebanon concludes a peace agreement with Israel and brings that accord to the Parliament our deputies will reject it; Hezbollah refuses any conciliation with Israel in principle.

Washington Post

There is no negotiation possible with people having such a viewpoint.

[Black Dog]

Speaking to al-Sharq al-Awsat Palestinian foreign minister says Hamas will never agree to UN resolutions calling for two-state solution Roee Nahmias

Palestinian Foreign Minister and Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar told al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper on Sunday that his group will never "repeat Fatah's mistake of recognizing Israel ."

In a militant interview, which was conducted soon after the IDF's shelling of Beit Hanoun, al-Zahar explained why his group has no intension of recognizing Israel, accept a two-state solution and to accept the partition resolution adopted by the United Nations.

When asked what will happen if international pressure on Hamas increases, he said: "Hamas will never change its position regardless of the pressure's intensity."

If this guy was a western parlimentarian, we'd be accusing hm of pandering to his base. If he has half a brain, he knows full well that there's no possible resolution other than a two-state solution. The only question is how much blood is going to be spilled before the tide of inevitability overtakes those on both sides who refuse to move on.

[kimmy]

If this guy was a western parlimentarian, we'd be accusing hm of pandering to his base. If he has half a brain, he knows full well that there's no possible resolution other than a two-state solution. The only question is how much blood is going to be spilled before the tide of inevitability overtakes those on both sides who refuse to move on.

Is it a given that he's any less rabid than the people who voted for him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_al-Za...awkish_Position

And, is it a given that the al Zahar and the people he represents are necessarily opposed to the spilling of blood-- their enemy's or their own-- in the fight for their cause?

-k

[Black Dog]

Is it a given that he's any less rabid than the people who voted for him?

Why is it a given that he is isn't? But to answer your question, Palestinian public opinion, according to the poll data, shows that despite the election of Hamas (which implies support for its ends and violence) the Palestinian public is squarely in favour of diplomacy and the two-state solution. The more Hamas chafes against this and the more their instrangience feeds internal instability, the less appealing they'll be to the electorate.

My point, if there is one, is that we westerners tend to make deep judgements on issues like this based on superficial impressions and simplistic interpretations of the information we get. Taking the views of extreme or fring politicians and treating them as gospel ("how can we negotiate with these people?") leaves little room for nuance and is, in the end, completely counterproductive.

And, is it a given that the al Zahar and the people he represents are necessarily opposed to the spilling of blood-- their enemy's or their own-- in the fight for their cause?

Is anyone opposed to the spilling of blood for their cause? You're not. Most of the posters on this board are not. So what is it you're saying?

[Rue]

Is it a given that he's any less rabid than the people who voted for him?

Why is it a given that he is isn't? But to answer your question, Palestinian public opinion, according to the poll data, shows that despite the election of Hamas (which implies support for its ends and violence) the Palestinian public is squarely in favour of diplomacy and the two-state solution. The more Hamas chafes against this and the more their instrangience feeds internal instability, the less appealing they'll be to the electorate.

My point, if there is one, is that we westerners tend to make deep judgements on issues like this based on superficial impressions and simplistic interpretations of the information we get. Taking the views of extreme or fring politicians and treating them as gospel ("how can we negotiate with these people?") leaves little room for nuance and is, in the end, completely counterproductive.

And, is it a given that the al Zahar and the people he represents are necessarily opposed to the spilling of blood-- their enemy's or their own-- in the fight for their cause?

Is anyone opposed to the spilling of blood for their cause? You're not. Most of the posters on this board are not. So what is it you're saying?

Black Dog on this one I am with you in your postulations and hope you are right. I understand why August feels the way he does and August you ae a cold brutal realist and yes the inevitable clash between Western and Eastern cultures is inevitable and it is coming to a head, but I truly believe as much as it appears Palestinians support Hamas, Black Dog is right, deep down inside they know they can't exterminate Israel and a lot of this is bombastic rhetoric. Don't get me wrong-I take Hamas very seriously and wide-spread anti-semitism in the Middle East very seriously, and I do not doubt as long as Hamas continues as is, there is serious concern BUT Palestinians are also fatigued and they are not that different then Israelis in that respect, they are worn from constant years of turmoil and the Hamas noise and beligerence can only go so far.

I think it is crucial Israel smarten up now and use some smart psychological tactics and understand why Hamas exists and how it fuels and incites Palestinians, and avoids feeding their frenzy.

I think the current PM of Israel is spent and has no fresh ideas. I think Israel needs another Rabin, someone the public trusts, to take a bold initiative and make Hamas obsolete by sitting with Abbas, Egypt and Jordan.

Egypt and Jordan have as much vested interest in seeing to it Hamas and Hezbollah are neutralized as does Israel. For that matter, Egypt and Jordan and many other Sunni Muslim nations are as apprehensive as Iran as is Israel.

Israel has to be bold now and call on some countries it may not really trust but has good relations with such as Spain, Turkey and Russia.

Menachem Begin and Yithak Rabin were not afraid to make initiatives, and say what you want about Sharon, but he was in the process of making a bold initiative in the West Bank to remove settlers, when he was felled by his strike. I do not see this kind of boldness in Olmert. It couldbe it is because he is not a military man and in Israel, whether we like it or not, the people who have been most instrumental in bring about peace with the exception of Golda Meir, have been former military generals.

[Black Dog]

Black Dog on this one I am with you in your postulations and hope you are right. I understand why August feels the way he does and August you ae a cold brutal realist and yes the inevitable clash between Western and Eastern cultures is inevitable and it is coming to a head, but I truly believe as much as it appears Palestinians support Hamas, Black Dog is right, deep down inside they know they can't exterminate Israel and a lot of this is bombastic rhetoric. Don't get me wrong-I take Hamas very seriously and wide-spread anti-semitism in the Middle East very seriously, and I do not doubt as long as Hamas continues as is, there is serious concern BUT Palestinians are also fatigued and they are not that different then Israelis in that respect, they are worn from constant years of turmoil and the Hamas noise and beligerence can only go so far.

Marginalization and isolation (for example, severing foreign aid to the PA) are also counterproductive as that creates the kind of environment where extremism floursihes. If the west and Israel are truly interested in peace and an end to hatred, they'd be trying to find ways to help Palestinians create a stable civil society, which is a prerequisite for peace. Without stability and opportunity there's no future. no future, no peace.

Egypt and Jordan have as much vested interest in seeing to it Hamas and Hezbollah are neutralized as does Israel. For that matter, Egypt and Jordan and many other Sunni Muslim nations are as apprehensive as Iran as is Israel.

Diplomatically speaking, Israel hasn't done itself any favours by rejecting overtures from Syria, and its action against Lebanon (well-ntentione dor not) did not improve its standing. My perception is that the militaristic character of Israel and its past successes on the battlefield have given imbued politicians with a deep faith in the power of force to solve problems. It's an unrealistic viewpoint to say the elast.

[kimmy]

Is it a given that he's any less rabid than the people who voted for him?

Why is it a given that he is isn't? But to answer your question, Palestinian public opinion, according to the poll data, shows that despite the election of Hamas (which implies support for its ends and violence) the Palestinian public is squarely in favour of diplomacy and the two-state solution. The more Hamas chafes against this and the more their instrangience feeds internal instability, the less appealing they'll be to the electorate.

This Angus-Reid poll supports your claim that most Palestinians prefer a peaceful, two-state solution.

However, even at that, there's still 10% of respondents whose preference is for either "One Palestinian state" or "One Islamic state". So I guess the question is, how vehement are those 10%? Perhaps most of them would grudgingly accept a 2-state solution, but it's inevitable that some of them are as hard-line as al Zahar or Maryam Farhat on the issue of recognizing Israel. And, those who believe there can't be peace as long as Israel exists are undoubtably those who are committing suicide bombings in the first place.

I'm probably not expressing myself very well here. Back in the threads where people were discussing Jack Layton statement that we should negotiate with the Taliban, Jack supporters said "it doesn't have to be a human rights abomination: we'll just negotiate with the moderate Taliban and leave the hard-liners out." But if the result of those negotiations was some compromise that was unacceptable to the hard-liners, how does that create peace? They'll just keep blowing things up. And my feeling is somewhat the same with Palestine... even if the large majority want peace, how does peace actually occur until you can convince that one in 100 or one in 1000 or one in 10000 that a cause that he's already shown he's willing to die for doesn't matter anymore?

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be an effort made to find a mutually agreeable solution. I'm just of the view that hard-liners-- on both sides-- will be impossible to please and will certainly try to undermine the process at every opportunity.

My point, if there is one, is that we westerners tend to make deep judgements on issues like this based on superficial impressions and simplistic interpretations of the information we get. Taking the views of extreme or fring politicians and treating them as gospel ("how can we negotiate with these people?") leaves little room for nuance and is, in the end, completely counterproductive.

I don't dispute that. I just feel that you were a little quick to dismiss this guy's statement as "pandering to his base." If he were a western politician, sure... but he's not. I don't think he's a fringe politician, and I don't think you can dismiss comments like this because they're extremist. These comments might be extremist, but they represent the views of some portion of his electorate, and unfortunately the portion of the public he represents probably includes people who are willing to blow themselves up if they don't get their way.

And, is it a given that the al Zahar and the people he represents are necessarily opposed to the spilling of blood-- their enemy's or their own-- in the fight for their cause?

Is anyone opposed to the spilling of blood for their cause? You're not. Most of the posters on this board are not. So what is it you're saying?

The truth is, BD, that myself and most westerners *do* oppose the spilling of blood, and would prefer not to unless it's necessary. Probably the same can be said for most Israelis and most Palestinians as well. But clearly there are exceptions... like the woman who coached her sons to become suicide bombers, and threw a party when her kid had blown himself to smithereens.

You said earlier that the inevitability of a compromise is going to sink in eventually, and the only question is how much bloodshed it'll take to get the point to sink in. But I think that there are some people who just aren't going to be persuaded by any amount of bloodshed.

-k

[cybercoma]

I think public support and opinion have ruined the world. If governments weren't so concerned with what their people thought, this "problem" would be non-existant. The United States with Israel would have wiped out half the middle-east by now and the other half would be begging for mercy. That's the only thing that will solve this problem.

[Black Dog]

I'm probably not expressing myself very well here. Back in the threads where people were discussing Jack Layton statement that we should negotiate with the Taliban, Jack supporters said "it doesn't have to be a human rights abomination: we'll just negotiate with the moderate Taliban and leave the hard-liners out." But if the result of those negotiations was some compromise that was unacceptable to the hard-liners, how does that create peace? They'll just keep blowing things up. And my feeling is somewhat the same with Palestine... even if the large majority want peace, how does peace actually occur until you can convince that one in 100 or one in 1000 or one in 10000 that a cause that he's already shown he's willing to die for doesn't matter anymore?

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be an effort made to find a mutually agreeable solution. I'm just of the view that hard-liners-- on both sides-- will be impossible to please and will certainly try to undermine the process at every opportunity.

Of course, there will always be die-hard, hardliners, whatever. Anyone entering into a process will have to recognize that at the outset. The key is to not allow the minority to distract or derail the process. And in the end, if you arrive at a solution that is acceptable to both majorities, those same hardliners will be isolated and eitehr crawl into their holes or get picked off.

I don't dispute that. I just feel that you were a little quick to dismiss this guy's statement as "pandering to his base." If he were a western politician, sure... but he's not. I don't think he's a fringe politician, and I don't think you can dismiss comments like this because they're extremist. These comments might be extremist, but they represent the views of some portion of his electorate, and unfortunately the portion of the public he represents probably includes people who are willing to blow themselves up if they don't get their way.

I recognize that, but wasn't so much dismissing his comments or downplaying their significance as disputing the implication that people like him speak for everyone involved. That's the lazy way out which leads to: "how do you negotiate with these people?"

You said earlier that the inevitability of a compromise is going to sink in eventually, and the only question is how much bloodshed it'll take to get the point to sink in. But I think that there are some people who just aren't going to be persuaded by any amount of bloodshed.

I know. The question is: do you allow these people to become obstacles? Do you throw your hands up and walk away or do you work around them? I guess what I'm saying is the hardliners get the spotlight and create (IMV) a false impression of the situation.

I think public support and opinion have ruined the world. If governments weren't so concerned with what their people thought, this "problem" would be non-existant. The United States with Israel would have wiped out half the middle-east by now and the other half would be begging for mercy. That's the only thing that will solve this problem.

Yeah, damn "concern for human rights". Why can't we be more like Hitler or Stalin?

[Rue]

Black Dog on this one I am with you in your postulations and hope you are right. I understand why August feels the way he does and August you ae a cold brutal realist and yes the inevitable clash between Western and Eastern cultures is inevitable and it is coming to a head, but I truly believe as much as it appears Palestinians support Hamas, Black Dog is right, deep down inside they know they can't exterminate Israel and a lot of this is bombastic rhetoric. Don't get me wrong-I take Hamas very seriously and wide-spread anti-semitism in the Middle East very seriously, and I do not doubt as long as Hamas continues as is, there is serious concern BUT Palestinians are also fatigued and they are not that different then Israelis in that respect, they are worn from constant years of turmoil and the Hamas noise and beligerence can only go so far.

Marginalization and isolation (for example, severing foreign aid to the PA) are also counterproductive as that creates the kind of environment where extremism floursihes. If the west and Israel are truly interested in peace and an end to hatred, they'd be trying to find ways to help Palestinians create a stable civil society, which is a prerequisite for peace. Without stability and opportunity there's no future. no future, no peace.

Egypt and Jordan have as much vested interest in seeing to it Hamas and Hezbollah are neutralized as does Israel. For that matter, Egypt and Jordan and many other Sunni Muslim nations are as apprehensive as Iran as is Israel.

Here we part ways. Israel both directly and indirectly through a vast peace network of associations and groups has communicated with Palestinians continuously and have tried to set up gras roots organizations. Each time they have such as building roads, houses, joint water pipes, green-houses, or engaged in hsopital exchanges, Hamas has destroyed these attempts.

With due respect its a two way street and Palestinians have not done what they can to reach back fearing looking like traitors in the eyes of Hamas. They too need to make some bold moves to distance themselves from Hamas if they are to have any future, and there claims to alienation and despair, although something I would never be insensitive too, are not an excuse and can not be an excuse for looking the other way when it comes to Hamas the same reason Israelis can't give in to vile extremists in their nation either.

Now as for Israel and Syria, again Black Dog you should really look at Syria's track record with Israel to understand why Israel has not been able to dialogue with it.

For the record, Golda Meir, Moshe Dayan, Sharon, Rabin and a host of others, unofficially tried conversing with Syria to no avail.

You must understand Syria has absolutely no interest in dialoguing with Israel and considers it an enemy to destroy not co-exist with.

You are talking about a nation that hosted the Gestapo and SS after World War Two and has openly embraced and financed some of the worst anti-semites the world has had to offer.

Syria has always been interested in not just posessing Israel but Lebanon and parts of Jordan. It is not exactly a bastion of democracy and when it does not feud with Israel feuds with Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan.

The current regime lives in complete paranoid fear of the Muslim Brotherhood and contrary to popular belief is as untrusting of Shiites and Hezbollah as any other Sunni nation.

Syria is a country whose economy has collapsed, and basically survives through currying favour with terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and running opium and hash hish through its borders.

Right now it will not dialogue with Israel and has no intention to. This again is not a situation of Israel refusing to dialogue with it.

That said, for there to be any hope for peace, ALL sides must find ways to dialogue.

I think Israel has a more realistic chance dialoguing with Jordan, Egypt, Mr. Abbas and moderate Muslim nations then it does Syria or Iran.

Syria by the way is run by a very cruel secret police apperatus that could turn against Baby Assad at a moment's notice.

Syria is a mess.

Diplomatically speaking, Israel hasn't done itself any favours by rejecting overtures from Syria, and its action against Lebanon (well-ntentione dor not) did not improve its standing. My perception is that the militaristic character of Israel and its past successes on the battlefield have given imbued politicians with a deep faith in the power of force to solve problems. It's an unrealistic viewpoint to say the elast.

[Black Dog]

You must understand Syria has absolutely no interest in dialoguing with Israel and considers it an enemy to destroy not co-exist with.

How do you reconcile that belief with repeated statements by Assad since he took over calling for peace negotiations with Israel? Indeed, not three moths ago, in an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel, Assad said Damascus "wants peace with Israel and is not interested in seeing its annihilation."

You are talking about a nation that hosted the Gestapo and SS after World War Two and has openly embraced and financed some of the worst anti-semites the world has had to offer.

I think you're making the same mistake that peple who jumped up and down over Layton's statements on negotiationg with the Taliban make. Diplomacy is a values neutral process. Talking with someone doesn't mean you approve of them, it juts means they have something to offer and vice versa.

The current regime lives in complete paranoid fear of the Muslim Brotherhood and contrary to popular belief is as untrusting of Shiites and Hezbollah as any other Sunni nation.

Syria is a country whose economy has collapsed, and basically survives through currying favour with terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and running opium and hash hish through its borders.

All the more reason to seek dialogue with Israel, no?

Right now it will not dialogue with Israel and has no intention to. This again is not a situation of Israel refusing to dialogue with it.

Syria is indicating with increasing frequency a willingness to resume peace negotiations with archenemy Israel after more than four years of deadlock.

an imminent resumption of talks appears unlikely given Israel's skepticism over Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's motives and the reluctance of Washington to intercede. And that would be a mistake, say some analysts who believe Assad is sincere and that Israel is missing a chance to "close the circle of peace" with its Arab neighbors.

"Does [President Assad] believe that peace is in the regime's best interests? I believe he does," says Joshua Landis, assistant professor of history at the University of Oklahoma and an expert on Syria. "Most Syrians are ready for peace and are tired of being viewed by the world as a terrorist pariah."

...

Assad first signaled a willingness to resume talks with Israel in an interview with The New York Times in December last year. Since then he has repeated his offer at least five more times.

[Shady]

If he has half a brain, he knows full well that there's no possible resolution other than a two-state solution

Wrong. You're forgetting about the new final solution. They just have to hold out long enough for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad: Israel’s destruction near

Iranian paper: Great war to wipe out Israel coming

[Riverwind]

They just have to hold out long enough for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Why? Do you honestly believe that a nuclear armed Iran would be able to changing anything about the Isreali situtation? Nukes are useless weapon for anything other than defence against an invasion since any nation that used them for offense would be obliterated.

[Shady]

Do you honestly believe

Yes, I do honestly believe that Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel.

[Riverwind]

Do you honestly believe

Yes, I do honestly believe that Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel.

The Russians and Chinese were thugs with nuclear bombs and they did not go around nuking countries. They held/hold them for defensive reasons only.

Here is a excellent article that explains why Iran with a bomb is not the great threat that many would like us to believe: http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_10_23/cover.html

...The usual suspects say that some state may eventually give terrorists an atomic bomb. That is, give the crown jewels of its national power into hands it doesn’t control, in much the same way that the great powers at the end of the 19th century were always handing out battleships to anarchists. Except that it’s worse than that: any state that hands out atomic weapons to jihadists seals its doom. And I mean real doom, not just turning its capital into radioactive slag. That’s the least that would happen. I figure that, if attacked, we’d inflict a fate worse than death—turning the nation responsible into animals that remember being men. We could, you know...

...Even when provoked, they’ve been cautious. The Taliban, back in 1998, killed a number of Iranian diplomats along with thousands of fellow Shi’ites. The Iranian government was angry, as any government would have been. The Iranians threatened, they mobilized troops on the Afghan border—but never invaded. I can’t read their minds, but I’d guess that some in their government argued that they couldn’t afford it, others that they might lose, while still others had read their Kipling and couldn’t imagine what they would do with Afghanistan if they owned it...

[Black Dog]

Wrong. You're forgetting about the new final solution. They just have to hold out long enough for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran has also been quite adamant that it's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. That you treat those pronouncements that speak to your paranoia as gospel truth and ignore those that challenge your worldview speaks to your unseriousness.

[Shady]

Iran has also been quite adamant that it's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only

The only thing Iran has been quite adamant about, is the desire to destroy Israel.

[sharkman]

Iran has also been quite adamant that it's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. That you treat those pronouncements that speak to your paranoia as gospel truth and ignore those that challenge your worldview speaks to your unseriousness.

What's this? You actually believe him? Wow, even his people are rolling their eyes and going, "Yeah, right!". But not to his face. They'd get arrested for that.

[Shady]

What's this? You actually believe him? Wow, even his people are rolling their eyes and going, "Yeah, right!". But not to his face. They'd get arrested for that

No, that's just you demonstrating your unseriousness. Just kidding, what a rube eh?

[Black Dog]

What's this? You actually believe him? Wow, even his people are rolling their eyes and going, "Yeah, right!". But not to his face. They'd get arrested for that.

The point isn't whether or not I believe him. The point is that some people are mighty selective when it comes to how credible they find Ahmadinejad. To explain further: why are statments about Iran's intentions towards Israel regarded as more credible than statements about the peaceful intentions of its nuclear program? Hmm?

[sharkman]

How 'bout because we've heard this tune before. North Korea, Iraq, and now Iran, all claiming they wanted nuclear technology, but only for the peaceful benefits. Trick me once, shame on you...

His statements about a race of people would be laughable if he didn't keep repeating them with wide eyed sincerity again and again, all in the context of Iran supporting Hezbolah's(sp?) latest attack on Israel. Doesn't that smell like a rat to you?

[Riverwind]

His statements about a race of people would be laughable if he didn't keep repeating them with wide eyed sincerity again and again, all in the context of Iran supporting Hezbolah's(sp?) latest attack on Israel. Doesn't that smell like a rat to you?

Stirring up trouble with Hezbollah is exactly what the US did with the Contras in Nicaragua. Why is it wrong for Iran to do exactly what the US did during the Cold War?

Even if you think you can address the US hypocrisy on that point you still have not addressed the fact that there is nothing in Iran's recent history to suggest that it is willing to follow through with its rhetoric. See my earlier post quoting the American Conservative artical (thanks to BD for posting it - it should be mandatory reading for Islamist chicken littles).