Was the recent Israeli offensive against Gaza a “pre-introduction” to Iran?
In an unguarded speech, during which he was not aware he was being filmed by the media, Israel’s ambassador to Australia, Yuval Rotem, issued a strident warning against Iran.
“(He said) the country’s recent military offensives were a ‘pre-introduction’ to the challenge Israel expects from a nuclear-equipped Iran within a year,” Australia’s Seven News reporter Sarah Cummings was quoted in The Australian as saying.
Before Rotem realised he was on camera, he declared, “There is room to put together some more forces of moderates around a realignment of forces that can handle and address the main strategic challenge we are all going to face in the coming month, and that is going to be Iran… If you can switch off, please, the camera.”
Related posts:
I’m arguing about what the highest world bodies (UN, ICJ) have to say about :
1-Illegally occupied territories
Resolution 242 clearly says the territories be returned. Now there are those who say “it says territories, not ALL territories”. But look at the actual resolution’s wording, “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war …” (UNSC)
So these are NOT Disputed territories, they are ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED territories.”
Why were they :”occupied” (not that I agree with the term, but for the sake of argument) IN THE FIRST PLACE? WHY?
Because three countries, that is Syria, Egypt and Jordan combined to attack Israel in 1967. What happened in 1947? The UN wanted to partition the Mandate of Palestine into two. More than half of the proposed Israeli territory would be desert, arid land. Consult the Negev region. What was the response? Israel accepted, but the Arab countries, ostensibly speaking on behalf of the Palestinians rejected. This strain of rejectionism runs through Palestinian thinking today. Not only did they reject, they attacked Israel in 1948, the first major Arab-Israeli War, including Jordan which was formed out of 80 percent of the original Mandate territory. Two-thirds of Jordanians are actually Palestinians. The Hashemite monarchy is actually a minority monarchy transplated from the plains of Ejaz. The West Bank therefore originally was part of Jordan. Gaza Strip was administratively linked to Egypt. Egypt formally renounced its claim in the 1970s and Jordan’s “title” to West Bank died a natural death.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
2-Illegally erected wall
“…the Court because it has already declared the construction of the wall to be illegal and has already determined the legal consequences by demanding that Israel stop and reverse its construction and further…” (ICJ)
This same ICJ has also indicted Omar Al-Bashir, the president of the Sudan for genocide against the Darfurians.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Yes, Benny Morris, the person who said ethnic cleansing in ‘48 was justified. And maybe we can add the “scholarly” works of Joan Peters too? Well at least Benny Morris was honest.”
The works of Joan Peters, to be fair to you, can be said to be the right-wing equivalent to the works of the earlier Benny Morris, and left-wing Avi Shlaim, Ilan Papper, etc. Benny Morris said that ethnic cleansing which was never the official policy of the State of Israel was justified. Hamas is committed, as its charter stipulates, to the destruction of the State of Israel. One is keen to maintain the Jewish character of Israel whilst considering the existence of Palestinian state side-by-side. The other is committed to wiping out Jewish claim to their ancestral homeland. Israel has a 20 percent Arab population, the vast majority of which are Muslims. They are not required to serve in the military. Arab-based parties are allowed to exist and two of the three main parties have called for the extermination of the State of Israel, the very nation that gives them the right exist politically. There are 10 Arab MPs by proportional representation. An Arab MP can shout at the top of his lungs that Ehud Olmert is a mass murderer and nothing happens. Try that with Ismail Haniyeh.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Also, please refer to the Oslo Accords which is the road-map to a sustainable solution – the two-state solution. PLO is a signatory to the Oslo Accords. Israel maintains responsibility for external defence, joint-responsibility for internal security, economic assistance, etc. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords]. Israel has withdrew from Gaza. Gaza is not under occupation. The West Bank settlements are contrary to the Oslo Accords. Although, the similar situation of forcible evacuation of some settlements as in Gaza (formerly known as Judea) will have to be made if and when the conditions are ripe for progress towards a viable Palestinian state.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“The West Bank settlements are contrary to the Oslo Accords”
NOT contrary.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jason said:
“But Iran is guilty of sending waves of young men against the artillery barrage of the Iraqis during the 1980-1901 War on the promise of paradise recited by the Shiite clerics. “
Sorry, but I think this is a preposterous argument. I am not going to waste much time arguing about ideologies and I will make this my final response for this particular issue. Sayyid Khomeini, Sayyid Beheshti, etc only asked what any patriotic person would do. Defend one’s land with what you have. Iranians were united in defending their land, secular or otherwise. In fact I don’t think the cleric even had to do anything. Even an atheist American would defend his/her land if it was being invaded. I hope you were not cheering for the US/European/Al-Khaleej sponsored terrorist Saddam Al-Tikkriti?
Jason said:
“What did Dahlan, the security chief do to Hamas a terrorist outfit??? “
Dahlan is a dirty terrorist thug working for Fatah’s security services, with a mission to oust Hamas with the help of Dayton, Rice and gang. It was quashed. I’m not going to defend Hamas for any wrongdoings they did while quashing the coup however. Vanity Fair and Christian Science Monitor wrote articles on this issue that I have no wish of cutting and pasting to waste this space. You can support this terrorist thug if you wish.
Jason said:
“The West Bank settlements are NOT contrary to the Oslo Accords. “
Well this is what the accord says
Oslo Accord:
The aim of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle East peace process is, among other things, to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, the elected Council (the “Council”), for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement BASED ON SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS 242 and 338.
.
.
and so on.
Let me re-iterate UNSC Resolution 242:
Resolution 242 clearly says the territories be returned. Now there are those who say “it says territories, not ALL or THE territories”. But look at the actual resolution’s wording in the preambulary, “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war …” (UNSC)
Also:
Article 49 of the Geneva Convention:
The Occupying Power shall not deport or TRANSFER parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
In other words, no illegal settlements. Building settlements will not help solve this problem.
Jason said:
“This same ICJ has also indicted Omar Al-Bashir, the president of the Sudan for genocide against the Darfurians.”
We may dislike their resolutions, but they are binding if we are members of the international community and the UN. This same ICJ was where Malaysia took its case for Sipadan and Batu Puteh. Malaysia won in the case of Sipadan but lost Batu Puteh to Singapore by ICJ’s ruling. Should we disrespect that ruling, invade Batu Puteh and cite Israel’s belligerency towards the Israel’s towards ICJ’s ruling on the wall as a “precedence”?
I do not agree with many of the points in either 242 or ICJ’s ruling, but it’s a common standard that most of the international community recognize and is a good starting point.
Jason said:
“Because three countries, that is Syria, Egypt and Jordan combined to attack Israel in 1967. “
That is factually incorrect. According to Bailey, Israel attacked Egypt (Sinai, Nile Valley, Suez on 6/5/67). Then it was on to Syria, and then before UN’s Gen. Bull was able to warn King Hussein, Jordan was engaged. Also you did not mention that Iraq was also involved. So there were 4 countries engaged with Israel in which Israel started off first. Dayan said that the confrontation with Syria was (80% according to Dayan) instigated by Israel. They sent in farm equipment in a demilitarized zone, pushing it further until Syria responded and was then used as a pretext to attack Syria on the basis of a hostile act.
All intelligence in ’67 pointed to the fact that Israel was not under threat to lose any war. President Johnson said to Aba Ebban that Israel would demolish the other armies. And when Israel started the offensive, the results proved this, that Israel was knew very well that they were not going to lose any war. One of the main goals of Israel was to put the “Arabs in their place” as one form of deterrence.
I would like to point out that that Hamas is willing to discuss, even settle with the ’67 borders and push for a long term truce. Jimmy Carter already affirmed this, vis-a-vis this particular 2-state solution plan, Hamas can be trusted. His words, not mine. This is a good first and positive step instead of justifying more buildups of illegal settlements.
Sorry Anil, will no longer waste space on this issue.
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
have you seen these 2 clips featuring Dr Azzam Tamimi blasting Israel and Fatah?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2byD6yGtw8I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC67z_VasWA
phew! somebody got to invite him to Malaysia
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jews, Christians and Muslims Unite Against Evildoers
Complain about this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0