Morocco # English board

salam alaykum


Almot,

Quote
I actually can feel the pain he feels for the Arab cause and identity and for the systems that never works, just like you and me.

if you are talking about an European human right activist ,who is will informed about our area situation you are right for that i keep thanking him for his contributions . other than that our at least for me perspective are different.well for now lets focus on Palestine issue may be we will have chance one day to discuss how holding a moroccan passport and visiting morocco time to times is enough only to produce 'Prête à Porter' arguments that does not fit US.

Quote

baba123
1) For the hamas philosophies, if it is not based on the religion? You think based on ethnicity will be better? Humm let me see , what did the Arabism did for us? Give oil for free to usa and Israel and fight each other for really stupid reasons.if it wasn’t to religion you think France would ever left morocco?

How about based on a nationality ? Palestinians are a diverse people, different religions, different ethnicities but they share a culture and a language. As I said already on a another post, religion is not enough to solidify a people, you need cultural and linguistic markers.
Take us for example, Morocco is diverse and getting more diverse as decades pass with the diaspora and interfaith, mixt marriages. But one thing unites us, we are Moroccans.

Quote

2) million of Christians? How did you come up with that figure? 100’s now become millions? And just to let you know there voice is heard load and clear more then the Muslims anyway, no worries about them.

The figure I gave you is accurate, there's about 1 million christian Palestinians, 30 % only remain in the territories, the rest are within the Palestinian diaspora, they've produced great people like Hanane Ashrawi or Edward Saïd.
However, there hasn't been a census for a while, the figures have probably varied but they constitute about 10 % of the population.

[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]

Quote

3) do you know what is Oslo accord ? Have 2 different areas and to go between the 2 parts you need to go through Israeli check point, is this a Palestinian state that people will look for?

The Oslo Accord was never sold as a definite deal written in stone, it was a base for negotiations, it was a work in progress. The question of the return of the refugees was for instance still open. But the extremists on both sides never even gave it a chance.

Quote

4) You think Israel need a reason to attack Palestinians? Why some of us have a short memory loss, remember when Arabs declared in Beirut that will accept Israel on 67 border, what was the response of the Israeli army that same day?
Wasn’t fiches massacre to the Palestinians?

Read me again, I said Hamas kept giving excuses to the hawks to advance their agenda. Reasonable people on both sides were silenced. Contrary to what people think, Israel is not a block, it is as diverse as any nation, there are plenty of voices within the country who are disgusted by the way things were handled. Check this :

[zope.gush-shalom.org]

[www.btselem.org]

Quote

5) What welfare of your people are you talking about?
Can any one in the Palestinians “Gov” under the occupation assure the safety of any Palestinian including them selves? 6) Last if you think that is ok to live under occupation and try to please them to keep the occupier from killing and distressing the population, you wouldn’t be the first to think that way, but you are not the first to be wrong, no occupier ever left it colony with just negotiation.

By welfare when it comes to Hamas, I mean basic military rules, you don't use tactics that endanger your people, you don't launch an operation when you are certain that the retaliation will cause more deaths on your ranks than it would your opponent.
Unless :
1. you have no regard for life whatsoever, It's consistent with the islamist mentality, the martyrdom concept (achouhada)
2. Your goal is to unite people under your flag by using the retaliation casualties to blame your opponent. Classic cynical tactics used in all conflicts.

You keep misinterpretating what I'm saying. I didn't say that the Palestinians have to please their occupiers but when you have an opponent with superior fire power, you have to use that against him and not go into a battle you are sure to lose.
How many NGOs, how many people of good will within Israel turned their back on the palestinian cause because of the savagery of Hamas suicide bombings ?
There's no military solution when the opponent is the 400 pound gorilla of the neighborhood, you have to use other means.
I don't know what they are, all I know is that the islamists have made things far worse because they've managed to cut off outside support, be it financial or political.
Like I said, this is not a religious dispute, it's territorial.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2006 01:28 by chelhman.

Quote

sarah70
if you are talking about an European human right activist ,who is will informed about our area situation you are right for that i keep thanking him for his contributions . other than that our at least for me perspective are different.well for now lets focus on Palestine issue may be we will have chance one day to discuss how holding a moroccan passport and visiting morocco time to times is enough only to produce 'Prête à Porter' arguments that does not fit US.

Who's US ? I'm moroccan just as you are, so the palestinian problem does not concern you directly. Since when Palestine is moroccan territory ?
Unless you're seeing things through the religious prism. This isn't a religious matter.
For the last 30/40 years, the palestinian cause has been used as a sales pitch by all muslim leaders to gain support or divert attention for their failures. By repeting incessantly that it was a muslim cause, it became truth, something self-evident. It's engraved in your memory.
But when you stop and think about it, the reality is different.

The same thing is being done by Israel, they keep repeting that Jerusalem is the capital, one day it'll become self-evident, engraved in Israelis psyche. But again the reality is different.
All I'm saying Sarah70 is use your head, reason, look at things with an observant eye.

You keep viewing me as some sort of heretic. I'm reasoning, I'm using my hybrid culture that allows me to see things for what they are, I have a dispassionate way of seeing things.

Quote
chelhman

Speaking of war, there's another one brewing because of your hawks, yesterday I was watching the BBC, Netanyahu (again !) was advocating the idea to hit Iran's nuclear facilities. If you don't put a leash on people like him on the next elections, Hamas is going to be the least of your problems.

It may be the start of a new war, but Iran against whom? Against Israel?


Many would not mind seeing Iranian nuclear facilities being bombed, even by Israel which would take the burden off the shoulders of the Americans to do it themselves.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2006 09:16 by Cyril.

salam alaykum

chelhman

i am against any kind of violence using innocent human which the main daily concern to kick out the fear from the face and the hearth of their kids .but when u come here and say that Israel leaders were willing to delivere all Oslo Accords and HAMAS who blewed the "gift" either u underestimate our intellectual capacity or you are not serious .

when Zionist leaders CHOOSE Palestine to build their state their choice was not random (here religion was not the motive) the main thing here palestine was the only place where they would feel secured since they don t TRUST the Europe or any place beside the middle east.and their plan goes beyond palestine so the idea to "give away' even an inch is just crazy .u will tell me if they need to live in peace they have to sit down in a table with the palestinians. let me tell u here a fair ,productive negotiation will not take place until the other side of the table(arabs) is strong enough (on everything ) to keep the table balance.

the hybrid culture could be just an excuse , used to gain the other trust since we know 'stranger are not welcomed" when it comes to giving advice and discussing an "intimate" arab world issue we listen to them but we take only what fits us .

when it comes to palestine y motivation NOT ONLY human right (which has limited vision) but also common commitment for ex for me palestine state would be at least 1967 territory with Jerusalem as a capital but human right activist will be satisfied with gaza and west band to establish a peace in the area.

Quote
sarah70

when Zionist leaders CHOOSE Palestine to build their state their choice was not random (here religion was not the motive) the main thing here palestine was the only place where they would feel secured since they don t TRUST the Europe or any place beside the middle east.and their plan goes beyond palestine so the idea to "give away' even an inch is just crazy .

The motive to settle in Palestine was mainly religious. It was the land of the ancestors of the Jews and Jews are the people who follow the Jewish religion or are recognized as such by the Jewish law.

The idea of finding a secure place could not have been the motive as Palestine was already peopled by Palestinians, belonged to the Turkish empire, then to the English. Most often the Jews had to fight their way into the country. They were not invited there.

What do you mean by "their plan goes beyond Palestine"? Do you still believe in that ridiculous idea of an Israel up to the Euphrat?

Israelnumber1 wrote:
we tried to be civilized but obviously it didn’t work.



I have a different understanding of civilisation .For you civilisation is using laser bombs delivered by uncle Sam to kill kids and women and destroy blindly homes of poor weak, helpless Menschen.
How old is this phenomena of suicide bombers? Palestinians have been waiting for more than 30 years to be able to live in dignity and without occupatioon. During all this period there were no suicide bombers. The world have been witnessing and under all successiv israeli governments and without exception the historical engineering of the big Israel. The palestinians under Fathah, under Hamas or under the equivalent of Ghandi will keep witnessing this engineering.
To be civilized is by respecting the international law which mean the respect of UN resolution 242 and and and...
Please do not come here and try to teach us what civilisation is about.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2006 10:15 by Krim.

sraelnumber1 wrote:
we tried to be civilized but obviously it didn’t work.



I have a different understanding of civilisation .For you civilisation is using laser bombs delivered by uncle Sam to kill kids and women and destroy blindly homes of poor weak, helpless Menschen.
How old is this phenomena of suicide bombers. Palestinians have been waiting for more than 30 years to be able to live in dignity and without occupatioon. During all this period there were no suicide bombers. The world have been witnessing and under all successiv israeli governments and without exception the historical engineering of the big Israel. The palestinians under Fathah, under Hamas or under the equivalent of Ghandi will keep witnessing this engineering.
To be civilized is by respecting the international law which mean the respect of UN resolution 242 and and and...
Please do not come here and try to teach us what civilisation is about.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2006 09:43 by Krim.

salam alaykum

Cyril

Quote
The motive to settle in Palestine was mainly religious.

i will giveyou ex. to show how u r wrong if you say anything bad about 10 ten commandments or doubt about prophet Mousa (Moses) PBUH will not make big issue in Israel.the muslims will be more concerned than israeli but if you say something wrong about Zionism (even under drug or alcohol poor Mel GIBSON ) then you will see how your life will be miserable .

Quote
Do you still believe in that ridiculous idea of an Israel up to the Euphrat?

i am sorry i just have a dream about The Golan Heights where i see it as a part of syrian territory ,how stupide my dream is.

Look I'm in at disadvantage here my replies are not posted, or at least delayed for over 12 hrs,
Talking about inclusive !!!!! ļ

wow yabiladi is sponsored by Israeli’s visa, now I know why all the blaming and poiting of fingers to hamas is coming from.
check this comercial that Yabiladi is runing :-)

[www.hasadvantage.com]

The contents of you relies can probably be read in most of the mass media. CNN, CBS, BBCm Fox news, ARS, ZDF,etc---Do not worry your propaganda will not be missed and in all languages.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2006 10:35 by Krim.

Quote

sarah70
chelhman
i am against any kind of violence using innocent human which the main daily concern to kick out the fear from the face and the hearth of their kids .but when u come here and say that Israel leaders were willing to delivere all Oslo Accords and HAMAS who blewed the "gift" either u underestimate our intellectual capacity or you are not serious .
when Zionist leaders CHOOSE Palestine to build their state their choice was not random (here religion was not the motive) the main thing here palestine was the only place where they would feel secured since they don t TRUST the Europe or any place beside the middle east.and their plan goes beyond palestine so the idea to "give away' even an inch is just crazy .u will tell me if they need to live in peace they have to sit down in a table with the palestinians. let me tell u here a fair ,productive negotiation will not take place until the other side of the table(arabs) is strong enough (on everything ) to keep the table balance.

the hybrid culture could be just an excuse , used to gain the other trust since we know 'stranger are not welcomed" when it comes to giving advice and discussing an "intimate" arab world issue we listen to them but we take only what fits us .

when it comes to palestine y motivation NOT ONLY human right (which has limited vision) but also common commitment for ex for me palestine state would be at least 1967 territory with Jerusalem as a capital but human right activist will be satisfied with gaza and west band to establish a peace in the area.

You keep cherry picking in my posts what validates your opinions of me Sarah70 and avoid what might upset those opinions.

Read me again, I said that the hawks and Hamas have been leaning against one another to destroy any chance of peace.
You say you're against the slaughter of innocent, yet your temperature goes up a few notches when you read me lumping together the hawks and Hamas, because you see Hamas actions as justifiable.

I'm going to morph into your state of mind for a second :
Let's say I'm a Hamas cheerleader, or just a mild sympathizer, then I'd have to admit that they've done nothing to advance the palestinian situation, they've actually made it far worse. Now, the Israelis don't even have to bother anymore, the Palestinians are shooting at each other. Anything not factual in what I just said ?


About the Oslo accord, YES whether you admit it or not, Hamas and the extremists killed it. They've killed Rabin on one side and on the other side Hamas delivered the death blow with their campaign of suicide bombings that brought Netanyahu to power. Again anything not factual in what I said ?

But in order to comprehend what I'm saying, you'd have to lower your intellectual defenses. As I stated earlier, we know Israel is the agressor, my contention is that Hamas and the islamist mindset hasn't helped. They've played into Israel's hand.
By the way, the same chess game is being played with Hezbollah in Lebanon, the hawks are using Hezbollah to isolate Lebanon.
They'll probably keep provoking Hezbollah until they radicalize them even further. Watch it and you'll see.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2006 12:14 by chelhman.

salam alaykum

Quote
About the Oslo accord, YES whether you admit it or not, Hamas and the extremists killed it. They've killed Rabin on one side and on the other side Hamas delivered the death blow with their campaign of suicide bombings that brought Netanyahu to power. Again anything not factual in what I said ?

i understand HAMAS position which is not going to negotiation to please any one otherwise they will be called terrorist since they know already that israel is not willing to give back the palestinian land .hamas is ready to go for negotiation if for sure they will get their right which not less than 1967 territories and Jerusalem is the capital.

the other hand i don t agree whit them when it comes to the tools that kills innocents , the painful thing we are not in good position to convince them to give up that why becoz we are talking to a dead people only the physical body isalive ,they have been suffering for so long ,they have no hope for tomorrow i am just afraid to talk to them to explain whatever ....the soul is dead.

Shelhman,
Pretty soon you will get a call from haaretz news paper offering you a Job, you sound just like them. I read some of your post, and you are unlashing your resentment at anything that it called Islam or just tented with Islam.
you are exactly where Israeli want all Arabs and Muslims to be, a way from each other, Palestine was Muslim issues and they pushed and brain washed until they mad it more of an Arab issue, now I can say congratulation shelhman your actually a head of the Israelis think tank “it just a mater of territorial issue and it is exclusively a Palestinians issue”, wasn’t the Arabs who asked the Palestinians to leave Palestine because they want to fight Israel and get back all Palestine?

You haven’t answered my question do you know of any nation got liberated from occupation with out fighting for it?
I Don’t want to make an issue of this but I just want you to correct your info and please do some math, what is 6.5% of 9 millions

Quote
chelhman

Quote

2) million of Christians? How did you come up with that figure? 100’s now become millions? And just to let you know there voice is heard load and clear more then the Muslims anyway, no worries about them.

The figure I gave you is accurate, there's about 1 million christian Palestinians, 30 % only remain in the territories, the rest are within the Palestinian diaspora, they've produced great people like Hanane Ashrawi or Edward Saïd.
However, there hasn't been a census for a while,
[www.al-bushra.org] the figures have probably varied but they constitute about 10 % of the population.

[en.wikipedia.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]

Quote

3)
~ 500,000 becaming millions?

[www.al-bushra.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2006 03:20 by baba123.

You may all want to see this article,

[www.cnn.com]

and if you have little time ths is an interesting one, too.
[www.nytimes.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2006 09:53 by Almot.

Quote

baba123
Shelhman,
Pretty soon you will get a call from haaretz news paper offering you a Job, you sound just like them. I read some of your post, and you are unlashing your resentment at anything that it called Islam or just tented with Islam.
you are exactly where Israeli want all Arabs and Muslims to be, a way from each other, Palestine was Muslim issues and they pushed and brain washed until they mad it more of an Arab issue, now I can say congratulation shelhman your actually a head of the Israelis think tank “it just a mater of territorial issue and it is exclusively a Palestinians issue”, wasn’t the Arabs who asked the Palestinians to leave Palestine because they want to fight Israel and get back all Palestine?

You haven’t answered my question do you know of any nation got liberated from occupation with out fighting for it?

There we go again, "us and them", I have a nuanced opinion then I MUST BE one of them.

This mentality is killing us.
I'm saying this is not a religious matter but you're convinced it is, that's why you're accusing me of being anti-islam.

Let's assume for a second that you're right, then you're symptomatic of everything that is wrong with muslims right now. Since you relate the palestinian issue to islam therefore it's off limits to criticism, we have to be cheerleaders, no room for self-criticism.
Hamas in their actions, are violating our faith's basic message, but we can't touch them because it is stamped "islam", so it gets immunity.
If that's the case then we'll still be having this conversation, and others like it, on any subject, as long as anyone is smart enough to stamp "islam" on his cause, he can get away with anything.

Well, I don't think the palestinian issue is related to islam, I don't think Hamas is immune from criticism and while we're at it, I don't think islam should be off limits to self-criticism, we have a duty to criticize, we have a duty to reform.
We're so busy fending off imaginary attacks, we've forgotten to look inwards.

To answer your question :

Fighting is every people's right. But when you're facing the most powerful and sophisticated army in the region aided by the most powerful nation on the planet, then unless you're suicidal, you don't have much of a choice.

The options are limited. You need help, you need good will, you need support, but when you're airing theatralized videos of young men and now women reading their last message before going to blow themselves up, you're cutting yourself off from valuable support and good will from civil societies all over the world.
No one, no politician, no NGO, no movie star, no intellectual wants to be associated with "terrorists". You, and some people in arab countries, might see them as "resistants" but perception is truth nowadays, Hamas has been branded and scares off support.

The palestinians have never been so isolated. So what now ?
The intifada was a people's movement, suicide bombings are a whole different matter, they're insane as a concept and unproductive as a tactic. But somehow saying that, is not allowed because the leaders of Hamas are cloaked in islam.

You brought Haaretz into the frey, ok...
Keep seeing me as a zionist if that conforts your delusion but as unpopular as what I'm saying might seem to you, everything I have stated are facts, prove me wrong, show me what islam has to do with this.
Jerusalem ? all three monotheistic faiths have a vested interest in that city, including ours, if this was a religious matter why aren't christian countries up in arms ? why aren't they sending their soldiers down there ? After all Palestinians are christians as well.
So why ?

I don't know the solution, we're just analysing here, all I know is that violence is not a option with these odds, it's irrational to think otherwise.
Palestinians need leaders who can think ahead, way ahead, they need to reach out to the silent majority in Israel tired of the fear, people of good will, silenced by the Hamas/hawks unnatural alliance, people we saw on the streets when Rabin was killed.

It's a start, as for the rest... they'll BOTH figure it out as they go along.

Hi Almot,

I've read the CNN article, couldn't get the NYtimes, it requires subscription.
Hamas is making a gesture but I'm pessimistic and it won't be their fault this time, the current israeli governement does not want peace, it's a coalition of the worst israeli politics can produce.
This peace conference looks like stalling for something, I don't know what but it's obvious they're just stalling.

What should be interesting is the change of mood now that the neocons in the US and in Tel Aviv are on their way out. Let's see if it'll produce anything.
It was said that the Lebanon war was the direct influence of the neocons in Tel Aviv for instance.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2006 05:17 by chelhman.

It was taking too long to have some Mosad-paid person to intervene!

Who are you talking about? Chelhman, Almot or me?

My friend, we Arabs have this maniac attitude that consists in vilifying whoever does not agree with us, we are allergic to self-criticism. If somebody tells you the plain truth then he is paid by the Mossad or the CIA. This is nothing less than intellectual paranoia.

I always avoided this subject because it seemed like I was disturbing war mongers in their quest to exacerbate the extremes. I not only agree with Chelhman and Almot, I hope more voices will be able to voice the truth as it is, the outcome can only be better.

Quote
riffman
It was taking too long to have some Mosad-paid person to intervene!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2006 05:12 by zaki7.

well said Zaki,
here's the NYT article, a bit long but interesting enough to read:
November 13, 2006
Anatomy of an Alliance
In New Middle East, Tests for an Old Friendship
By STEVEN ERLANGER
JERUSALEM, Nov. 12 — Even before the American elections, a certain wariness had crept into the intimate friendship between Israel and the United States. The summer war in Lebanon produced questions in Washington about the competence of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. In Jerusalem, there were worries about the American approach to Iran and the Palestinians.

In theory, the two countries share a vision for a modern Middle East in which a thriving Israel would be accepted by its neighbors. But the Israelis balk at President Bush’s embrace of regional change through promotion of Arab democracy. They view his effort as naïve and counterproductive, because it brings Islamists and Iranian clients to power.

Although Israel was grateful to see Saddam Hussein overthrown, officials here have long focused on what they consider a much bigger concern: preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. They say the American policies that have empowered Iranian-backed militias in Iraq have been counterproductive to Israel’s interests.

That concern is bound to be the subtext when Mr. Olmert goes to the White House on Monday. And now the Democratic sweep has created fresh concerns that the administration, whose muscular approach to Islamist terrorism and Iran has brought comfort here, will turn more to accommodation and compromise. President Bush has chosen as his next secretary of defense Robert M. Gates, who in the past has been highly critical of the administration’s refusal to engage in dialogue with Iran.

The defeat for the party of Mr. Bush, “possibly the friendliest president we’ve ever had,” said Zalman Shoval, a former Israeli ambassador to Washington, “raises question marks regarding the administration’s ability to promote its diplomatic and security objectives.”

In war or peace, most Israelis say they believe they have only one true ally in the world, the United States. The relationship is extraordinarily tight, especially since 9/11 and the beginning of the campaign against terrorism.

But Israel is haunted by the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran, despite Israel’s own nuclear deterrent. Iran has called for Israel’s destruction, flouted the United Nations by continuing to enrich uranium and has just announced that it has a new longer-range missile.

“Many Israelis feel that the free world under the leadership of the U.S. is facing a similar situation to Europe in the 1930s, when they watched the rearming of the Nazi Reich,” said Yuval Steinitz, a senior member of Parliament’s foreign and defense committee. “No one could predict the global catastrophe 10 years later, and Iran may be the same.”

Mr. Bush says his stance on Iran is unchanged: he will never accept a nuclear-armed Iran. Yet Israelis have been increasingly anxious about the Bush approach, seeing recently a tendency to delay confrontation through further negotiations. They worry that because of Iran’s ability to further inflame Iraq, Mr. Bush is hesitant to take any steps that could lead to confrontation. And Israelis are worried about what concessions an administration seeking to build an anti-Iran alliance in the Arab world might ask of them on the Palestinian question in order to bolster that alliance.

Both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories are armed, radical, Iranian-backed Islamic groups sworn to Israel’s destruction. And each has been empowered and legitimized by elections that Mr. Bush demanded, and Israel’s summer war involved fighting both of them.

Lebanon: The Pressures of War

All these strains were heightened by the war against Hezbollah, set off by the capture of two Israeli soldiers, and the global criticism of Israeli tactics in Lebanon.

Halfway into the war, on July 30, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Jerusalem, telling the Israeli defense minister, Amir Peretz, of her concern about killing civilians. Mr. Peretz listened but did not reveal what he knew: eight hours earlier Israel had killed more than two dozen of them in the village of Qana.

When a senior aide told her of wrenching television coverage of the deaths, Ms. Rice cut the meeting short and accepted a Lebanese request that she not travel next to Beirut, as planned, with a draft cease-fire resolution. She got Israel to accept a 48-hour cessation of most airstrikes which, in her view, was broken within hours.

Still, it was two more weeks before Ms. Rice, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney suggested to the Israelis that the war was starting to undermine Israel’s long-term interests. Even then, Mr. Bush and his aides did not demand a cessation of hostilities, waiting instead for the Israelis to reach the same conclusion.

Asked in a recent interview with The New York Times whether the administration had to get the Israelis to stop their attacks, Ms. Rice said no. “I wasn’t going to give the Israelis military advice,” she said, adding that she “had a lot of sympathy for what the Israelis were dealing with.”

It was another example of Washington’s intimate relationship and patience with Israel.

The reluctance to confront is mutual, said Yossi Alpher, a former negotiator who runs a Web site promoting Israeli-Palestinian Internet dialogue, bitterlemons.com. “I’d love Israeli leaders to sit down with Bush for a mutual soul-searching, and say, ‘We’re concerned, dear Mr. President, that your plans are hurting us, that part of the audacity of the radical Islamists we fight comes from your decision to enfranchise them,’ ” he said. “But we don’t dare to.”

Israel, he noted, has been highly skeptical of the idea of pushing democracy among Arab nations where the only organized opposition parties are linked to militants. It is a lot safer from Israel’s perspective to deal with stable, if autocratic, states like Jordan and Egypt.

When Ms. Rice “looked at the damage in Beirut and said these are ‘the birth pangs of the new Middle East,’ I cringed, because I thought the Bush people had learned their lesson after the election of Hamas,” Mr. Alpher said. “For Israel to manage, we need more of the old Middle East, not the new Middle East.”

Those anxieties persist despite Mr. Bush’s fidelity. As the Lebanon war showed, Mr. Bush has been reluctant to impose the kinds of restraints on Israel that his father employed, to press talks with the Palestinians in the style of Bill Clinton or even to push Israel to ease up on Palestinian travel.

That has pleased many of Israel’s supporters, including those among an increasingly vocal, fiercely pro-Israel community of evangelicals, who visited the White House at least once during the Lebanon war to voice support for allowing the air attacks on Hezbollah to continue unabated.

As President Bush prepares to meet Prime Minister Olmert, the man the White House backed while privately coming to doubt his political and military judgment, there are questions in Israel and Washington about how the two will deal with potential disagreements over Iran and the Palestinians.

The Threat of a Nuclear Iran


Mr. Bush’s aides say the fighting in Lebanon in July and August was more important than it appeared because of Hezbollah’s relationship with Iran.

“We saw the conflict this summer as much more than just a border war between Israel and Hezbollah,” said R. Nicholas Burns, under secretary of state for political affairs. “It was clear from the very beginning of this conflict that Iran was behind Hezbollah, providing the financing and the long-range rockets that held the Israelis hostage.”

“Israel and the United States, as well as many of the Arab states, see the same threat we do,” he continued, “an Iran that is expanding its influence and fundamentally trying to destabilize the Middle East through its proxies.”

But Israelis worry that Mr. Bush may dither over Iran. “Our big worry is that they will wait too long to act, after it is too late to stop the Iranians from gaining the knowledge to build a bomb,” said one senior Israeli official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, after long, recent discussions with top Bush administration officials. “Are they committed to keeping the Iranians from actually building a weapon? I think so. Are they committed to keeping them from putting together all the parts they need? I’m not sure.”

The Israelis say Washington was disappointed in their performance against Hezbollah. They are right: inside the White House, said one senior official there, who agreed to speak about internal deliberations on condition of anonymity, “Bush and Cheney believed that this would be another Six-Day War, or on the outside, two weeks.”

“They believed it because that’s what the Israelis said,” the official said.

For Israelis, this failure to deliver poses a risk that cannot be ignored, especially when Iran is on the table.

“Most people in Israel are not satisfied by our performance in Lebanon,” said Moshe Arens, a former defense minister, foreign minister and ambassador to Washington. “So if Israel enjoys this preferred position as an ally of the U.S. and a valuable ally in the fight against terrorism and now is shown to be not that effective and maybe not even that valuable, and to some extent even disappointing, that could put something of a damper on what’s happening. My guess is that’s probably temporary, but I think we’re going through the phase.”

Itamar Rabinovich, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States who is president of Tel Aviv University, said that Israelis, no matter their appreciation for American support, could not hand over the problem of Iran to Washington. He said: “Can we rely on the United States alone and say we abdicate our responsibility for dealing with the matter, and let the United States do what it wants? No, by no means.”

In an indication of Israel’s concern, in late October Mr. Olmert brought a far-right party dominated by Russian immigrants into his weakened coalition, and picked its controversial leader, Avigdor Lieberman, as a deputy prime minister and strategic threats minister, with the task of “strategizing” on Iran.

Earlier in October, in Moscow, Mr. Olmert said that “Israel can never abide this type of situation” where “a country like Iran has nonconventional potential.” He added, “When the head of a country says he wants to destroy us, it does not sound like an empty declaration, but something we must prepare to prevent through all acceptable and possible ways.”

Diverging Interests?

Senior Israeli officials know that Mr. Bush has a lot on his plate: a nuclear North Korea, a Democratic Congress, a weak approval rating and the bleeding of American power in Iraq. To win sanctions against Iran, he needs the support of Europe, Russia and China, all very critical of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians.

To enforce sanctions, particularly those blocking shipments of nuclear- or missile-related technology, he would need the cooperation of Iran’s Arab neighbors. So Israel has another worry: that Mr. Bush will try to build an anti-Iran coalition by pressuring Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians.

In September, Israel was abuzz over a speech by an American official that got little coverage in the American news media. Philip D. Zelikow, counselor to Ms. Rice, had addressed the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, considered sympathetic to Israel’s interests, on “Building Security in the Broader Middle East.”

Mr. Zelikow, in the last of 10 points, suggested that to build a coalition to deal with Iran, the United States needed to make progress on solving the Arab-Israeli dispute.

“For the Arab moderates and for the Europeans, some sense of progress and momentum on the Arab-Israeli dispute is just a sine qua non for their ability to cooperate actively with the United States on a lot of other things that we care about,” he said.

The message seemed perfectly clear to Israelis: the Bush administration would demand Israeli concessions on the Palestinian issue to hold together an American-led coalition on Iran. American officials were quick to insist that there was no change in American policy, and that Mr. Zelikow was speaking on his own.

But Mr. Zelikow’s close ties to Ms. Rice are well known, and the furor over his comments was amplified because they appeared to some to echo criticisms published in March in The London Review of Books by two American scholars, John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

They suggested that from the White House to Capitol Hill, Israel’s interests have been confused with America’s, that Israel is more of a security burden than an asset and that the “Israel lobby” in America, including Jewish policy makers, have an undue influence over American foreign policy. In late August, appearing in front of an Islamic group in Washington, Mr. Mearsheimer extended the argument to say that American support of the war in Lebanon had been another example of Israeli interests trumping American ones.

The essay argued that without the Israel lobby the United States would not have gone to war in Iraq and implied that the same forces could drag the United States into another military confrontation on Israel’s behalf, with Iran. It urged more American pressure to solve the Palestinian question as the best cure for regional instability.

Some Israelis worried that the implicit charge of dual loyalty would be underlined by the trial of two former officials of the prominent pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, on charges of receiving classified information about Iran and other issues from a Defense Department official and passing it on to a journalist and an Israeli diplomat. The trial is scheduled to begin early next year.

Mr. Walt, in an interview, argued that the first President Bush had worked to restrain Israel, and that Mr. Clinton worked to attain diplomatic concessions to achieve a peace. But when this Bush administration took office, “they first had no use for the Mideast, then took a more balanced position, calling for a two-state solution, and then were completely won over by Israel’s argument that it is simply fighting terrorism.”

Former Israeli ambassadors to Washington like Mr. Rabinovich, Mr. Arens and Mr. Shoval all scoff at the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis, which echoes criticisms of Jewish influence as far back as the presidency of Harry S. Truman.

But given the intensifying debate in Washington about Iran, Mr. Rabinovich said, the essay is “disturbing,” as are the echoes of part of the argument in Mr. Zelikow’s speech. Mr. Arens said that 9/11 created “an objective reality” of an antiterrorism coalition, led by President Bush, in which Israel is a crucial member. Mr. Bush is seen here as less interested in being an honest broker than in supporting Israel as a crucial strategic partner in the region.

The Iran confrontation, Mr. Arens said, will bolster that partnership. “The president said that he sees a clear and present danger with Iran arming itself with nuclear weapons and it’s obvious that this is a clear and present danger for the state of Israel,” he said. “Although a small country, we are not a minor party. When people talk about the possibility of a military option, what are they talking about? The U.S. or maybe Israel to take that move, not the U.S. or Germany or France.”

He acknowledged, however, “That inevitably will lead people who are critical of the position of the president to be critical of Israel, because we are seen as a partner in this campaign, and it is not a very big step to say that Israel is leading the U.S., or misleading the U.S., by the nose in this thing.”

The Post-Bush World

No Israeli knows if the next American president will be as tough on Iran or as loyal to Israel as Mr. Bush. If Mr. Bush does not act, Israelis say, by the time the next president takes office, in January 2009, Iran will be well on its way to a bomb, and Washington may not back Israeli responses.

Gidi Grinstein, a former Israeli negotiator who runs an independent policy center, the Reut Institute, says Israel and the United States share a larger goal on Iran but have “tension among their different objectives,” as indicated by Mr. Zelikow.

The Iran debate in Washington is serious but unfinished, Mr. Grinstein said, noting the divisions between those who argue that a nuclear-armed Iran can be contained and those who believe that Iran must not get the technology to build a bomb, much less the weapon itself.

Mr. Alpher, the former Israeli negotiator, is concerned that if Mr. Bush ultimately negotiates with Iran, “we need to ensure that the United States doesn’t sell us down the river.” It is fine for Israel to say that Iran is the world’s problem, he said. “But if the world solves it diplomatically,” he added, “will it be at our expense?”

The world looks different to nearly all Israelis across the political spectrum than it does to people in most other countries. “Unlike Bush, an Israeli leader looks at Iran through the prism of the Holocaust and his responsibility to the ongoing existence of the Jewish people,” Mr. Alpher said. “It may sound pompous, but at the end of the day it matters, and so we may be willing to do the strangest things.”

Gadi Baltiansky, a former Israeli diplomat in Washington and director of the Geneva Initiative, which promotes Israeli-Palestinian peace, argues that, given the stakes, Israel also pays a price for American policy, which can go against Israeli interests.

“The dilemma is that even this president, a true friend of Israel, after 9/11 divided the world into good guys and bad guys, and we’re one of the good guys, so fine,” he said. “Syria is a bad guy. But what serves Israel’s interests? Talking to them may be bad for the U.S., but not necessarily bad for us. But whether it’s Hamas participating in elections or Syria, it’s hard for us to say no to the United States.”

What matters most to Israel, officials here in Jerusalem say, is the level of support it receives from ordinary Americans, no matter their political party or religion. Despite the anxieties here over Lebanon, Iran and academic essays, opinion polls show that Americans are solidly in support of Israel, with new support coming from evangelical Christians.

Mr. Arens, the former defense minister, said of the Europeans: “They don’t like us — what can we do? What else is new? We would like to be liked by everyone, of course, but it’s the relationship with the United States that really matters.”

David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Washington.

Hi again Almot,

The Walt-Mearsheimer thesis mentioned in this article was debated, I already posted it here somewhere but here's a link below. It's a bit long but very interesting and uncharacteriscally open for the US scene when it comes to the Israeli lobby.


One little detail that pricked my attention, at the end of the NYtimes article it says this :


"What matters most to Israel, officials here in Jerusalem say..."

That's what I said in an earlier post, Israelis keep slipping wherever and whenever they can, that Jerusalem is their capital, if you don't correct them, in 20 years it'll become self-evident, it'll slowly be engraved in people's memory subliminally. Just as it's been done with the Palestinian conflict being a religious issue on our side.

[www.scribemedia.org]

Zaki,
Neither you, nor chelhman nor Almot.
so guess who's left?

Zionists??

Quote
riffman
Zaki,
Neither you, nor chelhman nor Almot.
so guess who's left?

Well, that leaves our new guest. But I'd say, in our beautiful moroccan tradition, mar7ba and he's free to say what he wants, we're not exactly morons, so we'll counter-argue at every turn.
Besides a little intellectual gymnastics is a never bad thing.

funny how history plays tricks, King Hassan 2 had once had the idea to give shelter to all jews... but then arab coutries preferred to give them part of palestine... you imagine what would have happened... now use your imagination.

Ops I forgot a little detail... no offence but I ain't Arab, I'm amazigh LOL

The Israelnumber1 dude is participating just to provoke. I don't really worry about his arguments, they're too weak.

salam alaykum


chelhman

Quote
That's what I said in an earlier post, Israelis keep slipping wherever and whenever they can, that Jerusalem is their capital, if you don't correct them, in 20 years it'll become self-evident, it'll slowly be engraved in people's memory subliminally. Just as it's been done with the Palestinian conflict being a religious issue on our side.

How you will correct them , let me guess, knock at their door and ask for favour then wait that Santa Claus while you celebrating Christmas to deliver the gift. Ohm that is so sweet.


We are not picking on your argument for sake to contradict and stop labeling us (Arabs) as we don t have a notion of self critics.

Quote

sarah70
We are not picking on your argument for sake to contradict and stop labeling us (Arabs) as we don t have a notion of self critics.

Who's "us" ? You've obviously decided to deprive me of my morrocan passport. 3la khatrek a lalla

Quote

---

This mentality is killing us.
I'm saying this is not a religious matter but you're convinced it is, that's why you're accusing me of being anti-islam.

---

Can you please tell me why in 1948 Jewish chose Palestine as there a promise land and not the other countries that were presented with?

Quote

---

Let's assume for a second that you're right, then you're symptomatic of everything that is wrong with muslims right now. Since you relate the palestinian issue to islam therefore it's off limits to criticism, we have to be cheerleaders, no room for self-criticism.
Hamas in their actions, are violating our faith's basic message, but we can't touch them because it is stamped "islam", so it gets immunity.

---

Did I say you can¡¦t criticize Hamass or any other group?
All I said is you are hammering anything called Islam or Muslims. I notice that you have new friend siding with you on this issue ¡§ your beloved friend isrealnumber1¡¨, congratulations you are wining some good Israeli hearts, you proved me wrong on that ƒº

Quote

---

Well, I don't think the palestinian issue is related to islam, I don't think Hamas is immune from criticism and while we're at it, I don't think islam should be off limits to self-criticism, we have a duty to criticize, we have a duty to reform.
We're so busy fending off imaginary attacks, we've forgotten to look inwards.

---

still disagree with you it is related to religion , just to make you happy it is no Islam issue it is Jewish issue , otherwise why all the Jews are moving there and take lands from the Palestinians "settlements, ring the bell"

Who said Islam is off limit, this just tell me you are not well knowledgeable or well informed about your religion ¡§if it is your religion¡¨ Islam always welcome constructive criticism but must addressed to the true scholars and not the phony ones ¡¨paid by GOV ¡§ or to less educated about Islam the people you must see on TV shouting .
How much do you know about Islam?
FYI, I know very little about it so I¡¦m not claiming to know all about Islam.


Quote

---

To answer your question :
Fighting is every people's right. But when you're facing the most powerful and sophisticated army in the region aided by the most powerful nation on the planet, then unless you're suicidal, you don't have much of a choice.

---

Can you tell me what did Moroccans had to fight with against a ferocious and very sophisticated army at the time when the brought the French to there knees, and left as quickly as they could.
You keep talking about negotiating, the rules of negotiation is either you have something to offer in return and the other party need it and can¡¦t live with out or you have to show your enemy that you have a force and the will to use. otherwise your on the submissive position, ¡§take orders and shut up¡¨


Quote

---

The options are limited. You need help, you need good will, you need support, but when you're airing theatralized videos of young men and now women reading their last message before going to blow themselves up, you're cutting yourself off from valuable support and good will from civil societies all over the world.
No one, no politician, no NGO, no movie star, no intellectual wants to be associated with "terrorists". You, and some people in arab countries, might see them as "resistants" but perception is truth nowadays, Hamas has been branded and scares off support.

---

Yep I see your way of talking and thinking, the exact word I hear any time I turn my TV to Fox news. All you need is a David flag waving on the corner of your post.


Quote

---

The palestinians have never been so isolated. So what now ?
The intifada was a people's movement, suicide bombings are a whole different matter, they're insane as a concept and unproductive as a tactic. But somehow saying that, is not allowed because the leaders of Hamas are cloaked in islam.

---

If Arabs/Muslims countries keep there promises, you think they would still say oh nooooo, we like to blow our self.
Haven't seen you accusing Israel for anything, I think in your way of think last week massacres was caused by hammas or maybe the enfant them selves.