General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[HoverBoarder]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

i do not claim to have all of the answers, however, the current situation is unreasonable.
i believe that if israel actually acted in good faith, and made major concessions, especially in the west bank, some of the extremists would modify their demands and expectations.

Also very reasonable, and I think you are exactly right on that as well.

I don't think Hamas's all-or-nothing approach is sustainable, and the ceasefire trends in the past have shown that they would like to have a more stable, less chaotic situation than what is going on.

I don't know how the Israeli government would be able to sell a major reduction in settlements in the West Bank and new regulations on halting Israeli construction in East Jerusalem, but if they did do that, it would go a long way towards Abbas and the Bibi finding some sort of common ground for an agreement. And if there were serious moves towards an agreement, that could provide major incentive to Hamas to moderate their stances. The new Hamas backers of Egypt and Qatar instead of the virulent Iran could also help them to moderate.

I don't think the stances from Abbas are really that radical or unachievable, and increased pressure from the Israeli left may be just what is needed to push Netanyahu into getting serious about negotiations.

Peres lauds Abbas's negotiations plea, PM rejects it

Quote:

“It is occupied territories. You can not define things as you like,” Abbas said.

Segal asked him if there was a possibility that a third intifada would break out.

Abbas answered, “No. As long as I am here in this office, there will be no third armed intifada. Never. We do not want to use force. We do not want to use terror.”

Segal asked, “Is it [Safed] Palestine for you?” Abbas answered. “Palestine, now, for me is ’67 borders with east Jerusalem as its capital. This is now and forever. This is Palestine for me. I am refuge, but I am living in Ramallah. I believe that the West Bank and Gaza are Palestine and the other part is Israel.”

Livni joins Olmert's attack on Netanyahu over criticism of Abbas

Quote:

"These are the statements we heard in the negotiating room," Livni told Channel 2. "It is unfortunate that for four years, the Israeli government is telling the public that there is no partner for peace… for four years there have been no trust between the two sides. In order to enter negotiations, there needs to be trust. Instead, the foreign minister is leading a campaign to oust Abu Mazen."

"Whoever is interested in preserving a secure Jewish and democratic state, should embrace this interview," Livni said. "But peace has turned into a dirty word - whoever talks of an agreement is now considered a delusional leftist."

Livni has been mulling the possibility of returning to politics, possibly as part of a new party headed by Olmert. "We must work together to bring down Netanyahu," Livni told Channel 2.

Earlier Sunday, Olmert accused Netanyahu of harming Israel's interests and strengthening Hamas.



Olmert said that Netanyahu is responsible for the stalled negotiations with the Palestinians and accused the prime minister of "trying to prove to the Israeli public that there is no partner on the Palestinian side."

[HoverBoarder]

Originally Posted by Virus

History shows things get worse the more Israeli concessions are made.

In Gaza definitely, but that is not always the case. The normalization of relations between Israel and Jordan have been very good for both countries.

[Virus]

Name a concession that brought an improvement.

Edit: that's addressed to Bikerdruid.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

I am not an Iranian citizen, so not responsible of what Ahmadinejad says.
But I am responsible of what Western leaders says, if I live in the West

John, I hate to break it to you, but you are not responsible for what GW Bush says, or said, nor what Tony Blair said, or says, nor what Angela Merkel now says, nor what Barack Obama says.

Unless you are seriously delusional.

You are responsible for your position and your opinions.

But maybe I have you all wrong, and you are noble, wishing to take upon your shoulders all of what is wrong with the west world.

Put another way: get over yourself.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Virus

Name a concession that brought an improvement.

Edit: that's addressed to Bikerdruid.

you said, "History shows things get worse the more Israeli concessions are made."
i disputed that.

the burden of proof is on you.
you made a sweeping claim.
prove it.

[Virus]

Withdrawl from Gaza.

Putting the PLO in power.

[bit_pattern]

Originally Posted by Virus

Withdrawl from Gaza.

The PA fully opposed the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, that's not a "concession", it was a means to weaken the Palestinian leadership by giving Hamas free reign over the territory. Oh, how noble

Quote:

Putting the PLO in power.

Again, not s concession. No one but the PLO wanted the PLO in power.

So the two best examples of Israeli "concessions" you can come up with are actually examples of Israel bypassing more moderate leaders in favour of empowering terrorists?

Cool narrative, bro

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

The PA fully opposed the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, that's not a "concession", it was a means to weaken the Palestinian leadership by giving Hamas free reign over the territory. Oh, how noble



Again, not s concession. No one but the PLO wanted the PLO in power.

So the two best examples of Israeli "concessions" you can come up with are actually examples of Israel bypassing more moderate leaders in favour of empowering terrorists?

Cool narrative, bro

facts are bothersome things, eh?

[L.Y.S.]

Originally Posted by Virus

Withdrawl from Gaza.

Putting the PLO in power.

Does this constitute proof?

[Virus]

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

The PA fully opposed the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, that's not a "concession", it was a means to weaken the Palestinian leadership by giving Hamas free reign over the territory.

Damn those Jews for occupying Gaza. And damn those Jews for not occupying Gaza!

[bit_pattern]

Originally Posted by Virus

Damn those Jews for occupying Gaza. And damn those Jews for not occupying Gaza!

I don't think you can constitute a strategic shift from troops on the ground to a siege and near total embargo as "not occupying". Its just a change of strategy.

[Doctor Evil]

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

I don't think you can constitute a strategic shift from troops on the ground to a siege and near total embargo as "not occupying". Its just a change of strategy.

This is rubbish. There is a legal meaning to the term occupation in international law, and it requires boots on the ground. Being an occupier comes with responsibilities, such as managing civilian life, which again need people on the ground.

A naval siege, or other trade restrictions, are not an occupation. It is true that a lot of people try to redefine the term occupation so that they could retrofit it to the situation in Gaza. The motivation for that is political. There is no serious attempt to form a new definition of occupation and to apply it consistently. (For instance, Turkey restricts its trade with Syria, and prevents weapons from being delivered. Are you ready to say that Turkey occupies Syria?)

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Doctor Evil

This is rubbish. There is a legal meaning to the term occupation in international law, and it requires boots on the ground. Being an occupier comes with responsibilities, such as managing civilian life, which again need people on the ground.

A naval siege is simply, or other trade restrictions are not an occupation. It is true that a lot of people try to redefine the term occupation so that they could retrofit it to the situation in Gaza. The motivation for that is political. There is no serious attempt to form a new definition of occupation and to apply it consistently. (For instance, Turkey restricts its trade with Syria, and prevents weapons from being delivered. Are you ready to say that Turkey occupies Syria?)

You're applying clear, consistent thinking and well established facts on the ground to reply to arguments such as "**** Israel!" and "Zionists think they're better than everybody else!!" Two different languages Doc.

[bit_pattern]

Originally Posted by Doctor Evil

This is rubbish. There is a legal meaning to the term occupation in international law, and it requires boots on the ground. Being an occupier comes with responsibilities, such as managing civilian life, which again need people on the ground.

Right, right. Of course. I was mistaken to say they are still occupying Gaza. They switched from occupation to siege, achieving the same strategic ends with fewer humanitarian responsibilities! And that's a "concession" ... supposedly

[Doctor Evil]

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

Right, right. Of course. I was mistaken to say they are still occupying Gaza. They switched from occupation to siege, achieving the same strategic ends with fewer humanitarian responsibilities! And that's a "concession" ... supposedly

I do not know where you get your ideas from, but this argument has no to the relevant events. I am busy so I will keep this short:

* There was no switch from occupation to siege. The Gaza strip was handed to the Palestinian Authority. While this was not part of any official agreement, the hope was that the self rule would be used for economical growth.

* The naval embargo was instituted later, when Hamas movement seized the security control from the PA by force. It was an attempt to prevent them from bringing weapons into the Gaza strip.

Finally, I am curious. What do you think are Israel strategic ends here? And how do you think they are equally achieved by an occupation and by a naval blockade?

[HoverBoarder]

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

Right, right. Of course. I was mistaken to say they are still occupying Gaza. They switched from occupation to siege, achieving the same strategic ends with fewer humanitarian responsibilities! And that's a "concession" ... supposedly

Don't you think that it is relevant to include the point that the only reason that there is a blockade of Gaza in the first place is because the government there keeps attacking Israel?

Especially since not attacking Israeli homes with hundreds of rockets and not shooting RPGs at school buses as is the 'in' trend in the West Bank vs. Gaza provides a direct example of how major blockades like in Gaza could easily be lifted if their violent attacks stopped.

[John Mekki]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

John, I hate to break it to you, but you are not responsible for what GW Bush says, or said, nor what Tony Blair said, or says, nor what Angela Merkel now says, nor what Barack Obama says.

If I voted for them, or if I did not made clear my position and did not do my best to express it to my fellow citizens, I am

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

You are responsible for your position and your opinions.

And for my behaviour.
And for the fact if I protest or not when my government does bad things (e.g. war crimes)
And for who I vote.

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

But maybe I have you all wrong, and you are noble, wishing to take upon your shoulders all of what is wrong with the west world.

I am also responsible of what my government does and the crimes it commits, if I do not do enough to stop it.

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Put another way: get over yourself.

[Doctor Evil]

Breaking news. Israel has just killed the head of the armed wing of Hamas, Ahmed Jabari. This follows a weak of fighting in the Gaza area. The current round has started when armed groups from Gaza have attacked an Israeli border patrol with an anti tank missile. Jabari was a 'big fish', so expect more fighting to follow.

[Safe-Keeper]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/14...y-wing-killed/

As far as I understand things so far: in retaliation for over 100 missiles fired into Israeli territory over the past few days, Israel today struck several Palestinian targets, killing the leader of HAMAS' military wing and taking out several missile launchers. The IDF cite the leader's "years of terrorism" as their rationale for killing him, and hope this will reduce the number of missile attacks, but HAMAS has started incitements of violence (in effect asking for revenge for Israel's retaliatory strike, "I don't care if we started it"-style) and has declared "open war" on Israel.

Comments on this? I'm glad to see a terrorist put out of Israel's misery, but how do you think the situation will go from here? Was this a wise or reckless move on Israel's part? Discuss.

[Giz]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/14...y-wing-killed/

As far as I understand things so far: in retaliation for over 100 missiles fired into Israeli territory over the past few days, Israel today struck several Palestinian targets, killing the leader of HAMAS' military wing and taking out several missile launchers. The IDF cite the leader's "years of terrorism" as their rationale for killing him, and hope this will reduce the number of missile attacks, but HAMAS has started incitements of violence (in effect asking for revenge for Israel's retaliatory strike, "I don't care if we started it"-style) and has declared "open war" on Israel.

Comments on this? I'm glad to see a terrorist put out of Israel's misery, but how do you think the situation will go from here? Was this a wise or reckless move on Israel's part? Discuss.

Absolutely justified on the part of the IDF.

If Palestinians won't stop each other from launching missles into Israel then the Israelis will have to stop them.

[theprestige]

"Open war" seems like a laughably implausible escalation choice on the part of HAMAS.

Obviously they don't mean to engage in decisive battle, measuring the full strength of their military against the full strength of the Israeli military.

Israel already has robust (though not perfect) counter-terrorism measures in place. It's hard to imagine how many more suicide bombers, etc. they can force through the Israeli-controlled choke points. It's also hard to imagine how much they can increase their number and tempo of attacks, without the increase in activity drawing the attention and retribution of the Israelis (who are no doubt well alert for such activity).

And one wonders just how much resources HAMAS really has available--manpower, weapons, etc. An increase in operations will probably mean in an increase in supplies used, and an increase in casualties sustained. They might make things hotter than usual for Israel, for a brief period, but find themselves smashed and spent in a short time.

If Israel thinks their defensive measures already in place can withstand an increased number and tempo of terrorist attacks, this probably wasn't a reckless move at all.

HAMAS, for their part, probably intends to carry on about as much as before, and their rhetoric about "open war", etc., is mainly propaganda to draw in new recruits and donations to replace the resources lost to Israel in this strike.

I wonder also what effect decapitation will have on HAMAS. Do they have another leader ready to step into his place? If so, how experienced and established is he? Will his on-the-job training happen fast enough to keep HAMAS at its current operational quality, or has Israel degraded HAMAS' operational quality for a time? And if they don't have a replacement already groomed and anointed, what benefits might accrue to Israel from HAMAS entering a protracted period of internal bickering as a new (and probably inferior) leader is chosen?

[bigjelmapro]

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

The PA fully opposed the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, that's not a "concession", it was a means to weaken the Palestinian leadership by giving Hamas free reign over the territory. Oh, how noble

Yes, and Israel supposedly still supports Hamas over the PA.

Gaza was a cluster-frak light version of Lebanon.

Or would you have the PA enforce their losing grip over Gaza? Not that knowledgeable over the losing support of the PA over Hamas in Gaza eh?

Quote:

Again, not s concession. No one but the PLO wanted the PLO in power.

How is this not a concession? What does Israel have to do with the PA's interests in Gaza?

Quote:

So the two best examples of Israeli "concessions" you can come up with are actually examples of Israel bypassing more moderate leaders in favour of empowering terrorists?

Cool narrative, bro

Still a concession. These alleged "moderates" (actually worth the quotes, since these people in reality are not moderate) and their loss of power in an already losing battle in Gaza (unless you now support an authoritarian and corrupt regime over a purely terrorist one) doesn't negate the concept of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza as an actual concession.....

[bigjelmapro]

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

I don't think you can constitute a strategic shift from troops on the ground to a siege and near total embargo as "not occupying". Its just a change of strategy.

So now an embargo is occupation? What kind of strange dictionary do you go by?

[bigjelmapro]

Originally Posted by Doctor Evil

Breaking news. Israel has just killed the head of the armed wing of Hamas, Ahmed Jabari. This follows a weak of fighting in the Gaza area. The current round has started when armed groups from Gaza have attacked an Israeli border patrol with an anti tank missile. Jabari was a 'big fish', so expect more fighting to follow.

Guess Jabari and Al Attar didn't have time to a local hospital and hide behind their slew of civilians.

[HoverBoarder]

Originally Posted by Doctor Evil

Breaking news. Israel has just killed the head of the armed wing of Hamas, Ahmed Jabari. This follows a weak of fighting in the Gaza area. The current round has started when armed groups from Gaza have attacked an Israeli border patrol with an anti tank missile. Jabari was a 'big fish', so expect more fighting to follow.

That's a pretty major development.

Israel hits Hamas military leader, targets missile sites in major air assault on Gaza Strip

Quote:

Hamas police said other airstrikes hit targets in Gaza City, Khan Younis, Beit Lahiya and Rafah. Raed Atar, the head of Hamas’s Rafah Battalion, was reportedly targeted in one of those strikes. Hamas denied reports that Atar and Marwan Issa, another leading figure in the al-Qassam Brigades, had been killed. According to Channel 2 military correspondent Ronnie Daniel, some of the strikes were preemptive, targeting silos of Fajr missiles with a 70-kilometer range that could hit Tel Aviv...

IDF Spokesman Brig.-Gen. Yoav Mordechai confirmed that the strike was “part of our goal, to land serious blows on Hamas and other organizations. Jabari is the first target… We’ve only just started, and this isn’t the end of it. All of the options are open, and we will persist in our determination to continue to hit all of the [terror] organizations further down the line.”

Mordechai said that the IDF was prepping its ground troops for a possible incursion into the Gaza Strip, but noted that such an operation was not necessarily going to happen, and that the IDF didn’t want to turn Operation Pillar of Defense into a second Cast Lead.

Shortly after Mordechai’s announcement, the IDF issued a call-up for reservists in the Home Front Command unit.

Lt.-Col. Avital Leibovich said that up to 20 terror sites in the Gaza Strip had been targeted. Hamas security officials said Hamas training facilities were among the targets in the Wednesday afternoon bombings...

The times of Israel had a very lenghty article on this, and a few of the comments caught my attention.

Originally Posted by comment to Israel Times article #1

And you KNOW the world media will be covering the story now - wonder if they'll allude to the rockets upon rockets upon rockets that Israel endured since the weekend?

Originally Posted by comment to Israel Times article #2

Liza, I once asked a pro-Arab individual what would be an acceptable response from Israel. I asked if firing one rocket for every rocket they fired would be ok. They said no, I said what then is an acceptable response? Their answer, negotiations. For many, the idea of our people defending themselves is unacceptable, and to them I say, foxtrot uncle charlie kilo yourself.

Furthermore, the idea that these are simple "firecrackers" blows my mind. The Grad rockets they often fire are the standard artillery rocket of the Russian Army.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by bigjelmapro

So now an embargo is occupation? What kind of strange dictionary do you go by?

pay attention.
he is not saying that an embargo is occupation...but a siege.
which it is.

[L.Y.S.]

Why doesn’t Israel just make its position clear and state that they want the entirety of the Levant at any cost? The concessions to the PLO and the PA are exactly as the statement says, concessions.

Why don’t Arabs make it clear that they wish to eliminate Jews at any cost and also take position of the Levant? Trying to work with the Israeli government can also be considered a concession.

It is clear that each group wishes to wipe the other group off the map.

[HoverBoarder]

Originally Posted by L.Y.S.

Why doesn’t Israel just make its position clear and state that they want the entirety of the Levant at any cost? The concessions to the PLO and the PA are exactly as the statement says, concessions.

Why don’t Arabs make it clear that they wish to eliminate Jews at any cost and also take position of the Levant? Trying to work with the Israeli government can also be considered a concession.

It is clear that each group wishes to wipe the other group off the map.

That's too simplified. There are too many people on both sides who do not feel that way.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by L.Y.S.

Why doesn’t Israel just make its position clear and state that they want the entirety of the Levant at any cost? The concessions to the PLO and the PA are exactly as the statement says, concessions.

Why don’t Arabs make it clear that they wish to eliminate Jews at any cost and also take position of the Levant? Trying to work with the Israeli government can also be considered a concession.

It is clear that each group wishes to wipe the other group off the map.

It's probably a mistranslation.

[HoverBoarder]

Asia Times has a very good in depth analysis of the situation.

The Levant braces for regional war

Quote:

Israel has embarked on open war preparations in the past several days, amid significant escalations of violence both in its south and in its north. On Monday, in the first such incident since the 1973 October war, Israeli tank fire destroyed part of a Syrian mortar battery which had fired shells across the border. Simultaneously over the weekend, Palestinian militants initiated an exchange which killed at least six and wounded dozens on both sides. Israeli ministers - including the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu - ominously warned of a ground operation in Gaza similar to "Operation Cast Lead" in 2008-2009.

On the one hand, a full-scale explosion may not yet be imminent. Most experts believe the Syrian fire to be errant rather than intentional, and Egypt is actively mediating a truce in Gaza. Much of Israel's posturing, on the other hand, appears to be defensive in character. Still, it is hard to avoid the sobering observation that the situation in much of the Levant today closely recalls that at the onset of several recent wars, or the conclusion that the next weeks and months will be fraught with tension and uncertainty.

In the north, the danger arguably comes from the Lebanese Shiite militant organization Hezbollah rather than from Syria proper...

The situation near Gaza is even more complicated, with numerous internal interests clashing, particularly on the Palestinian side. This raises the possibility of an accidental escalation, unwanted by any of the principal actors, which could serve as the spark to ignite the region.

"As in a Greek play, all of the sides involved are aware that a broad military campaign in Gaza may cause them great suffering and damage, but no one is able to stop the process that will apparently lead to this tragedy," wrote the respected Israeli military analyst Ron Ben-Yishai. He also revealed that Israeli military intelligence had recently estimated that there was a "high probability that we will find ourselves in a war-like situation in 2013" in either the south or the north.

Throughout the day on Monday, the Israeli air force was strangely quiet, despite over 20 rockets fired into Israel. It could be the silence before the storm, or it could be Netanyahu demonstrably giving Egypt another chance to reinstate the calm; the two scenarios are not mutually exclusive, and Israeli restraint at this stage would mean a greater international legitimacy for an operation later, should the provocations continue. By Monday evening, most Palestinian factions had agreed to a ceasefire, but missiles continued to fly sporadically.

On the Palestinian side, there are several internal considerations driving Hamas's behavior (whether or not it initiated them singlehandedly, the movement was a very active participant in the clashes)...

The violence could be an attempt by Hamas to scuttle the application - or at the very least to force Abbas to harden his tone against Israel.

Two of the articles cited by the Asia Times article are also very important in developing a more full narrative of what is going on, and what could be the likely actions in the future.

Dragged into unwanted war

One of the interesting parts about the "Dragged into unwanted war" article by Ron Ben-Yishai written three days ago was this inclusion:

Quote:

Another option is the targeted killing of Hamas leaders and the heads of other terror organizations in Gaza. The problem with such a campaign is that before it brings about calm (if at all), it will surely result in a long period of escalation

Also:
Abbas: No justification for Gaza rocket attacks


Ben-Yishahi also noted in his article written today a possible reason for why Islamic Jihad has been active in the recent attacks. Directions from Iran to do so.

IDF restores deterrence

Quote:

Islamic Jihad has recently replaced Hamas as Iran's offshoot in Gaza, and it has been equipped accordingly. Both Hamas and Islamic Jihad are in possession of Fajr rockets with a range of 75 kilometers, meaning they can reach Tel Aviv. It was also apparent that the plan to restore the army's deterrence would intensify the rocket and mortar fire on Israel.

This tactic direction from Iran would presumably be focused on taking the pressure and focus off of the failing Assad dictatorship war, as well as a way to preoccupy Israel from being able to strike the Iranian nuclear facilities, where they are largely believed to be working on developing nuclear weapons. This would also explain the build up of Hezbollah forces along the Lebanon border as noted in the Asia Times article.

[HoverBoarder]

The Asia Time article also points pretty heavily at possible Iranian involvement in the escalation:

Quote:

Hezbollah's political and military grip on Lebanon has been challenged by the weakening of the Syrian regime - a vital supply link to its main patron, Iran...

It bears noting that Iran may have a strong interest in drawing Israel into a narrower regional conflict, hoping at the very least to erode further the Jewish state's international support for a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear facilities in the spring. The United States, on the other hand, is trying to keep the lid on the tensions and to reassure Israel of continued support against the missile threat posed primarily by Hezbollah, Iran and Syria....

Iranian interference also cannot be ruled out as a trigger for the attacks. Several smaller militant organizations in the strip, particularly Islamic Jihad, are reportedly taking orders from Tehran.

[bigjelmapro]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

pay attention.
he is not saying that an embargo is occupation...but a siege.
which it is.

Been through this before as well. Not a siege either. One doesn't permit in tonnes of supplies a day to a territory one is sieging.

[dudalb]

It seems to have been a targeted strike rather then random retaliation.
IMHO, good riddence to bad garbage.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by bigjelmapro

Been through this before as well. Not a siege either. One doesn't permit in tonnes of supplies a day to a territory one is sieging.

paper and building supplies are disallowed.
and many other things...
so, they are not trying to starve them, but it is a siege, nonetheless.

[Virus]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

paper and building supplies are disallowed.
and many other things...
so, they are not trying to starve them, but it is a siege, nonetheless.

Shouldn't have shot rockets.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by HoverBoarder

The Asia Time article also points pretty heavily at possible Iranian involvement in the escalation:

The backbone of Iran's regional strategy has been to provoke, to the greatest degree possible, Israeli military action. With the thugocracy teetering on every front, it's clear the mullah's feel this is their best available tactic for short term survival and long term regional domination.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

The backbone of Iran's regional strategy has been to provoke, to the greatest degree possible, Israeli military action. With the thugocracy teetering on every front, it's clear the mullah's feel this is their best available tactic for short term survival and long term regional domination.

what utter nonsense.
it has been centuries since iran (persia) has invaded anybody.
they are not a nuclear power.
not so with israel.
israel is a rogue state, with a history of aggression and civil rights abuses, and armed to the teeth with nukes and the means of delivering them.

( i am no fan of iran's domestic policies. its treatment of women and queers is draconian.)

[Virus]

Iran is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism.

It is incredibly convenient that the anti-Semite left ignore that. Just as they will always call Israel defending itself a "war crime".

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Virus

Iran is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism.

bollocks...the usa certainly has that beat.
by a looooong shot.

[Virus]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

bollocks...the usa certainly has that beat.
by a looooong shot.

You win the BS award by a long shot.