A Solution to the Iran Situation?

[gick]

Ahmadinejad sends letter to Bush

The letter comes at a time of acute tension between the US and Iran
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has written to George W Bush proposing "new solutions" to their differences.
The letter will be sent via the Swiss Embassy which represents US interests in Iran, a government spokesman said.

Mr Ahmadinejad proposes "new solutions for getting out of international problems and current fragile situation of the world", the spokesman said.

Reports say it is the first letter from an Iranian president to a US leader since the Iranian revolution in 1979.

The spokesman, Gholam-Hossein Elham, did not say whether the letter mentioned the nuclear dispute, currently one of the major issues between Iran and the US.

The US has accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons - a charge Iran strongly denies.

Last week, the US tabled a draft resolution at the United Nations Security Council calling on Iran to suspend enrichment or face "further action".

Source

At the time of posting, details are yet to emerge, but could this be an end to the deadlock over Iran's nuclear programme?

Personally, i'm sceptical, as the US and Iran are pretty entrenched in their opinions. Could be interesting to see how this turns out...

 

[Mr-Fusion]

Last week, the US tabled a draft resolution at the United Nations Security Council calling on Iran to suspend enrichment or face "further action".

And

"May 1 (Bloomberg) -- Iran has asked United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the Security Council to take unspecified action in response to the perceived threat of a U.S. assault against its nuclear facilities.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aaiFkoAkOxjc&refer=us

What can the United Nations do to stop yet another invasion by the United States? What can the world do to stop these invaders?

 

[Element Alpha]

Here's the answer, and in that respect I must admit I wonder what was written in that letter.

The only real solution, a solution that would defuse the middle-eastern crisis entirely, is to have the leaders of the western world make a public apology.

That's right.

Then, our leaders should make a clear statement of how they would like the world to be. Some kind of 'utopia' roadmap. They should document it and present it to the leaders of the middle-east.

The middle-eastern leaders could, in reponse, make such a document as well. The focus could then be around our common points of agreements, and finding solutions for issues where we disagree.

All this in mutual respect and without childish 'who's got the bigger balls'-threaths.

And in that respect, I really wonder what's in that letter.

 

[Raziaar]

Does it include anything about "ceasing assistance of Israel so we can try to wipe the floor with them again, only to get our collective asses kicked"?

 

[Element Alpha]

Raziaar, could you be clearer? I don't understand what you ask.

 

[Raziaar]

Raziaar, could you be clearer? I don't understand what you ask.

These countries are always complaining about our assistance of Israel. Even if we stopped all the other foreign policy stuff, they'd still be hating us unless we stopped being Israel's buddy.

Why? Because they want another chance to attack Israel. Their intentions are well known and well publicized even by themselves. They just want us out of the picture so they can try something stupid like they have in the past.

So i'm always thinking to myself... bullshit. Stopping aid with Israel will not promote peace in the region, it will only further ignite the already volatile nature of it all.

So i'm just curious if they made a stupid request of 'stop aiding israel' like it'll ever be something we do.

 

[Element Alpha]

Ah, ok.

Then I don't know.

To me the israel issue is more a symptom than a cause. As in: if everything else was ok, they probably wouldn't have such strong feelings about it (although I'm not sure).

 

[Raziaar]

Ah, ok.

Then I don't know.

To me the israel issue is more a symptom than a cause. As in: if everything else was ok, they probably wouldn't have such strong feelings about it (although I'm not sure).

They've said it themselves... they won't be satisfied until Israel is wiped off the map.

 

[VictimOfScience]

Sure, this'll work. [/sarcasm]

Seriously though, I am very interested to see what exactly happens with Iran and the UN. I feel the UN's credibility has already been put to the test and it failed thanks to the US invasion of Iraq. Will this be one of the final nails in the coffin for the well-intentioned but ultimately impotent global governing body? I fear so...but time will tell.

 

[CptStern]

They've said it themselves... they won't be satisfied until Israel is wiped off the map.

extremist rhetoric ..he's a right wing ultra conservative ..they're known for heavy handed hellfire and brimstone speeches ...besides they're not stupid ..any direct strikes against Israel will lead to invasion/obliteration

 

[Raziaar]

extremist rhetoric ..he's a right wing ultra conservative ..they're known for heavy handed hellfire and brimstone speeches ...besides they're not stupid ..any direct strikes against Israel will lead to invasion/obliteration

They've attacked Israel a couple times, even using a giant coalition to do so.

What makes you think they've developed any more intelligence on the matter since then?

 

[CptStern]

They've attacked Israel a couple times, even using a giant coalition to do so.

that's like saying the US is hostile to canada because we were once at war

oh and if you're referring to the six-day war Iran wasnt involved ..and Israel was the aggressor

What makes you think they've developed any more intelligence on the matter since then?

I dont know what you're referring to here

 

[VictimOfScience]

extremist rhetoric ..he's a right wing ultra conservative ..they're known for heavy handed hellfire and brimstone speeches ...besides they're not stupid ..any direct strikes against Israel will lead to invasion/obliteration

Not to mention--HE DOESN'T CONTROL THE MILITARY!!!* As President, he manages the Executive branch of the government, but in Iran it doesn't handle military matters. The power of mobilizing the armed forces and declaring war/peace lie with Iran's Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei.

*Stern, I am not yelling at you with the caps and such--merely trying to make it known to anyone who doesn't realize this. It should calm them a little bit I hope.

 

[Element Alpha]

They've said it themselves... they won't be satisfied until Israel is wiped off the map.

To this my response is very easy and very accurate:
If you take away the momentum, there won't be any form of support.

A politician can make bold statements, it's not hard for him to do so. But it takes a lot more to actually go through with said statements. What I mean is, if all the populations' demands were satisfied, there wouldn't be an iranian soul left to support an invasion of Israel. People just want to enjoy their lives.

 

[CptStern]

Not to mention--HE DOESN'T CONTROL THE MILITARY!!!* As President, he manages the Executive branch of the government, but in Iran it doesn't handle military matters. The power of mobilizing the armed forces and declaring war/peace lie with Iran's Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei.

*Stern, I am not yelling at you with the caps and such--merely trying to make it known to anyone who doesn't realize this. It should calm them a little bit I hope.

heh not too worry ..I didnt take offense

 

[Raziaar]

that's like saying the US is hostile to canada because we were once at war

Heh. You're a broken record. Need to get you fixed up.

You've spoken of the war with canada about fifty thousand times. See, the difference is we've moved beyond that... Israel and the middle eastern countries haven't.

oh and if you're referring to the six-day war Iran wasnt involved ..and Israel was the aggressor

Maybe you should do a little research. Israel may have ultimately been the 'aggressor' by definition in the six-day war, but they had good reason. You had countries like Egypt blocking their shipping and moving troops in near their border. How does that not speak of aggression? It would be like China moving troops just offcoast of the united states, and blocking our shipping. It can be seen as an imminent act of war.

It's not like the united states moving troops down near the border of canada to assist in border patrol as extra manpower for the police... those troops were moved near the israeli border for conflict.

 

[CptStern]

Heh. You're a broken record. Need to get you fixed up.

You've spoken of the war with canada about fifty thousand times. See, the difference is we've moved beyond that... Israel and the middle eastern countries haven't.

how does that have anything to do with what you said:

"They've attacked Israel a couple times, even using a giant coalition to do so"

Maybe you should do a little research. Israel may have ultimately been the 'aggressor' by definition in the six-day war, but they had good reason. You had countries like Egypt blocking their shipping and moving troops in near their border. How does that not speak of aggression? It would be like China moving troops just offcoast of the united states, and blocking our shipping. It can be seen as an imminent act of war.

It's not like the united states moving troops down near the border of canada to assist in border patrol as extra manpower for the police... those troops were moved near the israeli border for conflict.

again how does that have anything to do withwhat you posted?

"They've attacked Israel a couple times, even using a giant coalition to do so"




seems to me that you're reading heavily between the lines ..all I'm saying is that you're wrong when you said this:

"They've attacked Israel a couple times, even using a giant coalition to do so"

seems to me that you're the one who should have done your research before posting

 

[Raziaar]

how does that have anything to do with what you said:

"They've attacked Israel a couple times, even using a giant coalition to do so"

again how does that have anything to do withwhat you posted?

"They've attacked Israel a couple times, even using a giant coalition to do so"

seems to me that you're reading heavily between the lines ..all I'm saying is that you're wrong when you said this:

"They've attacked Israel a couple times, even using a giant coalition to do so"

seems to me that you're the one who should have done your research before posting

Eh? The Yom Kippur War, dude.

How is that not accurate? Did it never happen? The middle eastern countries attacked Israel, exactly as I said, in that war.

Maybe I was wrong about 'a couple times', but that war is a definite one. And I see how it is hard for you to dispute.

Basically what I was saying is, these middle eastern countries are willing to engage war with Israel, and Iran is no different than them. Especially since they speak the same hatefulness and have the support of people like you, with your anti-israeli rhetoric. The united states is not going to just stop assisting Israel, so they can take it up the ass. Israel is like a brother to United States, and we don't let our siblings get into tangled conflict without assisting.


EDIT: Oh yeah, then there was also the war of Attrition, another aggression against Israel. yet again another middle eastern country doing it, as I said.

 

[CptStern]

Eh? The Yom Kippur War, dude.

iran wasnt involved

How is that not accurate? Did it never happen? The middle eastern countries attacked Israel, exactly as I said, in that war.

iran wasnt involved

Maybe I was wrong about 'a couple times', but that war is a definite one. And I see how it is hard for you to dispute.

no, you were wrong about the whole thing ..iran was never involved in any coaltion force at war with israel

Basically what I was saying is, these middle eastern countries are willing to engage war with Israel, and Iran is no different than them.

unfortunately history proves you wrong: iran was never involved in any wars with israel

Especially since they speak the same hatefulness and have the support of people like you, with your anti-israeli rhetoric.

yes because I've denied the holocaust and asked for the eradication of israel :upstare:

try all you want cow-man but you wont pin the "anti-semitic" label on me

 

[Raziaar]

iran wasnt involved

iran wasnt involved

no, you were wrong about the whole thing ..iran was never involved in any coaltion force at war with israel

unfortunately history proves you wrong: iran was never involved in any wars with israel

yes because I've denied the holocaust and asked for the eradication of israel :upstare:

try all you want cow-man but you wont pin the "anti-semitic" label on me

*DUDE*. Read back where I said 'THESE COUNTRIES' As in middle eastern countries.

Geez. You wouldn't think i'd have to explain myself.

Wait... here, i'll save you the 5 seconds by doing it myself.

These countries are always complaining about our assistance of Israel. Even if we stopped all the other foreign policy stuff, they'd still be hating us unless we stopped being Israel's buddy.

Why? Because they want another chance to attack Israel. Their intentions are well known and well publicized even by themselves. They just want us out of the picture so they can try something stupid like they have in the past.

So i'm always thinking to myself... bullshit. Stopping aid with Israel will not promote peace in the region, it will only further ignite the already volatile nature of it all.

So i'm just curious if they made a stupid request of 'stop aiding israel' like it'll ever be something we do.

Jesus christ dude. I wasn't talking about Iran solely. I was talking about 'these countries'. The countries that hate Israel.

 

[CptStern]

*DUDE*. Read back where I said 'THESE COUNTRIES' As in middle eastern countries.

Geez. You wouldn't think i'd have to explain myself.

where? point it out to me:

They've attacked Israel a couple times, even using a giant coalition to do so.

What makes you think they've developed any more intelligence on the matter since then?

edit:

Jesus christ dude. I wasn't talking about Iran solely. I was talking about 'these countries'. The countries that hate Israel.

I wasnt replying to that earlier post ...you're just trying to backpeddle on your mistake

 

[Raziaar]

where? point it out to me:

Read up. You're only hearing what you want to hear.

EDIT:

I wasnt replying to that earlier post ...you're just trying to backpeddle on your mistake

Backpedal? Backpedal how? THE POSTS ARE CONNECTED. Dude, you're rediculous if you're going to try to define my intent, when clearly it is different than you claim.

I've been talking about those COUNTRIES, not that COUNTRY.

So i'm not going to waste my breath if you keep doing that, since you always do it. I could say 'I hate apples, except for the green ones', and you'd endlessly go on your tirades about how I hate all apples. Even if I expressly stated except for green ones.

 

[CptStern]

you're trying to insert posts that have no relevance to what we're discussing

you said Iran attacked isreal "many times" ..and I refuted that as being untrue ..stop making this more than what it is

 

[Raziaar]

you're trying to insert posts that have no relevance to what we're discussing

you said Iran attacked isreal "many times" ..and I refuted that as being untrue ..stop making this more than what it is

No relevance to what we're discussing? It's in the same god damn topic, dude.

I didn't say Iran attacked Israel "many times". I said 'they attacked israel many times'. *THESE COUNTRIES*

LMAO. See... this is pointless.

They've attacked Israel a couple times, even using a giant coalition to do so.

What makes you think they've developed any more intelligence on the matter since then?

Where here does it say Iran? It's going on my post just a few minutes earlier about 'these countries' <rolls his eyes>

Clearly you're not looking at this thread as a whole, and just dissecting each individual post.

So if you're going to keep up that rediculousness, i'm not going to bother here. Because 'anbody' can see this thread may be about Iran, but i've been talking about a multitude of countries and their crazy demands regarding israel.

 

[CptStern]

No relevance to what we're discussing? It's in the same god damn topic, dude.

I didn't say Iran attacked Israel "many times". I said 'they attacked israel many times'. *THESE COUNTRIES*

LMAO. See... this is pointless.

jeez raziaar be a ****ing man for a change and own up to your mistake ..we were clearly talking about Ahmadinejad and Iran

Where here does it say Iran? It's going on my post just a few minutes earlier about 'these countries' <rolls his eyes>

Clearly you're not looking at this thread as a whole, and just dissecting each individual post.

this is so ****ing stupid and a waste of time:


I said this:

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1879586&postcount=10

he = Ahmadinejad

you replied this:

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1879591&postcount=11

now either you missed the "he" part or the fact that the topic is about Ahmadinejad's letter to bush

 

[Raziaar]

jeez raziaar be a ****ing man for a change and own up to your mistake ..we were clearly talking about Ahmadinejad and Iran

No... see that is where you're wrong. Look at my first ****ing post in this thread, you will CLEARLY see that I have been talking about middle eastern countries. EXPLICITLY I stated that. And i'm stating it now.

There's no mistake there. Anybody who reads this thread, can see that my subject of conversation was about the rediculous requests of these countries regarding Israel.

But you cannot see that. Your perception and comprehension is lacking. And you choose to pointlessly babble on about how i meant something clearly different than what I did.

So stop it. You're only trolling now. You're always saying how i'm twisting your words... so stop ****ing twisting mine.

 

[CptStern]

No... see that is where you're wrong. Look at my first ****ing post in this thread, you will CLEARLY see that I have been talking about middle eastern countries. EXPLICITLY I stated that. And i'm stating it now.

There's no mistake there. Anybody who reads this thread, can see that my subject of conversation was about the rediculous requests of these countries regarding Israel.

But you cannot see that. Your perception and comprehension is lacking. And you choose to pointlessly babble on about how i meant something clearly different than what I did.

So stop it. You're only trolling now. You're always saying how i'm twisting your words... so stop ****ing twisting mine.

this is the same song and dance with you raziaar, over and over again. Nitpicking stupid little details that have nothing to do with the topic at hand ..I dont ****ing care what you wrote before, it has no bearing on this issue because I didnt quote your earlier statements. When I quoted you I clearly made reference to Ahmadinejad and you replied by saying that they attacked israel a number of times ..what else could "they" mean? ..had you not quoted me I think you would have a point, but you didnt. You even acknowledged your mistake by saying:

Maybe I was wrong about 'a couple times', but that war is a definite one. And I see how it is hard for you to dispute.

 

[Raziaar]

this is the same song and dance with you raziaar, over and over again. Nitpicking stupid little details that have nothing to do with the topic at hand ..I dont ****ing care what you wrote before, it has no bearing on this issue because I didnt quote your earlier statements. When I quoted you I clearly made reference to Ahmadinejad and you replied by saying that they attacked israel a number of times ..what else could "they" mean? ..had you not quoted me I think you would have a point, but you didnt. You even acknowledged your mistake by saying:

It may be slightly off topic from the thread, but I have never changed the beat of my drum... i've been continuing *ON* about my seperate subject regarding the countries and their rediculous requests.

And you just can't handle that, apparently.

You even acknowledged your mistake by saying:

No... that was my mistake about the coalition of countries attacking Israel multiple times in the past. Had nothing to do with Iran individually.

As you can see, right before I said that, I said this.

Eh? The Yom Kippur War, dude.

How is that not accurate? Did it never happen? The middle eastern countries attacked Israel, exactly as I said, in that war.

Maybe I was wrong about 'a couple times', but that war is a definite one. And I see how it is hard for you to dispute.

 

[CptStern]

but they did fight as a coalition more than a few times ..that's why it makes no sense

again, you either missed the "he" part or you went off tangent and didnt realise it when you were quoted

 

[Raziaar]

but they did fight as a coalition more than a few times ..that's why it makes no sense

again, you either missed the "he" part or you went off tangent and didnt realise it when you were quoted

That is EXACTLY what happened here.

You said something, and I replied to it still going on about what I had been going on before. The middle eastern countries who hate Israel.

That's where the miscommunication happened. Just because I replied to your thing, doesn't mean I was going on exactly what you were talking about. I took you as speaking about the fanatic rhetoric of the leaders of those countries. Not that single guy. Because previously I was talking about them delcaring hatred for Israel.

 

[CptStern]

yet I distinctly called the leader a "he" ..meaning singular

just drop it, it's not worth arguing over ..there's no conceding points, no matter how obvious

 

[Element Alpha]

Are you guys married or something?

Make like fonzie. Be cool.

 

[Raziaar]

Are you guys married or something?

Make like fonzie. Be cool.

Aaaay!

Yeah. We tied the knot a couple weeks ago. I wear the pants in the relationship.

 

[Element Alpha]

THE ENTIRE LETTER
as published by the french newspaper "le monde":
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-727571,36-769886,0.html

Mr George Bush,

President of the United States of America

For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions
that exist in the international arena -- which are being constantly debated, specially in political
forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have
prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might
bring about an opportunity to redress them.

Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God,

Feel obliged to respect human rights,
Present liberalism as a civilization model,
Announce one’s opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs,
Make “War and Terror” his slogan,
And finally,
Work towards the establishment of a unified international community – a community which
Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern,
But at the same time,
Have countries attacked; The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on
the slight chance of the … of a … criminals in a village city, or convoy for example the entire
village, city or convey set ablaze.

Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around
one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed,
close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens
broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years. At what price? Hundreds of billions
of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of
thousands of young men and women – as occupation troops – put in harms way, taken away
from family and love ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much
psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide ant those returning home suffer
depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of aliments; while some are killed and
their bodies handed of their families.


On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples
of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to
begin with.

Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the
announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was
toppled along the way towards another goal, nevertheless the people of the region are happy
about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the … war on Iran Saddam was
supported by the West.

Mr President,

You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can theses actions be
reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of
Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness.


Page 2

There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation,
their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own
country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows
whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals.

European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could
not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the
provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions
correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e. the teachings of Jesus
Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values.

Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the
phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.

Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a
new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.

Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did no exist. The show old documents
and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII,
which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly
disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront
defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six
million people that were surely related to at least two million families.

Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the
establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can
this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?

Mr President,
I am sure you know how – and at what cost – Israel was established:
- Many thousands were killed in the process.
- Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.
- Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages
were destroyed.

This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing
for sixty years now.

A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses
while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate
Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is
unique – or at the very least extremely rare – in recent memory.

Another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported?
Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH)
or liberal values?

Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands – inside and
outside Palestine – whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs


Page 3

contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why
is there so much opposition to a referendum?

The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observes
have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put
the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognise the Israeli regime,
abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.

If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian
people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian
government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also saying “why
are all UNSC resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?”

Mr President,As you are well aware, I live amongst the people and am in constant contact with them --
many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They dot not have
faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are
becoming increasingly angry with such policies.

It is not my intention to pose to many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well.
Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East
regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific
R&D one of the basic rights of nations.

You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has
scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements
being utilised for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology
altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics,
chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed.

Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is
reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.

Mr President,
Don’t Latin Americans have the right to ask, why their elected governments are being
opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, why must they constantly be threatened and live in
fear?

The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and
valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and
spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from
happening. Don’t they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth – including minerals –
is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?

Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?


Page 4


The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the
coup d’etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day,
opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters
supporting, the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of
documents corroborates this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the
shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation,
increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-à-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the
Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and collaborating their country’s progress),
and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.

Mr President,

September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and
appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the
perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.

All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens.
Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems
– and even hunts its opponents abroad. September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it
be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or
their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various
aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their
responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put
on trial?

All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For
some years now, the people of your country and neighbours of world trouble spots do not
have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the
survivors and the American people – who had been immensely traumatised by the attacks –
some Western media only intensified the climates of fear and insecurity – some constantly
talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to
the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?

American citizen lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in
any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be
happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and
providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?

Some believe that the hype paved the way – and was the justification – for an attack on
Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media.

In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are
established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western
media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of
WMDs. This was repeated incessantly – for the public to, finally, believe – and the ground
set for an attack on Iraq.

Will the truth not be lost in a contrive and deceptive climate?

Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned
values?

Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?

 

[Element Alpha]

part two:

Page 5

Mr President,

In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their
governments in turn are able to serve them.

The question here is “what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for
the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?”

As your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty.
Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these
problems exist – to a larger or lesser extent – in other countries as well. With these conditions
in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign – paid from the public treasury – be
explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles?

What has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region
and in your country. But my main contention – which I am hoping you will agree to some of
it – is:

Those in power have specific time in office, and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will
be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures.
The people will scrutinize our presidencies.

Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and
unemployment?

Did we intend to establish justice, or just supported especial interest groups, and by forcing
many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and powerful – thus
trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs’?

Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them?

Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered
illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them?

Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats?

Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted
version of it?

Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors?

Did our administration set out to promote rational behaviour, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling
obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity
or the force of guns.

Intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of
other nations, and trample on people’s rights?

And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office – to serve
the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets – or not?

Mr President,

How much longer can the world tolerate this situation?
Where will this trend lead the world to?
How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers?
How much longer will the specter of insecurity – raised from the stockpiles of weapons of
mass destruction – hunt the people of the world?


Page 6


How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the
streets, and people’s houses destroyed over their heads?

Are you pleased with the current condition of the world?

Do you think present policies can continue?

If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead
spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating
different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to
the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production,
development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between
disputing states and distinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts were would
the world be today? Would not your government, and people be justifiably proud?
Would not your administration’s political and economic standing have been stronger?
And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the
American governments?

Mr President, it is not my intention to distress anyone.

If prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us
today, how would they have judged such behaviour? Will we be given a role to play in the
promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (PBUH) will be
present? Will they even accept us?

My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today
there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Moslems and millions of
people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH). All divine religions share and respect on
word and that is “monotheism” or belief in a single God and no other in the world.

The holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on an followers of divine religions and
says: [3.64] Say: O followers of the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and
you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught. With Him
and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah, but if they turn back, then
say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran).

Mr President,

According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the
teachings of divine prophets.

“To worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases.” “The
Lord which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes
on in the Hearts of His servants and records their deeds.”

“The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is His court”
“planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of
mercy and forgiveness of sins”. “He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of
oppressors”. “He is the Compassionate, the Merciful”. “He is the recourse of the faithful and
guides them towards the light from darkness”. “He is witness to the actions of His servants”,
“He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of
righteousness and remain steadfast”. “Calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a
witness to their deeds.” “A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this


Page 7

world and disobey Him and oppress His servants”. And “A good and eternal paradise belong
to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves.”

We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to
salvations. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH), and
believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth.

We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He
has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted in Koran as well;
[19,36] And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serves Him; this is the right
path, Marium.

Service to and obedience of the Almighty is the credo of all divine messengers.
The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific and the rest of the world
is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all His servants. He has
given greatness to Humans.

We again read in the Holy Book: “The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and
clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purity them from sins and
pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people display justice and avoid
the rebellious.”

All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well.
Divine prophets have promised:

The day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty, so that
their deeds are examined. The good will be directed towards Haven and evildoers will meet
divine retribution. I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate
the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nations and all others whose lives
have been directly or indirectly effected by our actions.

All prophets, speak of peace and tranquillity for man – based on monotheism, justice and
respect for human dignity.

Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is,
monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day,
we can overcome the present problems of the world – that are the result of disobedience to the
Almighty and the teachings of prophets – and improve our performance?

Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and
justice?

Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally
respected?

Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to
monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His
prophets?

Mr President,


Page 8


History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God has entrusted
The fate of man to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own
devices. Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These
tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him.

Can one deny the signs of change in the world today?

Is this situation of the world today comparable to that of ten years ago? Changes happen fast
and come at a furious pace.

The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises
and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the wolrd
feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept
dubious policies.

The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich
and poor countries.

The people are disgusted with increasing corruption.

The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the
disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion.
The people of the world have no faith in international organisations, because their rights are
not advocated by these organisations.

Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of
humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the
sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic
systems.

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point –
that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the
prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: “Do you not want to
join them?”

Mr President,

Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice
and the will of God will prevail over all things.

Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda

Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad

President of the Islamic Republic of Iran

 

[CptStern]

I thought the letter was 18 pages? anyways he has some pretty compelling arguments:

In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly – for the public to, finally, believe – and the ground set for an attack on Iraq.

The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances [against the US], including: the coup d’etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting, the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborates this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-à-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and collaborating their country’s progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.

If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states and distinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts were would the world be today? Would not your government, and people be justifiably proud? Would not your administration’s political and economic standing have been stronger? And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the American governments?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Posted by CptStern: oh and if you're referring to the six-day war Iran wasnt involved ..and Israel was the aggressor

So, let's be clear on this. You are saying that Israel is identified as the aggressor not only during that war but by the conditions that set it inplace.

This is, of course, despite Fedayeen raids into Israeli towns. Kidnappings and Executions by the PLO. The Syrian Army, firing artillery shells into Israeli with the openly announced intent to, "Whipe Israel off the map."

With aggressive and beligerant statements from Nasser, his follower, Anwar Saddat, and the surrounding middle eastern leadership and Legion, alongside the history of violated armistices, alongside an invasion of the Sinai, alongside, the cutting off of supplies not once, but three times in the Suez by the Egyptians.

Alright. Let's review history. Bare with me for a moment, forum. This is going to be a long post, and by far, not the last of many. CptStern, taking with what you left us, I gather that your not aware of the Syrian Artillery Bombings on Israeli Cities during the 1950's and early 1960's? Perhaps your not aware of the PLO's kidnappings and killings of Israeli citizens, which had its terror organization hosted and fully backed by the Syrian and Jordanian governments? ... the Egyptian Governments training of Fedayeen to commit atrocities and ambushes against the Israeli population, or perhaps your not further aware that Egypt, Syria, and Jordan were being backed militarily by the Soviet Union during the years of 1960 onward to 1967, that helped to fuel they're radicalism and nationalism?

What about the blockades, the undeclared acts of war, what about the rhetoric, CptStern? As much as I want to believe you've been educated in this conflicts history, I cannot help but question myself on that belief when nothing of what I've learned, or what anyones learned for that matter, finds its way to your fingers for writing.

To further my questions ...
I gather your not also aware of Syrian soldiers firing mortars and rockets into Israel, over its borders, to terrorize the surrounding Israeli population targeting farms and schools?

Despite the fiery rhetoric of the Arab Legions mouthpieces, and the force that monstered behind it numbering over 250,000 abutting the Israeli Border, preparing to take it by force?

I can't help to forewarn you, CptStern. Respected Historians who helped to produce the Oxford Companion to World War II, a book more then in excess of 1600 pages long, also helped to produce books about the Israeli Conflict.

Magazine writers, newspaper op-ed columnists, the Western and Eastern media at the time of 1967, all documenting the violence, the blockades, and the border disputes that charged into Israel without its provacation, would be subject to disagree with you.

As am I, for the history I'am going to bring to your attention is the history thats only available to me through the internet. I still will ask that the forum bare with me, as I can only do so much with character limits of 16000.

This is as much a reply to you CptStern, as it is everyone else who shares your perceptions.

Here's where it starts. Let's begin.

By Mitchell Bard
... Israel consistently expressed a desire to negotiate with its neighbors. In an address to the UN General Assembly on October 10, 1960, Foreign Minister Golda Meir challenged Arab leaders to meet with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to negotiate a peace settlement. Nasser answered on October 15, saying that Israel was trying to deceive world opinion, and reiterating that his country would never recognize the Jewish State.(1)
The Arabs were equally adamant in their refusal to negotiate a separate settlement for the refugees. As Nasser told the United Arab Republic National Assembly March 26, 1964:

Israel and the imperialism around us, which confront us, are two separate things. There have been attempts to separate them, in order to break up the problems and present them in an imaginary light as if the problem of Israel is the problem of the refugees, by the solution of which the problem of Palestine will also be solved and no residue of the problem will remain. The danger of Israel lies in the very existence of Israel as it is in the present and in what she represents.(2) 2Yehoshafat Harkabi, Arab Attitudes To Israel, (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1972), p. 27.

It was during the negotiations on what to do with Arab Refugees who fled during the 1956 Suez Crisis that the Egyptian Government continued to beligerantly announce its continueing campaign to annihlate Israel.

This took place after debates for repariations to be paid in the name of Palestinians, who fled during the 1948 Israeli War of Independence, and during the 1956 Suez Crsis. To understand what took place in Suez, and how it explains the reopening of Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian and Saudi Arabian beligerency and rants of holocausting Israel, read on.

In the fall of 1948, the UN Security Council called on Israel and the Arab states to negotiate armistice agreements. Thanks to UN mediator Ralph Bunche's insistence on direct bilateral talks between Israel and each Arab state, armistice agreements between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria were concluded by the summer of 1949. Iraq, which had also fought against Israel, refused to follow suit.

Meanwhile, on December 11, 1948, the General Assembly adopted a resolution calling on the parties to negotiate peace and creating a Palestine Conciliation Commission (PCC), which consisted of the United States, France and Turkey. All Arab delegations voted against it.

After 1949, the Arabs insisted that Israel accept the borders in the 1947 partition resolution and repatriate the Palestinian refugees before they would negotiate an end to the war they had initiated. This was a novel approach that they would use after subsequent defeats: the doctrine of the limited-liability war. Under this theory, aggressors may reject a compromise settlement and gamble on war to win everything in the comfortable knowledge that, even if they fail, they may insist on reinstating the status quo ante.

A brief overview of the Suez Crisis: the Egyptians, Saudi Arabians, Syrians, Jordanians, Lebanonese, Iraqi, and Algerian nations wanted to continue the war of 1948 only through diplomacy. Verbatim from my source, after 1949, the Arabs insisted that Israel accept the borders in the 1947 Partition resolution [which wanted Israel to its original state of Palestine ].

Egypt would blockade the Sinai and Suez Canals no more then a year later.
Forementioning: Israel and several other Arabian Nation States signed an armistice at the end of 1948 that was to be end hostilities. In 1949, Egypt violated the terms. June 16th of 1949, Egypt began to systematically "block" all Suez and Sinai bourn shipments into Israel.

On September 1st, 1951, the Security Council ordered Egypt to open the Canal to Israeli shipping. Egypt refused to comply.

The Egyptian Foreign Minister, Muhammad Salah al-Din, stated in clearly 1954:
"The Arab people will not be embarrased to declare: We shall not be satisfied except by the final obliteration of Israel from the map of the Middle East." [2Al-Misri, (April 12, 1954).]

In 1955, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser began to import arms from the Soviet Bloc to build his arsenal for the confrontation with Israel. In the short-term, however, he employed a new tactic to prosecute Egypt's war with Israel.

He announced it on August 31, 1955:
Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of Pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the land of Palestine....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death.3 3Middle Eastern Affairs, (December 1956), p. 461.

These "heroes" were Arab terrorists, or fedayeen, trained and equipped by Egyptian Intelligence to engage in hostile action on the border, and to infiltrate Israel to commit acts of sabotage and murder. The fedayeen operated mainly from bases in Jordan, so that Jordan would bear the brunt of Israel's retaliation, which inevitably followed. The terrorist attacks violated the armistice agreement provision that prohibited the initiation of hostilities by paramilitary forces; nevertheless, it was Israel that was condemned by the UN Security Council for its counterattacks.

The escalation continued with the Egyptian blockade of Israel's shipping lane in the Straits of Tiran, and Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal in July 1956. On October 14, Nasser made clear his intent:

I am not solely fighting against Israel itself. My task is to deliver the Arab world from destruction through Israel's intrigue, which has its roots abroad. Our hatred is very strong. There is no sense in talking about peace with Israel. There is not even the smallest place for negotiations.4 4Samuel Katz, Battleground-Fact and Fantasy in Palestine, (NY: Bantam Books, 1985), pp. 10-11, 185.

Less than two weeks later, on October 25, Egypt signed a tripartite agreement with Syria and Jordan placing Nasser in command of all three armies.

The continued blockade of the Suez Canal and Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping, combined with the increased fedayeen attacks and the bellicosity of recent Arab statements, prompted Israel, with the backing of Britain and France, to attack Egypt on October 29, 1956. The Israeli attack on Egypt was successful, with Israeli forces capturing the Gaza Strip, much of the Sinai and Sharm al-Sheikh. A total of 231 soldiers died in the fighting.

Israeli Ambassador to the UN Abba Eban explained the provocations to the Security Council on October 30:

"During the six years during which this belligerency has operated in violation of the Armistice Agreement there have occurred 1,843 cases of armed robbery and theft, 1,339 cases of armed clashes with Egyptian armed forces, 435 cases of incursion from Egyptian controlled territory, 172 cases of sabotage perpetrated by Egyptian military units and fedayeen in Israel. As a result of these actions of Egyptian hostility within Israel, 364 Israelis were wounded and 101 killed. In 1956 alone, as a result of this aspect of Egyptian aggression, 28 Israelis were killed and 127 wounded."

One reason these raids were so intolerable for Israel was that the country had chosen to create a relatively small standing army and to rely primarily on reserves in the event of war. This meant that Israel had a small force to fight in an emergency, that threats provoking the mobilization of reserves could virtually paralyze the country, and that an enemy's initial thrust would have to be withstood long enough to complete the mobilization.

Verbatim from the Jewish Virtual Library. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf5.html
This not only explains the Suez War of 1956, but also, as on topic, helps to explain the position Israel was in during the 1967 Six-Day War.

We zoom back to where we left off, the date now is October 10th of 1960. Golda Meirs pleas where later she is met with Nasser's message, October 15th: "You are trying to deceive the world and its opinion about us. We will never recognize the Jewish State that is Israel."

Continuing to cite my source, I go on.

The Arabs were equally adamant in their refusal to negotiate a separate settlement for the refugees. As Nasser told the United Arab Republic National Assembly March 26, 1964:

Israel and the imperialism around us, which confront us, are two separate things. There have been attempts to separate them, in order to break up the problems and present them in an imaginary light as if the problem of Israel is the problem of the refugees, by the solution of which the problem of Palestine will also be solved and no residue of the problem will remain. The danger of Israel lies in the very existence of Israel as it is in the present and in what she represents.2

Meanwhile, Syria used the Golan Heights, which tower 3,000 feet above the Galilee, to shell Israeli farms and villages. Syria's attacks grew more frequent in 1965 and 1966, while Nasser's rhetoric became increasingly bellicose: "We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand," he said on March 8, 1965. "We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood."3

From the Egyptian Governments own mouth, "We shall not shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood."

This, along with the Egyptian Governments support of the PLO and the terrorist death squads known as the Fedayeen, Israel, legally at any one time could begin war for at those times it was already at war.

The Palestinian Army
In 1963, the Arab League decided to introduce a new weapon in its war against Israel — the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The PLO formally came into being during a 1964 meeting of the first Palestinian Congress. Shortly thereafter, the group began to splinter into various factions.

Ultimately, the largest faction, Fatah, would come to dominate the organization, and its leader, Yasser Arafat, would become the PLO chairman and most visible symbol. All the groups adhered to a set of principles laid out in the Palestine National Charter, which called for Israel's destruction.

The PLO’s belligerent rhetoric was matched by deeds. Terrorist attacks by the group grew more frequent. In 1965, 35 raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched. The targets were always civilians.(3)
Most of the attacks involved Palestinian guerillas infiltrating Israel from Jordan, the Gaza Strip, and Lebanon. The orders and logistical support for the attacks were coming, however, from Cairo and Damascus. Egyptian President Nasser’s main objective was to harass the Israelis, but a secondary one was to undermine King Hussein’s regime in Jordan.

King Hussein viewed the PLO as both a direct and indirect threat to his power. Hussein feared that the PLO might try to depose him with Nasser’s help or that the PLO’s attacks on Israel would provoke retaliatory strikes by Israeli forces that could weaken his authority. By the beginning of 1967, Hussein had closed the PLO’s offices in Jerusalem, arrested many of the group’s members, and withdrew recognition of the organization.

Nasser and his friends in the region unleashed a torrent of criticism on Hussein for betraying the Arab cause. Hussein would soon have the chance to redeem himself.

Continuing onward ... The PLO was just one of many things. And it gets worse.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Continuing from what I last started:

Terror from the Heights

The breakup of the U.A.R. and the resulting political instability only made Syria more hostile toward Israel. Another major cause of conflict was Syria’s resistance to Israel’s creation of a National Water Carrier to take water from the Jordan River to supply the country.

The Syrian army used the Golan Heights, which tower 3,000 feet above the Galilee, to shell Israeli farms and villages. Syria’s attacks grew more frequent in 1965 and 1966, forcing children living on kibbutzim in the Huleh Valley to sleep in bomb shelters. Israel repeatedly protested the Syrian bombardments to the UN Mixed Armistice Commission, which was charged with policing the cease-fire, but the UN did nothing to stop Syria’s aggression — even a mild Security Council resolution expressing “regret” for such incidents was vetoed by the Soviet Union.

Meanwhile, Israel was condemned by the United Nations when it retaliated.

While the Syrian military bombardment and terrorist attacks intensified, Nasser’s rhetoric became increasingly bellicose. In 1965, he announced, “We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand; we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.”(4)

Again, a few months later, Nasser expressed the Arabs’ aspiration: “[el] the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the state of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel.”(5)

Syria’s attacks on Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights finally provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967. During the attack, Israeli planes shot down six Syrian fighter planes — MiGs supplied by the Soviet Union. Shortly thereafter, the Soviets — who had been providing military and economic assistance to both Syria and Egypt — gave Damascus false information alleging a massive Israeli military buildup in preparation for an attack.

Despite Israeli denials, Syria decided to invoke its defense treaty with Egypt and asked Nasser to come to its aid.

Now artillery is falling into Israeli territory without a proper provacation. Israel was now under attack from three countries. The US appealed to world courts to do something about the Arabian disreguard of past armistices or undeclared states of war.

It tried, and the world would not do anything to change the situation, despite the Arabian and African Nations violating rules, agreements and armistices. Or rather, could do nothing about these undeclared states of war considering the Arab Legion refused to cooperate or recognize the state of Israel. Now, it began to move troops alongside Israels border. And the rhetoric prompted that Egypt, Jordan, and Syria were going to attack.

On May 15, Israel's Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai and massing near the Israeli border. By May 18, Syrian troops were prepared for battle along the Golan Heights.

Nasser ordered the UN Emergency Force, stationed in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw on May 16. Without bringing the matter to the attention of the General Assembly, as his predecessor had promised, Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand. After the withdrawal of the UNEF, the Voice of the Arabs proclaimed (May 18, 1967):

"As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

An enthusiastic echo was heard May 20 from Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad:

Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.

On May 22, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping and all ships bound for Eilat. This blockade cut off Israel's only supply route with Asia and stopped the flow of oil from its main supplier, Iran. The following day, President Johnson expressed the belief that the blockade was illegal and unsuccessfully tried to organize an international flotilla to test it.

Nasser was fully aware of the pressure he was exerting to force Israel's hand. The day after the blockade was set up, he said defiantly: "The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war."

Nasser challenged Israel to fight almost daily. "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight," he said on May 27.9 The following day, he added: "We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948."

King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30. Nasser then announced:

"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations."

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."

On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
The Arab rhetoric was matched by the mobilization of Arab forces.

Approximately 250,000 troops (nearly half in Sinai), more than 2,000 tanks and 700 aircraft ringed Israel.13

According to Nasser, the war of 1967 had since been on-going from 1947 to that time.

With his military blockades which are considered as acts of undeclared war, along with its government supported and trained Fedayeen Death Squads who were kidnapping and killing Israeli citizens at will, tripled with Syria, which had been shelling Israel for more then a year, Israel was by far, no aggressor.

Israel replied to the Egyptian militaries infiltration into its borders. Israel replied to Syria's bombing campaign against Israeli Civilians.

It's people were dying, and the world refused to intervene. Now, the Egyptians where on they're borders, and the Arab Legion numbered 500,000 which behind it, existed the Rhetoric that promised this forces invasion.

Israel thus, began the campaign of the Six-Day war.

Here's from Wikipedia, and what they're authors say on the topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_day_war

From the Wikipedia Source

On 23 May, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israel-bound ships, thus blockading the Israeli port of Eilat at the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba. Israel viewed the closure of the straits with alarm and demanded the US and UK open the straits as they guaranteed they would in 1957. Harold Wilson's proposal of an international maritime force to quell the crisis was adopted by US President Johnson, but received little international support. It should be noted that blockade, even partial blockade, is generally defined as an act of war.

Syria began sponsoring guerilla raids into Israel in the early 1960s as part of its "people's war of liberation", designed to deflect domestic opposition to the Baath Party. Israel and Syria also had an ongoing dispute about water and territorial rights along their 1949 cease-fire line. On April 7, 1967, a minor border incident escalated into a full-scale aerial battle over the Golan Heights, resulting in the loss of six Syrian MiG-21s to Israeli Air Force (IAF) Dassault Mirage III, and the latter's flight over Damascus.

At the time, no Arab state had recognized Israel.

On 18 May, 1967, Egypt formally requested the withdrawal of UNEF from Sinai. UN Secretary-General U Thant complied, thus removing the international buffer which had existed along the Egyptian-Israeli border since 1957. Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser then began the re-militarization of the Sinai, and concentrated tanks and troops on the border with Israel.

This put Arab forces just 17 kilometres from Israel's coast, a jump-off point from which a well coordinated tank assault would likely cut Israel in two within half an hour. Such a coordinated attack from the West Bank was always viewed by the Israeli leadership as a threat to Israel's existence. On the same day, Nasser proclaimed: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ... while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world."

I have other sources that confirm my belief Israel was not the aggressor. They are:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570433/Six-Day_War.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/04/14/me101.tuchman.1967/
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/maps/six.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/...israel_palestinians/maps/html/six_day_war.stm
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_sixday_backgd.php
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/history/six_day_war/SixDayWar.html
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/9999/6day1967.htm

The Arabs say the Israelis grabbed this real estate in a war of aggression in 1967. In fact, Israel did not start that war. Israel did not want that war. Israel merely defended itself – very, very effectively – from coordinated attacks by Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Arafat's terrorists.
This is not opinion. This is fact. A friend of mine, Sol Jacobs, did something very simple – something very obvious – to document this fact, which seems to elude so many today. He went back and looked at what newspapers were reporting about the crisis before June 5, 1967 – before there was any alleged "Israeli occupation."
Here's what he found on his month-long timeline leading up to the Six-Day War:
On May 7, the New York Times reported Syria had shelled the Israeli village of Ein Gev.
On May 17, the New York Times reported that the Palestine Liberation Organization, headed by Arafat, pledged to "keep sending commandos" into Israel.
On May 19, the Los Angeles Times reported Egypt stood accused of using poison gas in Yemen.
On May 19, the New York Times reported Egypt had deployed its forces along the Israeli border.
On May 20, the New York Times reported Egypt forced U.N. peacekeeping troops to leave the Sinai Desert in anticipation of its attack on Israel.
On May 21, the New York Times reported Egyptian soldiers were massing in the Sinai.
On May 22, the New York Times reported that the PLO would be stepping up its attacks in Israel, that Cairo was calling up 10,000 reserves and that Iraq would be sending aid to battle Israel.
On May 23, every newspaper in the world reported that Egypt took the provocative action of closing the Gulf of Aqaba to Israel.
On May 24, every newspaper in the world reported that the U.S. declared Egypt's military blockade of the gulf "illegal."
On May 25, the New York Times reported that Jordan would admit Saudi and Iraqi forces into its country to do battle with Israel.
On May 27, every newspaper in the world reported Egypt's fiery threats to destroy Israel.
On May 29, the New York Times reported the Egyptian buildup of military forces in the Sinai was continuing.
On May 29, the Washington Post reported that despite all of this provocation, Israel was still reluctant to have a showdown with its enemies.
On May 29, the New York Times reported new Syrian attacks on Israel.
On June 3, the New York Times reported that Britain declared the Egyptian blockade could lead to war. It also reported that four Syrian commandos were intercepted in Israel.
On June 5, 1967, the Six-Day War began. Israel rolled up all of its enemies faster than anyone would have believed. It took control of East Jerusalem from Jordan. It took control of Judea and Samaria on the west bank of the Jordan River from Jordan. It took control of the Golan Heights from Syria. And it took control of the Gaza Strip and Sinai Desert from Egypt.

From: http://www.yije.org/israel/6 day war.pdf

Continuing ...

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0856668.html
http://www.truepeace.org/sixday.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/6-day.htm
http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/6daywar.htm
http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/800/806.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/1967toc.html
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-219428
http://www.stateofisrael.com/arab-israel/sheshethayamim/
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Six-Day_War
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0856668.html

These, along with the others I have provided do, in conclusion, prove that broad generalizations will not go any length to prove the record that exists for the Six Day War.

These sources, I believe, in conclusion solidify the arguement Israel cannot be considered an aggressor without considering the facts, and when the facts are considered, Israel was by any length, no aggressor.

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

I encourage all of you to do some research. For those of you who prefer book reading, here's what I can suggest if it interests you.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345461924/103-5737174-2793418?v=glance&n=283155
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/09...7174-2793418?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/09...7174-2793418?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

 

[Element Alpha]

Nice K e r b e r o s

Most people really don't know this. But I'm afraid a lot will be put off by the length of your post.

So I'll make a brief summ up:

Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and basically the whole Arab world bombed the sh!t out of Israel for years, sent small groups to kidnap, destroy and pillage for years as well, all the while making threats about "wiping israel off the map", then decided one day to move their troops near Israeli borders and block the port of Israel with warships, all the while still making threats about "wiping israel off the map".

Because the U.N. wasn't doing anything about all that, Israel decided to attack in order to survive. And they won. And they kept the land that they had conquered by winning, because they wanted to keep it as a bufferzone between them and the arabs.

edit: You could say Israel attacked, but then you would be ignoring that the arabs made their intent very clear and made all the first moves. Had Israel waited any longer they wouldn't have survived.

Therefore, all the palestinians that lived in those newly conquered areas were suddenly living in Israel and were considered refugees.

That's pretty much about it.

Sidenote: Just last year, Israel started giving back this by-now-not-so-newly conquered land.