It’s awesome! I’m a white supremacist myself so I am very fond of pajamas media… Anyone wanna sign up to the KKK? I have the forms if anyone is asking.LOL

The worst of it being, the Mullahs secure their reign on power.

The best case scenario is that the Iranians topple their repressive government in an internal revolution, and stop the production of nuclear weapons. This is more wishful thinking than a scenario. There’s no evidence this will happen in the near future, and even if it happened, the Iranians are immensely proud of their nuclear program (though perhaps most locals see it as a civilian project). The second option is economic and diplomatic isolation. This hasn’t worked well, and will likely not work, given Russia’s efforts to undermine the West’s influence, and the Chinese’s desperate need for oil and other raw materials to power their economy. Another option (which the Bush administration had apparently been promoting) is covert operations to render inoperable key components of Iran’s nuclear program. That will likely slow, but not stop the Iranians.

This leaves the highly problematic military option. Who would undertake this mission? Certainly not the Europeans. The Americans have too many resources tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, and little public support for such a mission. So even if they wanted to, it’s unlikely they could. If Bush didn’t do it, I doubt Obama will. This leaves Israel. The IDF has supposedly trained for possible attacks on the Iranian sites. But without US cooperation (and a clear flight path) it’s unclear if they could pull it off. Besides, the Iranian program is dispersed throughout the country at different installations, making it difficult to eliminate it. Any attack would also carry the risk of the Iranians retaliating by closing the Strait of Hormuz to all international shipping, strangling the world’s oil supplies and crippling its economies.

On the other hand, a nuclear Iran will destabilize an already unstable region. Besides threatening Israel’s existence, a nuclear Iran would threaten other regional powers, potentially sparking a regional arms race. If the Iranians get the bomb, the Saudis will likely want to have one, too, as would some of the other Gulf States. Turkey, Egypt, and Syria would not be far behind. The possibility of all these states, some inherently unstable, pointing nuclear warheads at each other is a recipe for disaster.

So what do we do? The window of opportunity is almost closed. Could US covert action or an Israeli attack be enough? Israel stands to lose the most if Iran develops a bomb, so they have the greatest impetus to stop them. Over the years the IDF has proven itself a formidable army. But I’m pessimistic, though, that they could succeed. We may have to come to grips with the terrifying reality of a nuclear Iran, after all.

“You ask if there is anything that could “break the cycle of stubbornness.” I still think there is a chance for the two-state solution. But I’m afraid that the continuing intransigence will leave only one possible long-term solution to the conflict: the destruction of one of the two peoples. This is what makes the Iranian nuclear program so dangerous.”

So what happens? Will agression against Iran be wise? Or is it more foolish to wait for a nuclear Iran?
I find it insulting when people say Iran has been a peaceful nation for a couple of centuries, and yet fail to recogonize organizations like Hamas and Hezbolla as part of their aggression.
It is disheartening to think we would have to resort to war, but it seems there is no escaping it, without sacrificing our freedom of ideology.

The violent rise of Islamic empires can be explained through one simple notion: They consider themselves to be the True Believers, and as such, are superior to the Infidels who surround them. If you follow this logic, it makes perfect sense that it is Islam’s destiny to be spread across the world. If their religion is superior, it’s logical to demand their right to worship in our countries, while limiting our right to worship in theirs. It makes sense to call Infidels the sons of dogs and monkeys, because, after all, that is their level relative to a Muslim. If a Muslim converts to some other religion, it is the equivalent of a human taking on the beliefs of dogs and monkeys, and so it’s reasonable for the Quran to punish this by death.

If a Muslim man marries a non-Muslim woman, she is encouraged to convert. If she doesn’t, and they divorce, the man gets to keep the kids. You wouldn’t leave the kids to the care of a dog, would you? If a non-Muslim man marries a Muslim woman, he MUST convert, or risk death. Remember that for many Muslims, women are little more than property. So it makes sense that a Muslim man could “acquire” a non-Muslim woman, but it would be forbidden for a non-Muslim man to take on a piece of Muslim property.

Infidels are a lower form of humanity. If a Muslim kills an Infidel, there is concern, but no real uproar, similar to when a driver runs over a dog on the street. On the other hand, if an Infidel kills a Muslim, there are mass protests and shrieks calling for revenge. It’s almost equal to having a dog kill a man. The logical response? Kill the dog!

Many Muslims do not hold these beliefs. But perhaps out of fear or indifference, or a not-so-secret hate of the West, even those who don’t espouse these beliefs, remain quiet to the excesses perpetrated by those who do. Their silence makes them accomplices to the brutal acts of the extremists.

Now, imagine your mind was set to this notion of superiority. Suddenly a scrawny group of immigrant Infidels establishes a Jewish nation in the heart of the Middle East. You’d be enraged, even more so after realizing you cannot defeat them in a conventional war. If this truly was your mind set, the next logical step would be to find the way to eradicate them, even if it meant using a nuclear weapon. Many Muslims would die, but at least they wouldn’t be suffering at the hands of the dogs any more. .

The fundamental problem is Arabs truly believe Palestine is Arab land, and that foreign Jews have no business there.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement was a secret pact between France, England, and Russia whereby they would carve up the defeated Ottoman empire into favorable spheres of influence. After the Bolshevik revolution, the French and British excluded Russia from the deal. An angry Russian government then published the agreement to expose the secret dealings. The pact contradicted earlier promises of a Jewish homeland made in the Balfour declaration. The Arabs were also upset, as they had understood by the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence of 1915–1916 that the British would grant them independence (in what they considered ALL Arab lands) in exchange for their services fighting the Ottomans. It seems the British were playing all sides to their advantage in defeating the Ottomans. Once this was accomplished, they were caught red-handed serving themselves the spoils of war.

This agreement didn’t start the fight between Jews and Arabs. There has always been tension between the two groups. The Safed pogrom occurred in Palestine in1834. The revelation of this secret pact did heighten Arab distrust of the Europeans, and their designs on the region. This distrust would only increase after large number of Jews began migrating to Palestine.

This quote is from Wikipedia: “In 1922 the population of Palestine consisted of approximately 589,200 Muslims, 83,800 Jews, 71,500 Christians…Gradually a large number of Jews immigrated to the area, most of whom were fleeing increasing persecution in Europe. This immigration and accompanying call for a Jewish state in Palestine drew violent opposition from local Arabs, in part because of Zionism’s stated goal of a Jewish state, which many Arabs believed would require the subjugation or removal of the existing non-Jewish population. Under the leadership of Haj Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the local Arabs rebelled against the British and attacked the growing Jewish population repeatedly. These sporadic attacks began with the riots in Palestine of 1920 and Jaffa riots of 1921. During the 1929 Palestine riots, 133 Jews were killed, 67 of them in Hebron, and 355 wounded. By the time the British intervened, 116 Arabs were also killed in the fighting.”

You ask if there is anything that could “break the cycle of stubbornness.” I still think there is a chance for the two-state solution. But I’m afraid that the continuing intransigence will leave only one possible long-term solution to the conflict: the destruction of one of the two peoples. This is what makes the Iranian nuclear program so dangerous.

Does the earliest 20th century bitterness trace back to the Sykes-Picot agreemnt of 1916? From what I’ve gathered from this information, it seems to be so.

“The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 called for part of Palestine to be under British rule, part to be placed under a joint Allied government, and for Syria and Lebanon to be given to the France. However, Britain also offered to back Arab demands for postwar independence from the Ottomans in return for Arab support for the Allies and seems to have promissed the same territories to the Arabs. In 1916, Arabs led by T.E. Lawrence and backed by Sharif Husayn revolted against the Ottomans in the belief that Britain would help establish Arab independence in the Middle East. The Arabs later claimed that Palestine was included in the area promised to them, but the British denied this.”

Are the Arabs still hung up on this, because they felt they earned the right to all of Palestine. They obviously couldn’t have done it alone. Most likely the reason Britian had the final say.

Funny it was being said in 1922 by Ormsby-Gore, undersecretary of state for the colonies when he concluded, “Palestine is largely inhabited by unreasonable people.” And that still is happenning today. Do you think it’s genetics? I know it’s just how Islam is. What a bore.

Is there anything you can think of, to break the cycle of stubbornness? It’s a pity that war is the solution of the Bibilical God. Can we all do better? Kill or be killed, I suppose is the best we can do. What a legacy.

Just have to accept we all can’t escape our selfishness, and solve our disputes humanely. I have a feeling, we all know it’s possible, though.

The quotation from the film was to give you the obvious truth – the Arab society is divided, and Lebanon is a microcosmos of the entire Arab population. There are many fractions there (almost 20 different fractions), each hates the others and often they deteriorate to open hostilities. After all, the civil war there started on 1975, several years before Israel was forced to enter a war with the PLO based in southern Lebanon.

BUT – all those Arab fractions are united in one thing – their hatred toward Israel and Jews, even in far away and unrelated countries. When a reason comes along to attack Israel, they will all unite to attack us. It’s been that way since 1948, and the last war in Gaza was actually the first time when that solidarity did not hold. Egypt, the “patron” of the Palestinians in Gaza blamed Hamas for what happened there. Several other Arab countries and leaders also put the blame on Hamas. You see, the Arab world is far from being united, and in some countries there are very serious problems between the different Arab fractions (even between Muslims).

Right now there is false peace and quiet in the border between Israel and Lebanon simply because it’s in the best interest of Hizballah. There are elections coming up there on May, and they know that any assault on Israel would end up in a large scale retaliation attack, causing massive damage to infrastructures and consequently hurting their chances in the upcoming elections as they will be blamed for the damage. That’s why during the last war in Gaza they did not fire toward Israel and only allowed other terror organizations to fire very few rockets toward Israel (to show they support Hamas without risking a large scale war). Meanwhile – they keep getting weawpons from Iran through Syria, and Israel is supposed to close its eyes while Hizballah keep rearming and installing over 10,000 rocket launchers on our northern border …

As for the water issue – there are many solutions, but they all cost money – a lot of money …

Chileno

You summed it up nicely. During the peak of the Oslo Accords, the summit in Camp David on 2000, one of the Palestinian top negotiators was quoted as saying off the record that no Palestinian leader could ever give up no the right of return and stay alive. Mahmud Abbas (Abu Mazen), the Palestinian president still tells his people on formal speaches that “we won’t stop until we allow the refugees to get back home”. As an Israeli – I used to think we could live in peace in two states, but I don’t believe in it anymore. Not as long as Arab children are taught at school that Jews are to be eradicated through Jihad …