Why don't people insist that the arab countries bordering Israel open their borders?

[astronaut]

Astronaut: Wrong, Arabs are to blame. Yes the USSR manipulated its client states [and the client states most certainly did NOT hate it] but by the end of the first stage of the build up [by the time 'Amer mobilised Sinai] both Syria and Egypt weere under no illusions. Jordan also saw what was really at stake and actually tried to wiggle out of harms way but could not risk alienating its population.

Muslims today certainly do hate the Soviet Union, and they probably have done since the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

By the time the Arab states realized they had been manipulated (I agree they came around to that view quite quickly), but they were stuck deep in a face-off with Israel, and it was impossible for them to back down.

The Soviet's understood this from the very beginning -- they knew they couldn't fool the Arabs for long, but knew they wouldn't have to.

The big surprise is that the Arabs fell for this ploy a second time in 1973, but if anything it was easier for the Soviets to manipulate them then after the 67 fiasco.

 

[moono]

BTW, judging by the ongoing dispute between you and tangentlama, I'm not the only one causing your hostility to increase.

We're vying for frogwoman's affections. Neither of us fancy you.

 

[rachamim18]

Moono: No, the ICJ NEVER made ANY such ruling. It did however issue a brief on it saying that it is contrary to accepted practice, big difference Moono.

Actually , HAMAS has continually violated the CeaseFire up until 7 months ago. It is still behind the lion's share of Qassam launchings from its tradtional stronghold not to mention the fact that its encouragement of other groups' ilegal actions also constitutes a violation as HAMAS is now in the cockpit.

Astronaut: Your problem is that you apprently think that Arab and Muslim are synonyms. Ba'atists never hated the USSR. The PLO never did, nor did the PFLP and FLP.

 

[moono]

Moono: No, the ICJ NEVER made ANY such ruling. It did however issue a brief on it saying that it is contrary to accepted practice, big difference Moono.

I've read the ICJ ruling. You're deranged.

 

[astronaut]

Neither of us fancy you.

That makes me very very happy.

 

[astronaut]

Astronaut: Your problem is that you apprently think that Arab and Muslim are synonyms. Ba'atists never hated the USSR. The PLO never did, nor did the PFLP and FLP.

Your problem is you think the regimes are representative of the people.

The Arab/Muslim people hated the Soviet Union. Why are you trying to argue on this point? -- it's a fucking no-brainer.

 

[rachamim18]

Yikes!

Moono: OK, provide a hyperlink of the "RULING."

Astronasut: So, Marxist governments like Yemen, and Socialist governments like the Ba'atist regimes of Syria and Iraq, and the Pan Arabism of Nasser were anti-Soviet? Marxist groups like the PLO,PFLP, and others were anti Soviet?

 

[moono]

Moono: OK, provide a hyperlink of the "RULING."

Run your own errands.

 

[rachamim18]

Out running errands...

Monoo: Thanks for admitting your mistake...

 

[pk]

Right, I'm moving into your front garden.
You don't use it, and you don't mind too much at first.

Then we're going to have a row, and I'll shell your windows, take potshots at your kids and elderly relatives, built a campsite on your front garden and take over your kitchen.

Then we'll steal your food and water, and poison your remaining water supply, all with financial help from the local bank manager.

Naturally by now you'd be fighting back, but I have better weapons than you.

And when the rest of the street is up in arms about all the fucking noise, I'll tell them that the only way to settle this is for you to move out of your house completely and move into your neighbour's front garden, so that I can take over your house and your garden.

The only way for peace to succeed is for the Palestinians to admit they lost the war, their homes and land have been stolen by greedy families from Brooklyn who just want a place for the summer, and they should just accept it and find somewhere else to live.

Palestine has effectively just been wiped off the face of the Earth, why can't people just move on, that's what your saying effectively?

Bollocks.

The Israelis will eventually be made to sort it out - as apartheid crumbled, as the Berlin Wall fell, so will the right wing Zionist Knesset-trusting fools in the pay of the USA who collectively sentence children to die on a daily basis.

Repeating history is merely repeating mistakes.

 

[Binkie]

Anybody remember Tel Al Zataar, with the Syrian army picking off entrapped Palestinians as they ran to the well for water? ZWord is right. The leaders of the dictatorships surrounding Israel are racist hypocrites.

 

[moono]

Rachamim;

Monoo: Thanks for admitting your mistake...

I didn't build it. It's your mistake.

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Advisory Opinion


The Court finds that the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory and its associated régime are contrary to international law; it states
the legal consequences arising from that illegality


http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipress2004/ipresscom2004-28_mwp_20040709.htm

 

[rachamim18]

PK:Your analogy is flawed. The squatters in your analogy are the Arabs, not Jews [i.e. Israelis in your mind].Arabs came from Arabia, Jews from Judea.

"Greedy families from Brooklyn looking for summerhomes..." Maybe you should acquanit yourself with the "Settler Movement" before offering summary judgement calls. Most are NOT from America, let alone Brooklyn. You seem to confuse Kahanism with the movement and you are way off base. Furthermore, it might be a boon if you take a gander at the Kadimah platform

"Palestine has been wiped off of the face of the earth." FUNNY since it has never existed. Who was its first president? What was its national anthem? The year it was established? Destroyed?

"In the pay of the US..." The US was at odds with Israel from its reestasblishment in 48 up until the 67 War. The relationship stands on intersecting objectives which can change at any time.

Moono: Do you know what the words "Advisory Opinion" mean? It is NOT a ruling. Pretty funny if the subject matter were not so serious...

 

[moono]

Rachamim;

Moono: Do you know what the words "Advisory Opinion" mean? It is NOT a ruling.

Don't you ever get fed up with being wrong ? Even your deep paranoia can't sustain a solitary opinion indefinitely, surely.

RULING-

An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct, especially one of the regulations governing procedure in a legislative body or a regulation observed by the players in a game, sport, or contest.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ruling

The ruling was- tear down the wall. It's illegal. It's more than illegal, it's an affront to human decency. Like you.

authoritative-

Having or arising from authority; official:


prescribed-

To set down as a rule or guide

 

[rachamim18]

Moono: Your generic definition out of an online dictionary is all well and good but ddoes not mean a thing in legal terms. It is kind of sad how deluded you apprently are. What is wrong with having been wrong? I have been wrong and will be again. no person is infallible. You are merely wasting time and rowing against the tide of the inevitable. The "Ruling" is as it plainly states, an "Advisory Opinion." In essence nothing more than a brief. In plainer terms, propaganda as wortless as the dried ink on it.

Here is another hint: Try defining it from the issuing body or at the very least a Law Dictionary so you might not garner as many laughs.

 

[moono]

Read and weep;

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Advisory Opinion


The Court finds that the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory and its associated régime are contrary to international law; it states
the legal consequences arising from that illegality


http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipress...p_20040709.htm

 

[likesfish]

+
did'nt the PLO start a revolt against jordan? and get kicked out of jordon as a result?

 

[nino_savatte]

Moono: OK, provide a hyperlink of the "RULING."

Astronasut: So, Marxist governments like Yemen, and Socialist governments like the Ba'atist regimes of Syria and Iraq, and the Pan Arabism of Nasser were anti-Soviet? Marxist groups like the PLO,PFLP, and others were anti Soviet?

The Ba'ath Party of Syria and Iraq were not socialist and only one who wears the blinkers of the Republican Party would claim that to be the case. Furthermore, not all socialists have been dominated by Moscow. Perhaps you've heard of the Spanish Civil War and POUM?

 

[rachamim18]

Moono: ADVISORY OPINION. Has it dawned on you yet that noone has supported your position here? Do you not think, that one of the several people who continuously love to try and prove me wrong would not have offered you as rousing chorus of support? Not one! there is a reason Moono.

Likesfish: Yes, the PLO did try to overthrow the monarchy in Jordan and were violently subdued. They also tried the same thing in Lebanon, hence Sabra and Shatilla as paybacks by the Phalangists.

Nino: I am not a registered voiter in the US so I can only laugh at your comment about the Republican Party.

As for Ba'at ideology, it actually is a form of socialism but I suspect this explanation won't matter to you so I will leave it at that. However, even without socialism, Ba'at satates were clients of the Soviets for much of the Cold War. Nobody ever said all socialists were cleints of Moscow. however these were. That is what matters.

 

[nino_savatte]

Moono: ADVISORY OPINION. Has it dawned on you yet that noone has supported your position here? Do you not think, that one of the several people who continuously love to try and prove me wrong would not have offered you as rousing chorus of support? Not one! there is a reason Moono.

Likesfish: Yes, the PLO did try to overthrow the monarchy in Jordan and were violently subdued. They also tried the same thing in Lebanon, hence Sabra and Shatilla as paybacks by the Phalangists.

Nino: I am not a registered voiter in the US so I can only laugh at your comment about the Republican Party.

As for Ba'at ideology, it actually is a form of socialism but I suspect this explanation won't matter to you so I will leave it at that. However, even without socialism, Ba'at satates were clients of the Soviets for much of the Cold War. Nobody ever said all socialists were cleints of Moscow. however these were. That is what matters.

Just because the Ba'ath Party included the word "socialist" in their title, doesn't mean anything. The NSDAP also did the same; they were not socialists, though I expect you to tell me that they were.

As for you being a registered voter in the US, it doesn't matter: you share the same warped views of the world as your Republican pals - your ideological soulmates.

 

[ViolentPanda]

As for Ba'at ideology, it actually is a form of socialism but I suspect this explanation won't matter to you so I will leave it at that. However, even without socialism, Ba'at satates were clients of the Soviets for much of the Cold War. Nobody ever said all socialists were cleints of Moscow. however these were. That is what matters.

Surely a person as knowledgable in middle east history as you claim to be should have mentioned the powerful distinction between the political practices of the two main Ba'athist states?

 

[nino_savatte]

Surely a person as knowledgable in middle east history as you claim to be should have mentioned the powerful distinction between the political practices of the two main Ba'athist states?

Damn! I was saving that one! There's also the example of Yemen where Ba'athism was proscribed by law because of its Pan-Arabism. But Ba'athism = socialism? I don't think so.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Damn! I was saving that one! There's also the example of Yemen where Ba'athism was proscribed by law because of its Pan-Arabism. But Ba'athism = socialism? I don't think so.

The nearest it got was Syria, which was about as "socialist" as 1960s Britain and about as authoritarian as 1950s China.

The point Rachamim made about Societ involvement is a good one, but doesn't mean that the Ba'athist states were "socialist", just that they were cold war proxies.

 

[nino_savatte]

The nearest it got was Syria, which was about as "socialist" as 1960s Britain and about as authoritarian as 1950s China.

The point Rachamim made about Societ involvement is a good one, but doesn't mean that the Ba'athist states were "socialist", just that they were cold war proxies.

Sure and I felt that he mentioned Soviet involvement as a deflection. If anything Soviet involvement was more about realpolitik than ideological twinning.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sure and I felt that he mentioned Soviet involvement as a deflection. If anything Soviet involvement was more about realpolitik than ideological twinning.

That's pretty much the case in most of the USSR's non-European spheres of influence except perhaps Cuba. Even the so-called "creeping communism" in many Central and South American countries that garnered Soviet aid (and US bombs) was a watery market socialism compared to what the USSR purported to espouse.

 

[rachamim18]

Nino: You are correct, having the name "Socialist" does not make you a classic socialist. Look at the Nazis. However, Ba'at does represent a strain of socialism. Are you familiar at all with "Pan-Arabism?"

I am not a Republican nor do I share their platfom views.

Ha!!! Then you DO bring up PAn-Arabism in a lter post! Good for you. Too bad though that you fail to understand even its fundamental premise.

Panda: I will ignore the dig and aim for the point of your post; Yes, I am very familiar with the differences between the two [now one] Ba'at states. What does that have to dow ith whether or not Batism is socialism?

Panda: Of course there were differences. Look at Maosim in Nepal. Even between the Indian Maosit movement in Assam and elsewhere there are differences. That does not negate the underlying premise.

 

[nino_savatte]

Nino: You are correct, having the name "Socialist" does not make you a classic socialist. Look at the Nazis. However, Ba'at does represent a strain of socialism. Are you familiar at all with "Pan-Arabism?"

I am not a Republican nor do I share their platfom views.

Ha!!! Then you DO bring up PAn-Arabism in a lter post! Good for you. Too bad though that you fail to understand even its fundamental premise.

Panda: I will ignore the dig and aim for the point of your post; Yes, I am very familiar with the differences between the two [now one] Ba'at states. What does that have to dow ith whether or not Batism is socialism?

Panda: Of course there were differences. Look at Maosim in Nepal. Even between the Indian Maosit movement in Assam and elsewhere there are differences. That does not negate the underlying premise.

You're not making any sense here. Ba'athism is not socialism. You may just as well claim that the Nazis were socialists. It's a lie and a smear put about by the US and Australian right. It is not something that is taken seriously in Europe or, indeed, elsewhere. The Pan-Arabism of Ba'ath is nationalistic, not socialistic.

You may not be a Republican but, like it or not, you share their right wing agenda. This is particularly evident in the way in which you view socialism.

 

[rachamim18]

Nino: You apparently haven't a clue as to what Ba'at ideology encompasses.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Panda: I will ignore the dig and aim for the point of your post; Yes, I am very familiar with the differences between the two [now one] Ba'at states. What does that have to dow ith whether or not Batism is socialism?

There was no "dig". It's a salient point that you present yourself as informed about the "Middle East".
Having said that, do yourself a favour and re-read my post with your usual arrogance absent, that way you just may grasp the point without me having to endlessly re-iterate the pieces you always miss in your haste to show how learned you are.

I mention the differences between the political practices of the two Ba'athist states, not the differences between the states themselves. You have, in those differences in political practices, the answer to the question of whether Ba'athism is "socialism".

Panda: Of course there were differences. Look at Maosim in Nepal. Even between the Indian Maosit movement in Assam and elsewhere there are differences. That does not negate the underlying premise.

You have no "premise", as you haven't set out what you mean when you refer to "socialism", so any comparison can't actually be made.
One can easily say "Maoism in India and Maoism in Nepal are different manifestations of the same ideology" but unless you've outlined what you believe that ideology is then such an exercise is futile. Just saying "Ba'athism is socialism" is equally so.

 

[nino_savatte]

Nino: You apparently haven't a clue as to what Ba'at ideology encompasses.

Rach: You apparently have no clue what socialism is and how different it is to Ba'athism...but then you're not exactly up to speed on ideologies - are you?