RJ:

Is there also quiet diplomacy within the U.N.
The UN is often likened, particularly when referencing Israel, as a typically MidEast shuq - in the latter, you get pushed and shoved, you push and shove, there are pickpockets about, often being kids supposedly only selling bagels or hairpins or kitchen knives or floor rags; have you ever been to such a shuq? you hold your basket in front of you as protection against rikshaw style vendors and in order to wiggle your way through the crowd with something narrower than your hips as the tool for opening up an avenue of movement.... otherwise you are liable to find yourself either standing stock still for ages and getting nowhere, or being swept along with the swarming and pulsing crowd to wherever it is that that greater mass of people is moving at that moment, and finding yourself virtually dumped on a display of produce you had no intention of buying in the first place....as far as I can tell, the answer to your q would be yes, but it seems like it works very much along the lines of shuq with the results being at any point in time, of the same ilk: are the tomatoes today still fresh or already sagging from yesterday's and today's hamseen? ie: is there anyone to talk to? who can produce results? However, MidEasterners love good fresh spices in their food and the best quality produce and will continue seeking until... and so I hope it is acceptable to use such analogies.


and with the Bush administration? to the best of my knowledge, yes


"(What all these countries stand to gain, or lose, by the success or failure of these talks should be fairly obvious at certain levels, perhaps less so at others)."

Sorry, Seree, this is less so for me. I think it's too vague for my direct comprehension. My key failure to understand may lie with the word, "level."

'level': the simplest and most obvious: Arab countries saving/losing face within the Arab world. Another, higher: 'gaining' face in the Western world, which leads to footholds in its lucrative markets (and includes huge business concerns owned/managed by...the sworn Jewish enemy (who also include...see next note), but business is business, right? Another, higher: 'gaining' contacts/contracts with the hi-tech world which includes no small number of Jews and....(take a breath) Israelis.
* Re point 2 above especially, lucrative markets is 4way traffic - Europe into Arab markets and vice versa; Europe into European as the strong country able to deal with the Arab markets, and Arab into Arab as the strong country/ies able to make such contact while retaining their public 'face' in the Arab world of not capitulating to ecular / capitalist ideals

"Those of us following the deeper level news"

Is this deeper level news, any of it, available where I can read it?

Hard for me to answer. You could try surfing for a variety of Jewish or Israeli newspapers or indepth study journals produced world wide. Haaretz, an Israeli daily, is not right-oriented but carries a center to left tendency, and has excellent write-ups, reports, editorials etc with relentless critique of Israeli policy. I should imagine it would be hard to follow every single day, without which one definitely misses much, and I do not know if the online version carries the same volume of material as the printed version. The Jerusalem Post is also a good source, and the weekend edition, especially, carries material penned by both known leftists and rightists along with material from external (overseas) sources - Muslims, Christians, who are pro or anti Israeli policy. Because both papers have Arab-affairs reporters who are fluent speakers of Arabic, I find their indepth analyses worth the reading, and very balanced on the whole. Just takes a *&^%$ of time, that's all! http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif . Sorry I can't be more helpful in this regard - I don't use these sites much as I am fluent in Hebrew and can access the original rather than translated editions. I do use them occasionally to double-check that information is being fairly and correctly relayed in comparison to the Hebrew, and as links for others who do not speak Hebrew.

and finally:

Do you know if this kind of activity takes place directly with Hezbollah?
I understand there is contact, through 3rd parties. I do not know of direct contact, which does not mean there is none. In this regard, I can only reference wht seems like eons ago: when Arafat began his rise to fame and was considered the equivalent of Nasrallah in standing, thus direct contact was out of bounds, there was constant indirect contact. This became known when certain Israeli Parliament members, every so often, were 'caught' conducting talks, and having been 'caught', the scope of the talks then became public knowledge. Often, it is not known who leaks the information of such contact and proceedings, and it seems that media leaks like these harm, rather than help, the situation, time then needed for finding and establishing a replacement representative trusted by the 'other side' and able to cary on such activity. Very unsimple. However, this is close to the same process that occurred and led to peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt.... with Abu Mazen etc., and so, one would hope that practice eventually makes perfect, by all parties in the region, no?

hope this helps, but if you need more info PM me....




[This message has been edited by Seree Zohar (edited September 07, 2006).]

Dan,

Why have you equated me with Kevin again?

And what's this:

"But: you guys (and we guys, more generally) have totally jumped ugly on him {Foot}, to use the technical term. Come on -- look back at the first few posts responding to him!"?

I've not replied to Foot. I'd like you to edit out any implication that I did.

Go back and look at your own first posts to Gail White and me when we entered this thread. She's an Anti-semite and I'm a Nazi. That was civil? Gail left, in disgust I presume. I probably should have myself, but as usual, the imp of the perverse implores me to persevere.

Shameless O'Clawson



[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited September 09, 2006).]

Sort of an interesting observation: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/st...eronplane.html

... picked from one of two interesting and opinionated websites worth following:
http://www.settingtheworldtorights.com http://angryarab.blogspot.com

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

--Svein Olav

Dan,

Thanks for the welcome. I don’t mind the ugliness, it just makes me look pretty, which is no mean feat as I’m as ugly as a house brick. Talking of simplistic notions, it’s interest how quickly certain judgements are made about conservatives whenever they venture into the sheepfold. Of course I’m a Kurtz, a hollow man... oh the horror.

Stephen

My apologies if I made you unwelcome Stephen. I can overreact at times. So I 'jumped ugly' on you, did I? (Interesting expression Dan, thanks for that.)
Of course I extend the same welcome to you as has been extended to me on this forum, and I'm pleased for you that you feel prettier than before.

Now, to your last post. I hope this doesn't seem too ugly, but I find it curious that you should talk of simplistic notions. You have now used the word Conservative. Fair enough, but I wouldn't have branded you one (and certainly wouldn't brand you a Neocon); while you were happy to trot out 'Liberal' in your first post. Simplistic was the word I used in relation to those broad strokes (or Judgements) you were making from the moment you stepped on the Welcome mat. The word still seems to me to be perfectly apt, since your strokes just seem to get broader and broader. On the other hand, any 'judgement' I've made about you relates directly to something you've written (about my 'philosophy' to take just one example).

Of course, I am not certain you are speaking about me at all, but it's clear that you think SOMEone here has 'simplistic notions' about your conservatism and has made 'certain judgements'. I'd be grateful if you could elaborate. Which notions? Which judgements? And why are they simplistic?

Apart from that, please make yourself at home and pop a few cans.

Mark

PS

Nothing horrific about being a hollow man Stephen, or a stuffed man come to that. Both are most welcome here, though straw men are another matter.


[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited September 08, 2006).]

Mark,

You’re right, I ought to at least mention the Lebanese conflict.

I suspect the resent conflict, despite all the hysteria, will prove to be less significant than we imagine at the moment. The real issue is how Israel comes to terms with Hamas, and what the USA does about Syria and Iran.

As far as Hezbollah are concerned, one thing is clear. Their stated goal was to provide Lebanon with security on her southern boarders against any further incursions by Israel. This was a singular failure, and an inevitable one, given the way they armed themselves to do the job. They not only failed to prevent the Israelis from their incursion, they completely misjudged the degree to which Israel would respond to their continued provocations. If their real objective was to widen the conflict, they failed at that as well.

Did Israel achieve her goals? I don’t think it would be in her interest to make that knowledge public; time will tell as to the extent of the damage done to Hezbollah militarily, and politically. It’s too early to make the call.

Was Israel right to respond in the way she did? I’m of the opinion that if an asteroid is heading your way you can’t deflect it by blowing on it. How many more Jewish catastrophes have to happen before enough is enough? Hezbollah’s arsenal of rockets were a massive threat with people just itching to press the button. The purpose of those rockets was to kill as many Jewish non-combatants as possible, not to prevent the devastation brought on in Lebanon.

Stephen

Oh please, don't trot out the "mysterious wisdom" defense. That's a sham used by charlatans for ages, set up so that if anything good turns up, even the completely unexpected, you can cry, "Yes! Yes! That's precisely what we intended! Our magic has worked! Oh, are we not wise!" and if nothing good turns up, an excuse to tell people to shut up, since you're still waiting for signs and portents, and to mumble vaguely about even worse eventualities that were averted by your wise actions.

I think Israel's most obvious goal was to show that you don't mess with Israel, which I'd say was accomplished, though with more blowback than she was expecting.

quote from Shameless

I'd say that targeted raids would suffice, especially if Israeli intelligence ferreted out the rocket launchers and storage sites.

There were two different rocket setups. One reguired a firing and erecting stand and couldn't easily be moved. The Katyushas, on the other hand, were mounted on the backs of flat bed pick up trucks. They employed a "shoot and scoot" strategy. They were not airborne high enough or long enough to get a radar back-track to use a missile to take them out. Some of them were set up in olive groves and fired from timers or cell phones. There were thousands of these missiles.

If you were a general of the IDF how would you fight this kind of assault?

By the way, I've never seen you make an outright condemnation of Hezbullah--you always say (paraphrasing) "I've never condoned--etc."

In the world of Law Silence is considered affirmation of a described action.

Dick

Lo

My best friend is an MD Internist associate professor at UCLA who instructs student doctors on how to do intakes--taking into consideration various ethnic "sensitivities" in order to ferret out genetic information that might have a bearing on what they "present with".

By the way--people who DON'T DRINK do not know if they are alcoholics or not. If there is no genetic component to it--why does it afflict some races far more than others?

Re your statement about religion and people changing from one religion to another as an example of "free will"--it's still a belief in the same God--just wearing a different suit. For me, all religions are metaphors for evolution and God is the assumed end point.

I haven't got time to go through this entire thread but I would bet if one added up the Israel haters and Israel supporters it might be a microcosm of the world at large. In any case I generally side with Israel.

Dick

Do you really believe that was Israel’s ultimate objective?

On what grounds do you base the assertion?

Stephen