The Bailey Mail Middle East Conflict Feed

Israel to Free 200 Palestinian Prisoners

The Israeli Cabinet has voted to free 200 Palestinian prisoners as a gesture of goodwill to Palestinian "president" Mahmoud Abbas, likely a final goodwill gesture before Olmert is replaced in September. Israel is thought to be holding between 8500 and 11000 Palestinian prisoners, at least 700 hundred of which are children. So how about a gesture of common decency: releasing all the Palestinian children, instead of this superficial gesture which is more to enhance Israel's international image than goodwill to the Palestinians.

Meanwhile the Gaza truce is holding in the main, but Israel still fails to seriously slacken the noose that strangles the life from the Palestinian population day by day. Sporadic rocket attacks, which Hamas say are Israeli fabrications to justify their failure to ease restrictions on movement from and to Gaza. Many people will disbelieve the Hamas claims, but they should bear in mind that all rocket attacks are usually admitted to by the responsible party.

So, Olmert will be gone soon, and has a 70 - 30 chance of being replaced by an even more hardliner. The only person who is likely to continue at least creating the impression that they want to give land in return for peace is the current foreign minister Tzipi Livni. The other two candidates for the job are the far right Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu, and Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz, neither of whom are advocates of any land-for-peace agreement.

Its all much of a muchness anyway, no matter who gets the job, they won't make the concessions needed to bring peace, and we are still left to wait for the demography time-bomb to kick Israel's leaders up the back-side, or for a shocking change of US policy towards Israel, whichever comes first.

Hamas Blocking and Stealing Fuel Supplies into Gaza is Wrong

Well, what am I supposed to say now? Hamas are now making the situation worse for their own people by stealing from the precious little fuel that is being supplied, and preventing other supplies from getting through.

I have always been a big supporter of Hamas but that is just wrong. The consensus is that Hamas think turning the travesty into a crisis will force the international community to act, but quite simply, it won't.

Anyone in the world that would act if they could is already calling it a crisis, and have been doing so since varying amounts of time after the siege began. The people who could act but won't, will never call it a crisis, and will continue to say Hamas must meet the three demands asked of it for the Gaza siege to be lifted, namely: recognise Israel, adhere to previous agreements, and cease all acts of violence.

But Israel don't have to meet, or even look like meeting any of the demands asked of them, like withdrawing and returning the land taken in 1967, and allowing for and assisting with the creation of a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital, and stop attacks and arrest raids on Palestinians, of which there was one just today (Apr 27).

Not only does Israel not need to meet any of those demands, but it has been given a rite of passage to break the 4th Geneva convention against the collective punishment of civilians for the actions of allied fighters, one of the most crucial international laws ever written, and which the Jewish Israeli government should respect as much as, if not more than any other.

Put simply, Hamas must meet three demands that had previously been asked in return for a Palestinian state and peace, just to stop Israel from breaking international law, without getting anything in return. When ex U.S. President Carter said the peace process had started going in reverse it was the biggest understatement ever.

So you can see why they would be getting desperate, but what is Hamas struggling for if not to make things better for its people, to make things worse, no matter what the reason, is, as far as I'm concerned completely wrong.

Carter Meets Hamas: Much Ado about Nothing

Ex-U.S. President Jimmy Carter has caused quite a stir, in the press and in the U.S. and Israeli governments, when he met with Hamas leaders in Cairo, as part of his Middle East visit; his personal mission of peace.

Okay, well done for brokering the peace deal between Egypt and Israel, but you had some clout back then and Egypt actually posed a threat to Israel. Now you have no clout, and Hamas poses as much threat to Israel's existence as a grasshopper does to a Lion's; no threat at all.

Obama disappointed me today, by criticising Carter for meeting with a terrorist group, repeating the necessary pro-Israeli line that any Presidential hopeful must follow. As I have written before I believe Obama's statements show a hidden pro-Palestinian stance, but to have any chance of getting elected he must play the game of I'm more pro-Israeli than you are.

I just hope that, should Obama get elected he uses his one chance in life to make a real difference in the world to do the right thing in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and by the right thing I mean: make sure the Palestinians get a state on at least what they had before the 1967 war.

I agree with everything that has been written about Carter's statements during his trip: yes, any deliberate killing of civilians is an act of terrorism, and yes, any peace negotiations must include Hamas, and yes, any peace negotiations must run alongside Israel stopping the building of its settlements, and pulling all Israeli citizens back behind the 1967 border, and resolving the issue of Palestinian refugees. But it's just not going to happen.

There is nothing in it for Israel. Israel is losing nothing from the status quo, in fact it is substantially gaining. Israel at war is the single biggest recipient of U.S. military aid, Israel at war can build a great big wall to defend its citizens, which incidentally runs meters into what should be Palestinian territory after a peace deal, i.e. well outside the 1967 border, Israel at war can starve an entire population and force them to live, not only in abject poverty but surrounded, at times and in places, by their own waste.

But it is not just the fact that Israel can do whatever it wants and call it self defence, it is the reason behind Israel's free reign; the biggest problem: the ongoing, unwavering and unquestioning support of Israel by successive U.S. administrations, especially the current Bush administration, and the fact that reliance on the substantial Jewish vote prevents any President or hopeful speaking or acting against Israel in any way.

Why shouldn't Israel take this opportunity, while they have an avid supporter in the White House to steal yet more Palestinian land by building settlements, why shouldn't Israel demolish Palestinian homes and continue unabated the Judaization of Jerusalem -- who's going to stop them.

For Israel, international support for shunning Hamas is like a get out of jail free card; if they are forced by Bush and Rice to reach an agreement with moderate Abbas, or at least to ramp up the efforts thereof, they know that Hamas will literally blow it out of the water.

In fact Palestinian mistrust of Abbas may assist Hamas in that aim. Whereas Israel being forced to include Hamas in talks, any resulting peace deal would almost certainly have wide support in the Palestinian population -- hence Israel will avoid it at all cost.

Something must be Done to Stop the Gaza Siege

This is unbelievable, why is the world allowing Israel to create an outright humanitarian disaster, or at least, why is Israel still being treated like butter wouldn't melt.

They are to keep Gaza's main fuel depot closed for a "few days more." The measure was imposed because of a Palestinian attack that killed two Israeli civilians, and Israel has decided to use it as an excuse to intensify its collective punishment of the entire Gaza population.

I am not ashamed to say that it makes me sick to my stomach. Does a Gazan baby in intensive care deserve to die because of power shortages, in retaliation for the death of an Israeli civilian? In the Zionist Israeli government of Jewish supremacist's, just how many Palestinian lives are worth one Israeli live?

The way I look at it is, in all the man-made humanitarian disasters there have been around the world, the leaders who cause them become international pariah's, under pressure from the entire international community to rectify the situation, all the while pouring humanitarian aid efforts into the affected areas. Yet Israel is slowly, surely and deliberately causing, what looks like becoming one of the worst humanitarian disasters in my lifetime, and they are still being treated as a great ally of democracy, freedom and peace -- whack!

What makes it worse, is not the fact that Israel is not punished for its openly contravening the Fourth Geneva Convention by collectively punishing an entire population for the actions of its armed resistance, but the fact that it controls everything that enters or leaves Gaza, meaning aid can't get in, and the sick can't get out. Israel is carrying out the slow and painful murder of an entire population, those that don't die from direct Israeli actions, the power shortages, or lack of property medical care, are being killed mentally by Israel taking away their will to live.

What's more, Israel is not naive to the fact that the situation is strengthening Palestinian armed resistance as is so commonly written, it is deliberately strengthening the resistance; provoking further attacks so they can continue doing what they like in "self defence".

The world at large has to end this and we have to do it now.

Middle East Conflict: No Middle Ground

The Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the greatest injustices in the history of mankind. Middle East Conflict: No middle ground is my outlet to release my true feelings on the matter, and hopefully achieve readership wide enough to educate some people of the up-coming generations who might be able to do something about it.

This was originally going to be the first part of a series covering all the apparently unsolvable issues in the conflict, but I was out walking and thinking, and now it is going to be an opinion piece, about Israel's government not wanting peace, what they do want, and their strategies for making sure they get it.

Download (right click, save target as) Middle East Conflict: No Middle Ground as a PDF ebook.

Mistaken Perceptions of Israel's Intentions:

In the Israel-Palestine conflict, Israel is perceived as the good guy, it is assumed the all Israel's violent acts are in self-defence and that all Israel wants is peace.

Meanwhile the Palestinians are seen as the bad guys, and while some, the so called moderates are portrayed in a better light, it is generally perceived that the Palestinian's main cause is to wipe Israel off the map.

All the above perceptions exist because that is the way Israel wants it, and Jewish lobby groups around the world make sure the view is carried around the world. This is an aim helped by the fact that every U.S. President must be pro-Israel to get ahead, and especially by the current truly pro-Israel President, who has become a squawking box for Israeli lies. Bush is not necessarily taken in by them, but pushes them because the mis-conceptions Israel wants to become reality about the Palestinians, tie in with the U.S' desire to maintain global fear of Islamic terrorism, allowing them to invade oil rich countries, like Iraq and Iran.

What Israel Really Wants:

To make sure the world continues to believe their main desire is for two states coexisting in peace.
To maintain the global perception that they are in genuine fear for the existence of Israel and any barbaric acts and contraventions of international law are acceptable in self defence.
All with the overall aim: to maintain Jewish predominance and supremacy in the territory currently belonging to them, and to take possession of further land including all of Jerusalem by any means necessary. Currently the favoured method is settlement building, and forced evictions with trumped up charges on incorrect building permits, as these methods attracts less international resentment.

On top of that there is the millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Israel in its constant state of attack, which Israel would surely lose a hefty chunk of should a peace deal be reached.

Israel's Methods for Achieving its Aims:

To ensure success in their aims Israel must keep provoking the Palestinians: by causing internal rivalry and violence, and if Palestinian violence towards Israel lulls, by launching (perfectly acceptable to the international community) arrest raids. Both of course, alongside constant provocations like the wall and the Gaza blockade, which also causes exacerbation and desperation within Palestinians, as well as removing their will to live, thus causing continual desperation fuelled violence and possibly even further suicide attacks.

Closing Statement:

So, as I have said before, and I will say again, until the world realises that it cannot be assumed that all Israel's intentions are completely honourable and based on a desire to find peace, and the Israeli engineered misconceptions stop being treated as fact by U.S. administrations, in short until the conflict stops being viewed in a pro-Israel light by U.S. administrations, there will be no peace, no middle ground.

Liam Bailey Middle East Conflict E-Book

This is more of an announcement than an article. I am writing to apologise to regular readers of my Middle East articles, and to offer an explanation. The delay is because my next writings on the Middle East Conflict, specifically the Israel-Palestine conflict, will be an electronic book (E-Book) titled: The Middle East Conflict: No Middle Ground Part I. Each part in the series will cover a different aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that makes it so intractable, and the final part will focus on my predictions on whether or not the conflict will ever be resolved.

I have been meaning to write such a book for a long time, and while I wanted to focus on making regular posts to The Bailey Mail, I want to write a book more. There will be one article, between each part of the E-Book series, and when all parts have been released, there will be a special edition E-book containing all the parts. The E-book will be released in PDF format, and will be available for a nominal £1.50 fee.

Iraq Battles Give Bush Fresh Supply of Motives to Attack Iran

The situation is worsening in Iraq. Nouri Al Maliki has already put the deadline back for the Medhi Army militia men to give up their guns, and when the additional ten days is up I foresee a long battle for control of southern Iraq and Shia areas throughout the country.

It's one of the most obviously empty threats I have ever seen, issuing a deadline when you have already got your troops fighting the battle is pointless, because all you can do when the deadline passes is keep fighting. So there is no incentive for the Medhi army to meet the deadline, unless in the next ten days the Iraqi army -- helped directly today for the first time in this battle by British troops -- start to take a major advantage, which is unfortunately, highly unlikely.

Even more unfortunate, is how much closer these battles take us to war between Iran and the U.S. Of course because the Medhi army is Shia it must be funded and supported by Iran. And the longer these battles continue the more motives the U.S. will be able to rack up for going to war with Iran.

Whether or not the U.S. will attack Iran is a lot harder to predict than some think, if you look at it with an open mind there are too many contradictory arguments to make head nor tail of. However, if I was pressed I would say (touch wood) that we might just see Bush out of office without an offensive against Iran. At which point most people who hope to avoid war will breathe a sigh of relief -- unless of course McCain is elected and we could be in for another four years of hoping for the best.

One thing is certain, with the current Shia uprising in Iraq unlikely to end quickly, if the Bush administration is planning to attack before they leave the White House -- due to the abundance of motives on top of their constant scaremongering of an Iranian A-Bomb -- then an attack there will be.

Best U.S. Candidate for Israel-Palestine Peace

I have been reading a lot lately about where the various Presidential hopefuls stand on various issues in the Middle East, and when it comes to the Israel-Palestine conflict, I'm afraid the answer for all of them is Pro-Israel. They have to be that way to have any hope of being elected, because of the reliance on getting the Jewish vote in swing states like Florida and Michigan, which would never vote for any candidate that would end the U.S' staunch support for Israel.

It makes me angry. To be honest it is always difficult to get an idea of the candidates' views on the Middle East, because they are advised not to talk about it unless it is absolutely unavoidable, but I doubt there hasn't been a President in all these years that has sympathised with the Palestinians, and saw the conflict's continuance for what it truly is, Israel's unwillingness to give back the land.

So, I thought, fair enough they have to hint at their support for Israel, and their continuing of the "special relationship", but why not give up on it and do what's right in office. And the only answer I am left with is the desire for a second term; desire to keep your party in the White House, and the fact that both have obviously been more important to all President's in almost thirty years, than forcing Israel to abide by UN Resolution 242, give back all the land it took in 1967, and saving all these thousands of lives, past, present and future.

I personally believe that if Barack Obama could speak his mind on the conflict he would be pro-Palestinian. In February he told members of the Jewish community in Cleveland that he sought to open up the debate:

"Understandably, because of the pressure that Israel is under," he was reported as saying, "I think the US pro-Israel community is sometimes a little more protective or concerned about opening up that conversation."

He was also harsh on my pet hate, people receiving the "anti-Israel and anti-Semite" tags if they don't adopt the most right-wing of Israeli stances, or criticise any element of Israel's behaviour in any way, what Obama called the "strain within the pro-Israel community that says that unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, then you're anti-Israel, and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel".

These things are causing worry in the Jewish communities, and his association with the preacher Jeremiah Wright, who has spoken out against Israel's "state terrorism" against the Palestinians, hasn't helped either.

If Obama does become the Democrats candidate for President, it will all come down to whether losses in the Jewish vote, are balanced out by his being the most definite on ending the Iraq war and bringing US troops home swiftly, how his economic policies stand up against the others, and obviously we have to factor in the potential for a massively expanded Black vote for the first Black Presidential Candidate in American History.

It gets to me that the other candidates draw attention to the fact that Obama has expressed a willingness to talk to Ahmadinejad as if it's a bad thing, it's like schoolchildren running telling tales, miss, miss, he isn't repeating what you want to hear, he isn't as pro-Israel as we are -- pathetic.

But when all is said and done, even if Obama does become the first black President in the history of America, just how far he will be willing to go to pressure Israel to return the land, allow the creation of a Palestinian state and end the conflict, will all depend on how much he wants a second term, and whether he weighs his party loyalties more than his true feelings and/or sympathy for the Palestinian's plight.

Palestinian Groups Should Distance Themselves from Al Qaeda

I have said it before and I will say it again, the best possible thing for the Palestinians to do is distance themselves completely and utterly from Al Qaeda. The Palestinians are in a legitimate fight for their own freedom, and because the struggle is the most legitimate armed Muslim struggle in the Muslim world, it is being used by Al Qaeda as a cause for recruitment. It has been used time and time again over the years, and has been used again Mar 20, in the second audio release by Osama Bin Laden in as many days.

In the tape aired by Al Jazeera, which hasn't yet been confirmed as authentic, the man claiming to be Bin Laden says the best way for Muslim's to aide in the Palestinian struggle is to go and fight the Jihad in Iraq. His exact words were:

"The nearest jihad battlefield to support our people in Palestine is the battlefield of Iraq. The people of the blessed land should sense the great favour God has bestowed upon them and do what they should do to support their mujahideen brothers in Iraq. It is a great opportunity and a major duty for my brothers the Palestinian emigrants [in Arab countries], between whom and jihad on the plains of Jerusalem a barrier has been built."

The BBC article on the speech ended with something I have read before, always with great scepticism: that the U.S.' efforts in Iraq, along with the capture and killing of several Al Qaeda's senior members are proving to be major set-backs for the group. According to the BBC the most successful arm of the U.S. Iraq mission is the current effect the "Awakening" councils -- ex-Sunni militants now fighting alongside the U.S. -- are having in clearing "Al Qaeda inspired" foreign militants out of central Iraq.

As much as it pains me to say: the current Al Qaeda PR drive; two releases in as many days from Al Qaeda's leader Osama Bin Laden, is a sign that the U.S. led War on Terror is finally making some gains against the group, which is clearly becoming desperate for recruits in Iraq.

It is undoubted that the U.S. has international support in its war with Al Qaeda, in fact it is pretty much a war between the Western world and Al Qaeda, in which only a few countries are fighting it with their military.

The Palestinian's best chance of obtaining their own state is to gain the widest possible level of international support in that aim. Any bond between their cause and that of Al Qaeda will give them absolutely no chance of achieving that, and will actually increase support for Israel's brutal military actions, and strangulation of Gaza in every way imaginable. I personally think Bin laden's release requires a response from the Palestinian groups, especially Hamas, publicly distancing themselves from Al Qaeda.

Iraq War a Victory in War on Terror - Bush

I read an article today about how America's new offensive approach in Iraq, relentlessly taking the fight to the insurgents, and allowing them no time to rest or territory to control, is actually proving to be successful. In the article, BBC World Affairs editor John Simpson said that it wouldn't be long before Bush announced it as a victory. He was right. In his speech to mark the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war Bush announced that the surge of U.S. troops into Iraq has brought about a major strategic victory in the broader War on Terror.

The speech comes as Bush and Republican Presidential candidates fend off attacks from all sides about the spiralling cost of the Iraq war, which, according to Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, could hit 3 trillion US Dollars by the time you count veterans health care and the full cost of damage to the economy.

Hilary Clinton was quick to point out all the other things the money, which she puts at 1 trillion US Dollars, could have been spent on, like health care for the 47 million Americans without medical insurance, making university education more affordable, and tackling the growing housing crisis. Barack Obama accused the President of allowing Ideology to override pragmatism, and his cabinet of weighing public opinion above solid intelligence.

Their cries were echoed, and a few more added -- a lot less politely -- by the thousands of protestors, 32 of whom were arrested outside the Internal Revenue Service building, where Bush was giving his speech.

Bush's defence was to call the estimates overblown, and say: "The costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq."

He then went on to repeat the same party lines we have been hearing for the past four years. That the US battle in Iraq is the reason there have been no further attacks in the U.S. His exact words were:

"The terrorists who murder the innocent in the streets of Baghdad want to murder the innocent in the streets of American cities." And "Defeating this enemy in Iraq will make it less likely we will face this enemy here at home."

It pains me to say there is validity in his claims. It is a lot easier for the terror groups to recruit people to attack American soldiers than civilians, and it is also easier to mount attacks in Iraq than in the U.S.

So, the US are making small gains in Iraq after five years, just about a year less than World War II lasted, and after 3000 US troops have died. I wonder if I will still be reading and writing articles like this after ten years and 6000 US military deaths, after 15 years and 9000 US soldiers have died, all the while the Iraqi death toll will have went well into the millions.

I don't know if the situation would be better after a US withdrawal, but I do hope that this example forces all world governments to think twice, and never to launch an unnecessary imperialistic war again.

Iraq Foreign Minister Calls British Troops Back Into Basra

Just six months after the small garrison of British troops withdrew from the centre of Basra to the heavily fortified base at the airport, largely because Basra ministers were spouting that their presence was making things worse, Iraqi foreign minister Hoshiyar Zebari said British troops are "doing nothing" to stop the havoc in Basra.

Zebari told channel 4 news that foreign troops should stay engaged to have any hope that the country could see stability after the "rivers of blood."

The last 550 troops remaining in central Basra withdrew on September 3 last year, and the situation has been pretty calm in Basra ever since, but the situation has worsened lately. In Zebari's words: "the militia, the organised crime, is actually making havoc in the city."

Zebari was asked if British troops needed to re-engage in the city:

"In my view they do. They should not just sit there and do nothing. There are certain responsibilities, especially at least until the end of this year."

In defence of the British forces, Iraq commanders and security forces will never be able to do the job until they are left to do the job, sometimes the best way of learning is to be flung in at the deep end. In my view British troops will be closely watching the situation, and will re-enter only when they are sure it is necessary -- perhaps they have more faith in Iraqi forces than Zebari; they did train them after all.

When all is said and done, there is not a great deal British forces can do against the militia's, unless they all come out at once for a conventional lined battle, in which case the British troops would win, when it comes to the unconventional, insurgent warfare, militia men hidden as part of the civilian population: British forces have no chance.

That type of war will not be a short one, certainly not over by the end of year, and best won over the long-term by the Iraqi forces themselves who should be better able to gather good intelligence on the militia members. But then it comes down to whether the Iraqi forces can be trusted, with mentions of militia loyalties within the forces, in which case it comes down to the only people who can help the Iraqi situation are the Iraqi's themselves; by turning from their militia loyalties for the good of the country.

As for organised crime, it definitely cannot be stopped by British forces, who occupied Northern Ireland for decades and organised crime is still rife there. Organised crime is a problem around the world, and not beaten by military might, but by concentrated police campaigns against it, again a battle for the long haul.

Instead of aiming his furore at the British forces, Zebari should be concentrating on trying to make good on their claims that the British were making things worse. His call to bring British troops back in will be a sign of weakness to the Militia's, a call to intensify action, and also a motion of no faith in the Iraqi security forces, which is sure to lower morale and make militia loyalties deepen.

Israel-Palestine Conflict: The Cycle Starts Again

In my last article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I said that even if Hamas stopped firing rockets and Israel kept its word and stopped attacking Gaza, then before too long Israel would launch an arrest raid in the west bank and the calm would be destroyed. And that is almost exactly what has happened:

The almost week long lull in violence, which even saw restraint by Israel despite the odd rocket has been ended by Israeli air-strikes, in response to rockets fired from Gaza by Islamic Jihad, in response to an Israeli rocket attack in the West Bank that killed 4 wanted militants, and the vicious cycle of violence begins all over again.

Recent events also back up the main claim of my last article, that Israel doesn't want peace; Israel's attack the started the latest wave of violence came just hours after Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh announced their terms for a ceasefire: an end to Israeli attacks in the West Bank and Gaza, the reopening of border-crossings, an end to the Gaza siege, and a say in the control of their borders.

The last one would have never been agreed to by Israel, but in order to derail hopes of a truce they had to provoke fresh rocket attacks without attracting international condemnation, by international condemnation I mean U.S. condemnation, and how can the US condemn anyone for launching air-strikes against wanted "terrorists" when it has launched several in Somalia alone since 2006.

It's worked like a charm, the cycle has begun again, and any talk of a truce has been pushed well into the sidelines.

Former deputy defence minister Ephraim Sneh said there could be no solution to the conflict "without the military wiping out Hamas".

Israel will never wipe out Hamas, because every brutal attempt to do so, in which they kill far more civilians that Hamas militants only serves to do Hamas' recruiting for them and ensure there are generation after generation of even more fanatical militants.

In a statement Thursday 13 Top UN Humanitarian Official John Holmes heavily criticized Israel's sealing off the Gaza strip: "It's not stopping the rockets, it's not producing the desired political effects", he said, adding that Israel's believe that the blockade would generate resentment for Hamas was not "well founded".

It's all urinating into the wind though, with a few shining exceptions, the UN has been the most useless world body in the history of man. How can it hope to achieve anything when the world's main powers, corrupted so by said power and caring about little more than furthering their own agendas can stop it from doing any good unless it coincides with what is good for them?

The UN will only do any good in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if it obtains US support. This would at the same time mean that the US would have stopped unequivocally supporting Israel, which would then mean the conflict would have started costing Israel something that it cared about (money, and overall security) and Israel would suddenly adopt a more welcoming attitude to finding peace -- until then the cycle will continue.

Threat of Iran War More Real: End the World for What?

According to an article in Time Magazine online, the threat of war with Iran is becoming more real. It is true that the threat of World War III from U.S. President Bush was a level higher than the rhetoric so far, but Vice President Dick Cheney's threat of "severe consequences" if Iran stays on its present course, and "we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon" is just a repetition of what they were saying well over a year ago, that they will stop at nothing to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, and no option can be taken off the table.

The Time article got me thinking on something that I hadn't before, I agreed that the hard-line fanatical regime shouldn't have nuclear weapons, but upon further thought, Iran isn't at the top of my list of dangerous countries.

We (Britain) gave Israel nuclear weapons, and plenty of them, and we (the West) are dead set against Iran getting them, to the point that the U.S. and Israel consider launching the first ever full blown nuclear attack to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons, but let's compare the two countries.

Neither the current, nor the previous Iranian Regime attacked another country, their only military action was in self-defence of Iraq's attack. Israel has broken international law multiple times, in fact almost constantly under the current regime, whereas the only violation Iran can be accused of (UN resolutions against the nuclear program) is not actually a violation, they should be entitled to nuclear power as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which Israel is not a signatory.

So why is Iran not entitled to a civilian nuclear program? I would rather see Iran with nuclear weapons than a nuclear attack launched to stop them from getting weapons -- especially with the real possibility that China and Russia are waiting to pounce on an overstretched U.S. For me the chance of China and Russia supporting Iran is far greater than the chance of Iran using nuclear weapons, and potentially far more catastrophic for the human race.

Another reason thrown about by the U.S. administration is Iran's openly defiant support of "terrorist organisations" talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

The U.S. has a long history of supporting some of the most brutal terrorist organisations known to man, under their constantly number one policy, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. U.S. support of terror groups and groups opposing the government of the U.S. enemy of the day, have caused thousands of deaths when the brutal terror groups succeed in their U.S. shared aim of overthrowing the government and start murdering hordes of government supporters.

Among the most notable incidences of U.S. terror support is their support of the Contras rebels, which caused a massive scandal when it came to light that the U.S. was selling arms to its so-called enemy Iran and using the money to fund the Contras rebels in their battle against communism in Nicaragua. In that same battle against communism, and under the same President: Ronald Reagan, came the U.S.' most notable support of terrorist groups. The Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the next generation of which is now battling U.S. troops in Afghanistan and are called terrorists, but then, because they were aiming their terror at the U.S.' common enemy; the Soviets, they were hailed as freedom fighters by Reagan, who drowned them in money, hi tech weaponry and had the SAS in for scones and improvised explosive training for the rebels.

U.S. money was also used to build seminaries on the Afghan/Pakistan border, which the U.S. hoped would maintain a constant supply of brainwashed Muslims to bog the Soviets down and eventually beat them. Only problem is their aim worked a little to well, the seminaries are still churning out revved up Jihadi's but now their heart is set on attacking the U.S. and everyone allied with them; in short the western world.

So, the U.S. is the biggest supporter of terrorists in the world, and with the biggest nuclear arsenal, but because Iran supports two groups that are fighting against a U.S. ally, and so are automatically terrorists, then we must launch a nuclear war to stop Iran's nuclear program on the off-chance they are intending to enrich uranium for weapons purposes.

I learned another interesting fact today, that Iran has one of the most democratic governments in the Islamic world, the people have far more say than those in U.S. allied Saudi Arabia. Lebanon and Iraq have the promise of democracy, but factional rivalries cripple the government's authority. Iranians have a major say in who runs their country, with the one problem being the vetting of candidates by non-elected clerics.

In closing, if you look at Iran's record they are not the worst country or government in the world. Even if they do seek nuclear weapons, they know that their using them would result in total obliteration of Iran, I mean wiped off the map, and no chance of any kind of support from Russia and China. For me, the chances of Iran using any nuclear weapon they have are too slim to risk all out nuclear war between the world's major powers; too slim to risk the end of the human race.

No Incentives for Israel to Find Peace

The Arab League threatened Wednesday to withdraw their continued offer of normalized relations with Israel in return for the Jewish state's withdrawal to the borders as they stood before the 1967 war. The Arab Peace Initiative was first made in 2002, when Israel swiftly rejected it, but seemed to consider it more deeply when it was reoffered last year, in an attempt by Israel to make some regional allies against Iran.

The threat from the Arab League is in response to what they call Israeli war crimes in Gaza and the other occupied territories, war crimes which it says are being recorded. I regret to say that it is unlikely the threat will make much of an impact on Israel's behaviour. The truth is Israel doesn't want peace because it comes at a far higher price for them than continuing the conflict:

They have the continued support of the international community as they starve the population of Gaza to death, and if that isn't enough they can bomb the place up a bit for good measure, aided by the millions in military aid from the U.S. buying them the best weaponry, and they have hardly any civilian casualties. If Israel did find peace the military aid would stop and they would lose their precious East Jerusalem; there is no incentive for Israel to find peace and until that changes there will be no peace.

Meanwhile, Palestinian Authority President and supreme rule of the West Bank Mahmoud Abbas has been led by the nose by Condoleeza Rice. Abbas froze peace talks with Israel over the weekend to protest Israel's deadly strikes on Gaza, and he had said earlier Wednesday that a ceasefire would be necessary to get him back to the table.

Rice however insisted the two were not linked: "I have talked with ... president Abbas and obviously he wants calm ... but this is not a condition for the resumption of the talks." How can Rice decide what a precondition for talks is, Abbas set the precondition for god sake. Either way, Abbas did as he was told and will return to negotiations while bombs fall on Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Olmert did say there would be no further attacks on Gaza if the rocket fire ceased.

The International Herald Tribune ran a story on the Palestinian divisions caused by Hamas' continued rocket fire. According to IHT Israeli officials have said the point of last weeks operation was to show Hamas the cost of continued rocket fire, and to create more popular dissatisfaction at Hamas rule. What better way to reduce support for Hamas than to kill dozens of innocent children and hundreds of Palestinians, what they call a method in the madness. The article only surveyed a handful of Palestinians, more of whom supported resistance than didn't and the popular opinion even among Fatah supporters is that Israel's disproportionate violence serves to increase support for Hamas, not weaken it.

The continued violence is also causing dissent among Israelis, especially as it comes again after the run up to last year's Annapolis conference and the re-release of the Arab initiative along with Israel's desire to form a regional alliance against Iran had many analysts, myself included hoping that peace maybe closer than ever before. Israeli newspaper Haaretz, last week ran a story on how a majority of Israeli citizens support talks with Hamas on resolving the conflict.

With Israel offering to stop attacking Gaza if the rocket fire stops, and Hamas offering a long ceasefire (hudna) in return for a complete halt to all Israeli operations in the West Bank and Gaza, the uninformed may wonder why the violence continues. I put it like this:

If Hamas stopped firing rockets, then Israel stopped attacking Gaza, before too long Israel would provoke Hamas by launching a police raid to arrest wanted militants, or an assassination and it would all start again. This has been the way it has gone time and time again, because like I say Israel has no incentive to find peace and many incentives to continue the conflict, until this conflict starts costing Israel there will be no peace.

Wishing Israel Would Stop Killing Children

When I read the headline: U.S. calls for an end to attacks in Gaza, I had to click, and I was filled with hope about this Gordon Johndroe, White House spokesman and new name on me (been out of the game for a while), when I read he was calling for an end to the violence and both sides to resume negotiations. That is, until I read the last line of his statement. "There is a big distinction between terrorist rocket attacks that target civilians and action in self-defence." It always really irks me when they say things like that.

It is true there is a big distinction between the rocket attacks and Israeli military strikes, in fact there are many distinctions, but the targeting of civilians and the lack thereof is not among them. How about the distinction between the Israeli military might and Hamas -- now that is a big distinction. I mean, these people in Washington are bound to be educated, don't they think if Hamas had F-16's they would be bombing the hell out of Israel, and the irony is they would then be killing far more Israeli civilians than they are currently so who could say they weren't targeting them, for which the same is true for Israel.

And therein lies the biggest distinction of all, the distinction between the rocket attacks, which have so far killed 1 Israeli, and Israeli bombardment which has killed over 100 Palestinians, reportedly 26 children. Now surely that should make the Palestinians on the side of right, it does for me anyway, because for me 1 child dying in wholly unnecessary violence, which the current Israeli actions are, as have so many been before them, is too many for me.

Even a toddler has been among the dead, and a 14 year old shot dead at a protest in the West Bank, simply for wearing a Hamas headscarf. This is turning into another Lebanon, I speak of the Israeli offensive in 2006 that killed hundreds of Lebanese civilians; similar in the civilian death tolls and similar in Israel getting away with it.

Oh don't get me wrong, the UN has condemned Israel for using "excessive force" and demanded a halt to the operation, and the EU has gone so far as saying Israel is in violation of international law, but the operation which began from the air and has become a ground offensive goes on without abating.

In fact, Ehud Barak Israeli defence minister made clear the offensive would go on for now: "It is time for action. The operation continues. Hamas is responsible and will pay the price ... We will deploy force to change the situation -- and we will change it."

Always very vain in their own strength, I know they will not cripple the Palestinian resolve, just as the Nazi blitzkrieg did not weaken the British stiff upper lip during World War II and the Battle of Britain. Saudi Arabia also drew parallels between the current offensive and the Second World War, accusing Israel of emulating Nazi War crimes.

I just wish they would stop using helicopters, and unmanned drones to launch missiles at homes they claim are being used by militants. In my opinion the best thing for Palestinians --apart of course from a complete halt to the operation -- is a ground offensive where these houses are raided by ground troops, at least the parents then would have a chance of keeping their toddlers and children safe until it was all over -- no one can stop a missile.

At least ground troops might see the child, and that the family was cooperating to save that child from coming to harm, or from watching its loved ones getting shot. Or at worst, the family member could act as a human shield for the child. As a new parent, as I said it just breaks my heart for children to die unnecessarily.

Israeli Minister Warns of Palestinian Holocaust

I have read some pretty shocking statements from members of political parties on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but the one I read today was easily the most shocking. When I read Yahoo news this morning, the short news article quoted Deputy Israeli Defense Minister as saying the Palestinians would bring a holocaust on themselves if they continued firing rockets:

"The more Qassam (rocket) fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they (the Palestinians) will bring upon themselves a bigger 'shoah' because we will use all our might to defend ourselves."

Throughout the course of the day, heavy back-tracking by Vilnai's pr team, and other members of the Israeli government has resulted in Yahoo changing the article, which now begins:

"A senior Israeli defence official said on Friday that Palestinians firing rockets from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip would bring upon themselves what he termed a "shoah", the Hebrew word for holocaust or disaster."

The article then goes on to explain that the Hebrew word Vilnai used "Shoa" means disaster, and that the word is rarely used by Israelis unless they are talking about the Nazi holocaust, and they loathe the words use to describe contemporary events. The fact that the word's literal meaning is disaster gave Vilnai's spokesman room to manoeuvre him out of the s**t:

"Mr. Vilnai was meaning 'disaster'. He did not mean to make any allusion to the genocide."

Foreign Minister Arye Mekel, went further: "Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai used the Hebrew phrase that included the term 'shoah' in Hebrew in the sense of a disaster or a catastrophe, and not in the sense of a holocaust."

As explained in the Yahoo article, the most common meaning of Shoa to Israelis is holocaust, Vilnai using that Hebrew word in an otherwise English speech, to me says he did so because the Israeli's would take him to mean holocaust, but he would get away with it overall because of the word's literal meaning.

It is people like Vilnai in the Israeli government and other positions of power that results in prisoner abuse and the collective punishment of the Palestinian people as a whole day in day out. And I know I will be accused of anti-Semitism for saying this but: How can a member of the Jewish faith, the faith that suffered one of the worst atrocities in the history of mankind, even contemplate hinting that the country of that faith would unleash a holocaust of its own on another faith group? It is ludicrous.

The Minister was no doubt giving the tough talk because of pressure on the Israeli government to take definitive action against the rocket squads in Gaza. According to senior Israeli military officials a major ground offensive is being prepared but is not yet imminent.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak today began testing the waters of international opinion on such an operation; sending confidential letters to the world's major leaders, including U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is due to visit the region next week. Barak's letter was reported by one of Israel's leading daily newspapers Yedioth Ahronoth, and apparently read:

"Israel is not keen on and rushing for an offensive, but Hamas is leaving us no choice."

When Israel's government, particularly the Defence Minister starts sending out letters like that to world leaders, especially when they get leaked accidentally on purpose by the Israeli press, it means one thing, a major Israeli military action is in fact imminent.

A Palestinian State by Default

I just read something about the Israel/Palestine conflict that had never occurred to me. Olmert told Haaretz: "If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished."

So that is why Israel's government is always so quick to say they want a two-state solution, and the Palestinians best chance of getting their own state is to start applying pressure for equal voting rights.

Israel could never grant the Palestinians equal voting rights because the Arab population far outweighs the Jewish population. And with South Africa as a precedent on which to base their argument, equal voting rights could be a far more achievable aim. In Olmert's words "The Jewish organizations, which were our power base in America, will be the first to come out against us, because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents."

But I doubt it would ever get to that stage, I believe a little pressure for equal voting rights would force Israel to do whatever it took to bring about a two-state solution. I believe this because: Israel maintaining its legitimacy as a primarily Jewish state, with more Jews in Israel than Arabs, is the most important thing to the Israeli government -- and most Israelis. The very thought that Arab's voting could end some of their Jews supremacist laws would terrify them, and I believe a Palestinian state would be a reality in a very short space of time.

I don�t think the Palestinians should stop calling for their own state, because I believe they thoroughly deserve it and are entitled to it, but their campaigners would be wise to adapt their message to say "either give us our own state, or make us a complete part of yours with equal voting rights. While I truly believe Israel will create the long desired Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital long before it has real fears of having to grant Palestinians equal voting rights, if I'm wrong, even equal voting rights would allow Palestinians the chance, firstly to end their day to day misery, and then to start to make their lives better:

To vote away some of the check-points and otherwise de-restrict their movements allowing them to find work, to vote for an end of Israel's sneaky annexation and Judaisation of Jerusalem and eventually even to claim back Jerusalem in a peaceful way, to vote some of the innocent prisoners including children out of Israeli jails where they are being tortured and de-humanised, and to vote for a halt to construction of the massive wall Israel is building through what should rightly be their territory, according to the UN and every proposed peace deal for more than 20 years.

Like I said I don't think it will ever happen because Olmert is right, equal voting rights for Palestinians would mean the end of Israel. What would be left would be a Palestinian state with a Jewish population, and the Palestinians would have their own state all the same. It is a win win situation for the Palestinians, and at worst Israel will succumb to the two-state solution to prevent the demise of the Jewish state.