It's not as complicated as you're making it out to be: Our "leaders" (not) didn't bother to study it carefully, and as such, we didn't see the deception in them until it became a reality.

Regarding my opinion...I don't see what you're asking for. Yes I openly oppose the Israeli government, but it's within complete reason.

So then, you could be sure that you weren't getting screwed by what was on paper because your leaders would be the ones who wrote the agreement.

As for your opinion.  That's the problem, it isn't within complete reason.

It has a bit of reason to it, however your shifting a lot of blame on to them that deserves to be on the leaders of the Palestinians and the people themselves.

Even if Israel doesn't want to deal.  The leaders of Palestine gave up a PERFECT opurtunity to force a deal.  All because the Palestinians are too inflexable to consider even the offering of such a deal.

You can't blame one side to be unflexable if they disagree to an offer the otherside won't even admit was made!

I mean, say Israel did go with the offer leaked in the papers.

How exactly does the Palestinian government go about explaing this to their followers and implementing it when even the suggestion of such a deal was so toxic that people involved were forced to resign just because it was made?

Afterall, such an offer can't be considered in good faith if it's obvious that they clearly don't have the methods to even tell their own people they made such a deal!

The problem here is the belief that both sides are equal negotatiors when that is clearly not the case.  Palestine will need to take a hit... and such a hit is only going to get worse as time goes on.

- On August 25th 32nd Brigade successfully ambushed rebel forces near Bin Jawad, eventually pushing them from Ra's Lanuf. The interesting part here is that it might be an indication of Khamis launching counter-offensive eastwards at the time of Battle of Tripoli in direct contradiciton of father's order. Seems like wise decision to me, oil is essential to survival in this war while Tripoli not so much.

- Multiple reports on 10k to 50k prisoners have been released, including those who were involved in terrorist activity.

- Multiple reports on ethnocide of Libyan black population. Not really news, there were numerous videos on YouTube of rebels killing so called Gaddafi mercenaries, who often associated with migrants from Chad and Niger, though there're more than enough local black people in Libya. The events lead to massive emigration of black population from the country.

- Algerian forces presence at Ghadames, Libya. Supposedely to secure themselves from spreading Islamists fighters to own territory, they've got long history of fighting them at home and not eager to multiply their troubles. Nevertheless Al-Qaeda accused Algeria of support of Gaddafi regime, on August 29th they've launched attack on military academy at Cherchell, Algeria.

The whole Algeria involvement in that mess is rather interesting. I'd assume that along Syria it'd the next target of "liberation" process and they clearly understand the situation, doubt everything will go as smooth as it was with Libya or at least exactly according to Lybian scenario (though to call 6 months of this mess "smooth" that's probably not right), since:

- Both Algeria and Syria are much more tougher nuts to crack military. Europeans just won't make it completely on their owns, which war at Libya demonstrated perfectly. So without strong US involvement I don't think there'd any direct attack at Algeria, but rise of terrorist activity coming from Libya is almost a given. In case of Syria I see more parties would like to take conflict to the next stage, but, well, god knows how long it'd take for coalition to prepare (e.g. it took about a year before invasion in Iraq). A strong involvement of Israel is essential first and foremost as springboard for attack.

- Political situations in both cases are different. Libyan scenario won't work for Algeria in UN like it did previously, but ignoring UN isn't smth unprecedented after all. In case of Syria I'm sure Russia, Iran and probably someone else will be supportive to Assad, furthermore Iran in case of assult will take appropriate actions.

And who says I'm not critical of the Palestinians? We're far from being a clean people. We're the ones who allowed ourselves to be exploited. I never denied that. But that won't change the fact that I'm opposed to Israeli government's policies.

As for the rest...I'll have to get back to you later on this. It's not an easy thing to explain, and I have other obligations to attend to at the moment. But I can assure you that a building of a Palestinian state isn't as easy as you're trying to make it out to be.

LOL, I pray they will. It'd be fun to hit all those fucking dictatorships in one shot.

Even if it wasn't... doing exactly the opposite of everything that you would need to do to make a deal sure isn't helping.

Again, instead of Palestine saying "We never made the offer".

They say "We made that exact offer... and we will sign it exactly like it is in those papers.

Then Israel either has to sign it, or back off it and lose face on a deal that is seen as heavily in their favor... at which point they'd lose a ton of backing.

Why wouldn't it work like this?

There's only one dictatorship that worth a hit or two for the sake of humanity (including you btw), it's even got a proper name - FRS. But I'm afraid military actions are useless against it, since it was built around people's faith and won't go away before people give up that faith ;)

On related news, here's an interesting thread on MilitaryPhotos portal:

Some people there are having sort of cognitive dissonance, shame they weren't aware of difference between rhetorics and Realpolitik.

Tin foiled much? ;)

So what? Who has problem with dogs out? Just let them tear each other down there in ME. Remember what Truman said? And he was wise man, true American.

Nah, I wear steel helmet.

If you gonna comment Redbeard's posts you'd better do it at militaryphotos.net.

1. They occupied West Bank and Gaza cause they wanted to expand their borders into 'Judea and Samaria'. The excuse was they were under mortal threat from Arab armies so launched a preemptive strike. However evidence has shown there was no mortal threat to Israel's existence and the Israeli leadership knew it. Just read Moshe Dayan quotes and historical studies by Benny Morris. They would intentially provoke the Syrians and the Egyptians so they could launch aggression.

2. Israel broke the ceasefire pre Op Cast Lead. It's standard knowledge in most parts of the world but I guess in the US certain news aren't given much airtime. Google it if you have to. It's not hard to find. And Israel blockaded Gaza not because of any rocket fire but becuase Hamas (who they used to support against the PLO in the 80's) won the election. As for most Corporate media being liberal...yeah I agree. Liberal to a certain point. There is a narrow spectrum of opinion tolerated. Conservative doesn't mean pro Israel nor pro Corporatism similalry liberal doesn't mean anti Corporate and anti Israel. Ron Paul is a classical fiscal isolationist conservative but anti-Corporate and anti-war. Most of the US media is kinda liberal but very pro-Israel.

3. There were no ridiculous pre-conditions it was UN 242, then Oslo  and so on. And Israel is used to intense backlash but it doesn't matter cause it has the backing of the only power that matters which is to say the US. Pretty much everything Israel does is with the tactic backing of the US, if she goes too far then the US will step in but it's quite rare and never concerns Palestinian issues. Condi Rice even suggested the Pals emigrate to South American (which is where Zionists where thinking of settling at one point before Israel). The nerve of her.

4. I agree and the blockade should be lifted since that in itself is an act of war. I suggest you do a little research into who led Israel during it's founding and their history. You would probably classify them as terrorists (if your being fair that is). For example the notorious terrorist group Irgun became Likud one of the biggest parties in Israel and their Russian born leader became PM .

5. But those countries have no reason to fire anything, I don't understand what you are trying to say. That's like saying if the US nuked Russia then Russia has every right to take appropriate measures but it's a pointless discussion cause right now as we speak the US has no reason to nuke Russia and Russia is not occupying the US. If the Russians occupied the US then maybe one could arge the US has a right to fight off the occupation with whatever means at their disposal.

And the occupation is brutal (since 1967- first Qassam rocket fired is probably mid 2000) because they want the Pals to leave and the Pals aren't doing what they want them to do i.e stop resisting the occupation and accpet Israeli rule and land grab. Perhaps in your world resistence to occupation should be made illegal under international law but as it stands it's perfectly legal. Heck I guess occupied Europe should not have resisted the Nazis or Eastern Europe should've just accepted Soviet domination and get on with it.