Pakistan bigger threat than Hezbollah

[A.Rahman]

Pakistan bigger threat than Hezbollah: Senior Israeli leader
Daily News & Updates
Dated 24/8/2006
Printer Friendly Subscribe

In a candid admission of churning that is taking place inside Israel, Dr Shlomo Ben Ami, foreign minister in Prime Minister Ehud Barak cabinet in 2000-2001, said Israel should not take on the burden of global war on terror waged by the United States and the West.

Speaking at a meeting organised by a local think-tank he advised his country's leadership to separate its war against militant organisations Hamas and the Hezbollah and the global war on terror, headed by the United States and the West. Ben Ami was in India to apprise the Indian government and to take stock of bilateral issues. He advised Indian government to "understand the ground realties."

He said the threat of Hamas and the Hezbollah was smaller compared to the challenges posed by the "world-wide export of terrorism" by Pakistan.

He was of the opinion that the Indian parliament resolution condemning Israel's war against Lebanon will not affect bilateral issues. Israel is the second largest exporter of weapons and military equipment to India.

Talking on 'Israel's two-front war: The current conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah' organized by the Observer Research Foundation, the former foreign minister said Israel should focus on fighting its two major challenges - Hamas and the Hezbollah. Even this is not an easy task, he said.

Ben Ami, who was also Israel's chief negotiator at the Camp David Summit in 2000, said Israel should not be seen in the world as a US partner in the war against terror, as "it is beyond its capacity".

"Nowadays, there is hardly any war between states. But wars between militant organisations and states are increasing," he pointed out.

In what could be termed as a reality-check in post-Lebanon war Israel thinking, Ben Ami also disagreed with the policy of the Bush Administration in promoting democracies across the world. Preferring secular dictatorship to unstable Islamic democracy, he said democracy itself need not be the solution for problems. Instead, in many places, it created more problems.

"Iraq is the best example of this. The former government was any day better than the so-called Shiite Republic," he said.

He also mentioned, as a case in point, how the democratically-elected Hamas was working against peace in West Asia. He said Hamas was elected not because Palestinians did not want peace but as a protest against the corruption and inefficiency of the Yasser Arafat regime.

Ben Ami, however, claimed that Israel achieved its purpose after the war in Lebanon -- deployment of an international force and application of the UN Resolution 1559 of 2004. But he felt that Lebanon would not be able to disarm the Hezbollah. Expectedly, he accused Iran of sponsoring, financing and training both Hamas and the Hezbollah.

 

[A.Rahman]

of course Pakistan is a bigger 'threat' to Israel than Hizbollah. Hizbollah gave Israel a kick in the a$$. Pakistan could wipe if off the map( i am sure the reverse is true as well) but in terms of Israel, well that as a state will cease to exist.

But Pakistan hasnt threatened Isreal, What are these guys trying to pull off by giving agressive statements?

 

[Neo]

Imho Israel with its current policies is a greater threat to ME and Worldpeace than Hezbollah, Pakistan or any other country.
Ilegal creation of the state and continued atrocities are the main cause of the widening bridge between the Arab/muslim world and the west!

 

[Spring Onion]

i Think Israel is also bigger thread to US and its peacful citizens.
If Bush tpye of people continue to support Israel and if handfull Israeli (Zionist ) lobby continue to shap up US policies the day wont be far when US citizens will have to obey Israel.

 

[Averroes]

This guy is a zionist to the core, a bit of an academic decency in him, but like the founders of israel knows that he has to use force to keep the balance in favour of israel.

Check out a debate with him and Professor Norman Finkelstein, both audio and text transcript is available.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=140

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, I agree with the statement that there is very little dispute nowadays amongst serious historians and rational people about the facts. There is pretty much a consensus on what happened during what you can call the foundational period, from the first Zionist settlements at the end of the 19th century 'til 1948. There, there is pretty much of a consensus. And I think Mr. Ben-Ami, in his first 50 pages, accurately renders what that consensus is.

I would just add a couple of points he makes, but just to round out the picture. He starts out by saying that the central Zionist dilemma was they wanted to create a predominantly Jewish state in an area which was overwhelmingly not Jewish, and he cites the figure, I think 1906 there were 700,000 Arabs, 55,000 Jews, and even of those 55,000 Jews, only a handful were Zionists. So that's the dilemma. How do you create a Jewish state in area which is overwhelmingly not Jewish?

Now, the Israeli historian Benny Morris, at one point, he said there are only two ways you can resolve this dilemma. One, you can create what he called the South African way, that is, create a Jewish state and disenfranchise the indigenous population. That's one way. The second way is what he calls the way of transfer. That is, you kick the indigenous population out, basically what we did in North America.

Now, as Mr. Ben-Ami correctly points out, by the 1930s the Zionist movement had reached a consensus that the way to resolve the dilemma is the way of transfer. You throw the Palestinians out. You can't do that anytime, because there are moral problems and international problems. You have to wait for the right moment. And the right moment comes in 1948. Under the cover of war, you have the opportunity to expel the indigenous population.

I was kind of surprised that Mr. Ben-Ami goes beyond what many Israeli historians acknowledge. Someone like Benny Morris will say, "Yes, Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948.” That's Benny Morris's expression. But he says it was an accident of war. There are wars, people get dispossessed. Mr. Ben-Ami, no, he will go further. He said you can see pretty clearly that they intended to expel the Palestinians. The opportunity came along, and they did so. Now, those are the facts.

So where do we disagree? I think where we disagree is on responsibility. It's not just a question of moral responsibility. It's not simply a question of tragedy or sadness. It's a question of law, international law. What are your obligations if you are a member state of the United Nations, for example? Now, under international law, refugees are entitled to return to their homes once the battlefield conflict has died down. And Mr. Ben-Ami was absolutely correct. He said the key moment comes in the Israel-Palestine conflict, not when the Palestinians are expelled, but when, after the war, Israel refused to allow the Palestinians back.

At that point, he says, here is a problem, or a problem arises, and the way he puts the problem is we have two conflicting issues. On the one hand, there is what he calls the Zionist ethos. They want a Jewish state. On the other hand, you have the Palestinian refugees, who have a right to return. And for Mr. Ben-Ami, this is an intractable conflict: the Zionist ethos versus the refugees.

But there is a third factor. The factor is international law. And under international law, the Palestinians have the right to return. Now, I am not arguing now for a right of return. I acknowledge it's a complicated problem. But we have to be honest about the rights and the wrongs and the question of rights and wrongs. It was a wrong inflicted on the Palestinians, and it was their right, their right. This is not a tragedy, and this is not about morals. It's about legal rights. Their right to return was denied. How do you resolve that problem? I admit, it's difficult. But we have to be clear about rights and wrongs, because that's going to become, in my opinion, the main problem when we come to Camp David. Whose rights were being denied during the Camp David/Taba negotiations?

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

These statements must be taken seriously and not in the token that pakistan may kick israel----which won't happen. Pakistan doesnot have that capability.
Even though I wrote previously what happened to the israeli army in lebanon, still israel achieved its goals. The mistakes that isarel made in this skirmish, they won't make it again.

 

[KashifAsrar]

I think the guy is toeing the ISRAEL's idea that "Israel must attack any country that have even 5% chance in next 10 years to become threat to Israel's interest."
It looks Pakistan has crossed the threshhold by quite a good margin !!!
Zionists in particular and West in general can not see a developed MUSLIm nation any where on the GLOBE !!
Kashif

 

[Zeeshan S.]

Yeah of course it is a threat, and Pakistan should remain a threat, to remind these morons that there is some daddy behind these week arabs if they are attacked unfairly.

The muslims are not so week after all.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Hardly a threat.

Distance makes a heart grows fonder!

 

[antiobl]

Pakistan bigger threat than Hezbollah: Senior Israeli leader
Daily News & Updates
Dated 24/8/2006
.......

Hey guys, Let's not jump on "bash-Israel" because "Israel-is-anti-Pakistan" bandwagon.

Do google on this news title and you will find at least the first page filled with postings on two groups of sites:

1. Indian sites
2. "anti-war", liberal and socialists sites.

Israel does not have issues with Pakistan. Pakistani leadership is not issuing "bang-bomb-Israel" statements. So these Socialists, and Indians are creating anti-Pakistan and anti-Israel statements.

However we must realize the fact that Jihadi terrorists from all over the world including Arabs, Central Asians, and Britains are using Pakistani soil for their nefarious purposes. Let's be honest and realize that one statement in that long article is correct.

Using that single statement and making bombastic statement against Israel is carelessness at its worst. Why do we make such careless statements? Unfortunately, we have not grown up as a nation yet. 60 years of national history is not long enough to gel our intellectuals into a pro-Pakistan stance.

As our intellectuals don't have our allegiance to Pakistan, so they end up taking oaths for fascists of different varieties. Look at our newspapers, and you will see that they treat our country as if Pakistan is tiny bankrupt state like Somalia.

Our intellectuals fight in the name of Arabism, Shiaism, Sunnism, Balochism, Sindhism, Pashtoonism, Mohajirism, and Punjabism. Otherwise why Lashkare Jhangvi would kill innocent Shias? Or why Shia leadership would set up organizations like "Nifaz fiqh jafaria". Both Shias and Sunnis in Pakistan share their fate. We are going to live and die together. Then why we don't put Pakistan above our loyalties with Saudis or Iranis? Why?

Israel has an axe to grind with Iranians and Arabs. They will fight with each other until Qiyamat. Why do we want to use Pakistan to spread more anarchy in the Middle East? Why?

When will we wake up and fight for Pakistaniat, and Pakistanism? When?

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Israel does not have issues with Pakistan. Pakistani leadership is not issuing "bang-bomb-Israel" statements. So these Socialists, and Indians are creating anti-Pakistan and anti-Israel statements.

Therefore, it is no big deal.

Pakistan should immediately recognise Israel.

What the obstacle then?