Comments on: Hezbollah’s Coup ‘On the Ground’

By: A.N.

A.N. — Mon, 12 May 2008 12:15:16 +0000

Why dont we recognize the Syrian conquest of Lebanon, and Israel keeps the Golan? Lebanon has never functioned like a real country, and Lebanon offers larger territory and seacoast that the Golan doesnt have

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Sun, 11 May 2008 05:00:22 +0000

@Einstein: You’re being banned from commenting for violating 4 provisions of my comment rules. First you’re commenting WAY OFF TOPIC. Second, I’ve asked you 3 times NOT to publish more than 2 comments on any given day. You publish so many comments here that responding to yr distortions & lies interferes with my own blog posting. Today, you’ve published ~~six~~ 7 comments. Third, you’ve linked to three hard-right sites just today in yr comments. I don’t promote right-wing sites & don’t allow commenters to do so either. Fourth, you insist on using a small “p” when writing the word “Palestinians” which is a ploy of the miltant anti-Palestinian right. Since you appear to deny the existence of a Palestinian people, that’s reason #4. You will be banned from commenting until you can undertake to promise you will honor all my comment rules.

And btw, we’ve discovered that you are Chuck Diesel who posts at Pro Semite Undercover. You were also banned at my discussion forum for being a demagogue-brawler. I don’t mind people commenting here who oppose my views. But if they can’t obey the rules they don’t get to play.

It may tickle some of my readers to know that Einstein/Chuck Diesel wrote at PSU about his delightful frolic at this site:

‘When I post at Silverstein’s blog, he constantly accuses me of having right-wing ideology, even though my views on I/P are 100% the views of…Dershowitz.’

Gee, how could I have mistakenly thought Einstein was right-wing when he endorses the I-P views of that flaming progressive, Alan Dershowitz?

By: Einstein

Einstein — Sat, 10 May 2008 17:28:29 +0000

Oops….that was meant for another blog comment - not here.

By: Einstein

Einstein — Sat, 10 May 2008 17:26:52 +0000

[Comment deleted for multiple violations of comment rules]

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Sat, 10 May 2008 07:42:46 +0000

@Alex Stein: I’ve been following this pretty intensively ever since Liel’s initiative was announced & reading everything I can find fr. both Syrians & Israelis. My sense is that Syria would far prefer to be at peace w. Israel and at least a nominal ally of the U.S., EU and the west than its current crop of allies including Iran & N. Korea.

And the only way to test Syria’s sincerity is to actually sit down & negotiate, which so far Israel has been unwilling to do. I hope to God if Livni becomes the next PM she moves quickly on the Syrian & Palestinian fronts–that is, if she can build a stable coalition.

By: Alex Stein

Alex Stein — Sat, 10 May 2008 07:20:44 +0000

While I understand the point about the Americans, I think much of the analysis of the Syrian/Israeli track is built on the assumption that Assad just wants the Golan for piece. I think it’s unclear that Syria is willing to give up on its Iranian patronage (and all that goes with it), even if it could get the Golan in return. We shall see…

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Sat, 10 May 2008 07:01:29 +0000

@Alex Stein: Not at all. I’m saying that if Sharon (or Olmert) had pursued Liel’s initiative & begun intensive negotiations with Syria that led to an easing of hostility if not an outright peace agreement, then Syria might’ve backed off its support for Hezbollah, which in turn might’ve been less emboldened to take such bellicose political positions in Lebanese politics. Hezbollah takes such maximalist positions because it knows it has its “back” covered by its sponors. W/o those sponsors it would behave differently.

By: Alex Stein

Alex Stein — Sat, 10 May 2008 06:30:06 +0000

Richard - are you saying that Israel is responsible for the Hizbollah decision to launch the first stages of a coup against the elected government?

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Sat, 10 May 2008 05:24:34 +0000

Liel’s initiative began when Sharon was PM (I think around 2006 or so if I’m not mistaken). Sharon essentially allowed Liel to do it w/o commiting to how he would respond once the initiative was completed. Sharon passed on politically & Olmert was PM when Liel’s initiative was publicly announced. It was Olmert who dissed the results & recently has tentatively embraced them.

I only hope that had he lived Sharon would’ve been wise enough to embrace them more forthrightly & energetically than Olmert did. But we’ll never know.

By: Leila Abu-Saba

Leila Abu-Saba — Sat, 10 May 2008 03:37:36 +0000

“if Ariel Sharon or Ehud Olmert had responded positively to Alon Liel’s negotiating track with Syria over the past year or so”

Editing alert - you didn’t really mean Ariel Sharon should have responded in the last year to the peace track, did you? Because Sharon has been in a coma for years. You must have meant some other Israeli leader, or you were talking about a peace overture several years in the past?