I know it's seemed like the Middle East has been spiralling out of control in the past. But the Israelis are now looking to be fighting a multi-front war, and that's never good. At least they're going about it methodically and correctly, severing the supply lines and airports to hinder troop movements. And at least Bush isn't criticizing them (at least not at the moment) for taking action against the cretins of Hezballuh who see land give-backs, not as a sign of a desire for peace, but a show of weakness. Although he *has* stated that the Israelis should show "restraint," and considering the actions of Bush et al in regards to Iraq, I think we've pretty much thrown away the "show restraint" card.
I think this thing is either going to die down very quickly or tip over into full-blown, multi-nation war very quickly. No half-measures here.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at July 14, 2006 11:33 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingMaybe my priorities are out of whack, but this is more upsetting for me than 9-11. I fear for Israel and I fear for us.
By the way, is anyone else kind of offended when the news reporters follow up their coverage of the Middle East conflict with "And what does this mean for oil prices?"
Heinlein used to say that the touchstone of an "intellectual" was to ask if they believe in astrology. I now believe the touchstone is whether they can consider the possibility that Israel might be wrong.
There may yet be a chance for this thing to burn out before it gets too big. Iran can't really get into the fighting directly without trying to go through the US forces in Iraq, and I don't think they're stupid or crazy enough to do that. That just leaves the Syrians, and the Israelis are already at work on separating them from Hezballuh. Without any supply lines, it'll just be a matter of time before Hezballuh runs out of rockets.
Of course, that doesn't do any good for the people who are going to be maimed and killed in the meantime, but at least there's a chance to avoid Armageddon.
Michael, I'm not sure what you mean. Is it that the answer is manifestly "no"? Or "yes"? (Since the answer to Heinlein's query was obviously "no".)
For myself, obviously Israel can be wrong. It's just that they are wrong about 1/100 as often as they are assumed to be by the rest of the world (a rough estimate, to be sure, but I'm going with it).
PAD, I'm going out on a limb here but I'm not so sure this WON'T end well--at least as well as war ever can. People will surely die, innocents, many of them. But they have cut off Hizbollah from their Syrian supplies and if the Syrians are stupid enough to try to save them...Israel can settle some accounts. Iran says an attack on Syria will be an act of war. Meaning...what? Iran attacks Israel? With an army that fought Saddam's for 13 years without winning? I'll put money on the Israelis.
The whole multi front war part may be a misnomer. The Iranians would have to march through Turkey (!) or Iraq (!!!) to get to Israel. Unlikely, though we can all dream. More likely it would be a missle attack and that would sure give the Israelis a GREAT excuse to do what the world is silently praying for them to do--bomb Iran's underground nuclear program even further underground (I know that the Iranians say that the complex is so far underground that it can't be reached. That will be a considerable comfort to those trapped there when the air runs out).
Multi fronts are definitely to be avoided when we are talking about troops and tanks but it's not much more difficult to shoot missles in two directions than it is to shoot them in one direction. Assuming one has enough missles and I think Israel does.
I note that Egyptions and Saudis have been unusually quiet, all things considered. I don't think they see the demise of Hizbollah and Hamas as being all that bad a thing, survival-wise.
Could Israel take out Syria? I think so--the classic line from some of my Arab friends is that "Syria will fight to the last Egyption". Without the support of others they are just another corrupt backwater with an expensive army they don't know how to use.
I know it looks bad to hope for an escalation...but wiping out Hizbollah, for now, and leaving the regime that arms them is just another temporary fix. Take out Syria, get Lebanon out from under its domination, and give the Iranians a reason to reconsider the whole "wipe Israel off the face of the map" policy. Maybe then real peace can be achieved, as opposed to this insane constant bleeding wound we have now.
On the other hand, it's alarming when Hizbollah can actually take out a warship. One could argue that they waited too long to settle this. One could also argue that waiting even longer will only ensure Hizbollah control of even more destructive weapons.
Ah, screw it. What we're all scared about is that this conflict spirals out of control and we're stuck in T2 land. I say, the world coming to an end would make life alot easier to deal with. If the shit goes down and nukes hit all over the globe, all you have to deal with is Food & Shelter, instead of Everything Else. Bring on the Apocalypse, I say. It makes living a lot less complicated.
Seriously, if this Irael vs. Everybody conflict spirals out of control, just find your hidey-hole for a while, and then when you poke out your head, its freakin' Mad Max 3: Beyond Thunderdrome outside. How cool would that be?!!!
For some reason I'm thinking of HULK: THE END right now in the back of my head, but that's probably because I'm posting on PAD's blog. Ah well...
Whooo! WW3! Rock!
What we're all scared about is that this conflict spirals out of control and we're stuck in T2 land.
To hell with that. I'm not scared of being stuck in T2 land. Anyone can take a robot. Animal Man beat up robots.
What I'm scared of is a bright flash of light followed by being on fire.
And ninjas.
(I considered writing a completely serious response to this post, but with what PAD wrote about, plus India and Pakistan getting a little irate with each other, plus North Korea's kind-of-penis missile, I'm genuinely a little terrified, so I thought I'd talk about robots. And ninjas. Whom I fear.)
Whenever I fear apocalypse, I take cold comfort from something I heard Robert Bly say during a reading as a passing joke:
"The world will NOT end; that would be too easy."
Thanks to Bill Mulligan for making my point; for Israel to only be wrong once in 100 disputes is a remarkable feat for any nation. It may be impossible to ever find fault with such a model of civilized behavior. This means that in 50 years, Israel has made bad decisions only about 3.5 times a year. But my opinions in this matter have been warped by the ravings of Alexander Cockburn and Edward Said, at least one of whom is dead:
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/2/2003/765
(the link is for Cockburn's article on the death of Said). Under the rules of this game, any criticism of Israel must automatically be anti-Semitic, and any kind word about innocent bystanders in Lebanon implies a criticism of Israel.
I hold no brief for Hezbollah, but it seems to me that the size of Israel's response -- a lot of dead grandmas and babies in Lebanon-- will only win more recruits for the terrorists. Oops, Israeli bombs just hit a Lebanese minibus and killed 15 people. THAT'LL help the cause of peace and stability.
Alas both sides seem committed to increasinly awful acts of terrorism, presumably imagining that if they can just pull of some act of true barabarism then the other will step back, mop their brow and knuckle under.
Lob some missles at a civilian target! That'll make them think!
Posted by: Michael at July 15, 2006 07:48 AM
Thanks to Bill Mulligan for making my point; for Israel to only be wrong once in 100 disputes is a remarkable feat for any nation. It may be impossible to ever find fault with such a model of civilized behavior. This means that in 50 years, Israel has made bad decisions only about 3.5 times a year.
The above is a classic example of the "straw man" argument. In case you're unfamiliar with the term, Michael, it's a logical fallacy based on a misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
Mulligan did not assert that Israel is only wrong once in every one hundred disputes. He asserted that, in his estimation, the rest of the world is 100 times more likely to think Israel is wrong than is actually the case.
His point, clearly, was that there's a lot of anti-Israeli sentiment floating around out there. Mulligan was clearly using mathematics figuratively, not literally, so it's silly to debate the arithmetic while ignoring the core issue.
Under the rules of this game, any criticism of Israel must automatically be anti-Semitic, and any kind word about innocent bystanders in Lebanon implies a criticism of Israel.
No one in this thread accused anyone of anti-semitism. You're the only one thus far to have brought that up. Another straw man.
I hold no brief for Hezbollah, but it seems to me that the size of Israel's response -- a lot of dead grandmas and babies in Lebanon-- will only win more recruits for the terrorists. Oops, Israeli bombs just hit a Lebanese minibus and killed 15 people. THAT'LL help the cause of peace and stability.
When terrorist groups are invading your borders, killing some of your soldiers and taking others hostage, there is no peace and stability to protect. Those are acts of war, and it is logical to respond in kind.
Posted by: Nick Eden at July 15, 2006 08:06 AM
Alas both sides seem committed to increasinly awful acts of terrorism, presumably imagining that if they can just pull of some act of true barabarism then the other will step back, mop their brow and knuckle under.
Lob some missles at a civilian target! That'll make them think!
Israel's dilemma is far less simplistic than you're making it out to be. In at least one case, Israel dropped leaflets warning civilians to evacuate before dropping actual bombs in that area. And terrorists often don't have clearly defined military bases, choosing instead to hide in civilian populations.
And what kind of message do you think it would send if terrorist groups knew they could invade Israel and capture her soldiers at will without any kind of retaliation?
It's very easy to criticize. Anyone can do that. Do you have a viable alternative course of action to suggest? If so, I'm all ears.
Thanks to Bill Mulligan for making my point; for Israel to only be wrong once in 100 disputes is a remarkable feat for any nation. It may be impossible to ever find fault with such a model of civilized behavior. This means that in 50 years, Israel has made bad decisions only about 3.5 times a year.
Errr...not quite. the quote I made was It's just that they are wrong about 1/100 as often as they are assumed to be by the rest of the world which means that they are merely being blamed for much more than they do, that is, you see. Since Israel is roasted daily in the Arab and much of the European press my 1% estimate actually makes them "wrong" several times a day, not the 3.5 times a year you came up with (interesting math, BTW).
Under the rules of this game, any criticism of Israel must automatically be anti-Semitic, and any kind word about innocent bystanders in Lebanon implies a criticism of Israel.
There are a few folks who unfairly tag anyone who is anti-Israel as automatically anti-semetic. Given the insane Protocols of the Elders of Zion type nuttiness that infuses some (though not in any way all or even necesarily most) of the anti-Israel side, this is not surprising, but it's still an grossly unfair attack. One should discuss such a position on its own merits and only bring up anti-semitism if the person in question displays actual anti-semitism.
The problem is this, Israel and their collective enemies only have one mindset: to prove that they are the strongest one their is. This perspective allows only one response to violoence: if they hit u hit them back harder... but in a situration like this the harder they hit each other the more determind they become to
A hit back even harder
B not show any sign of weakness so that the world can see they are the strongest
C prepeared to achive their respective goals at any cost
and of course everytime we go through this routine the goal of peaceful agreement slips further & further away
Is firing a misslie at an appartment building any better than blowing up a bus? on the bus as far as the bomber concerned they all deserve to die dispite the fact their innocent commuters. while the pilot may be aiming for a terrorist he his quite prepared to kill lots of innocent people 2 get him but at least he just has to watch on a screen and not look them in the eye.
for the record i Do believe Israel is justified in retaliating i just don't think it's very inteligent and it will only lead to more deaths on all sides
Bill Myers wrote:
Israel's dilemma is far less simplistic than you're making it out to be. In at least one case, Israel dropped leaflets warning civilians to evacuate before dropping actual bombs in that area. And terrorists often don't have clearly defined military bases, choosing instead to hide in civilian populations.
Is there evidence to suggest that the Gazan power station responsible for providing clean drinking water was one of those bases? And if there was, why not send in the Mossad to take them out? And just how using sonic booms to keep people awake in the middle of the night is doing anything other than terrorising a civilian population in order to try and force a political change escapes me.
Don't get me wrong though: I don't see lobbing missiles at Israeli targets as any more acceptance. Terrorism, the application of military power against a civilian population remains unacceptable whoever's doing it.
And what kind of message do you think it would send if terrorist groups knew they could invade Israel and capture her soldiers at will without any kind of retaliation?
No-one would be citicising a special forces raid to get them back. The worry is that by destroyng the instrastucture (and ultimately the government's ability to govern) of Lebannon in response to a couple of missing squaddies not only is Israel harming thousands of innocents, but it's just going to bring about the kind of anarchy that lets the like ot Hamas and Hizbullah thrive. It's a vicious circle.
It's very easy to criticize. Anyone can do that. Do you have a viable alternative course of action to suggest? If so, I'm all ears.
A wise man was quoted on the radio this morning: "Anyone who comes in and sees an easy answer is not in possension of all the facts." Or as we used to say when Americans came in and offered to sort out Northern Ireland: "If there were easy answers we'd have found them by now."
No solution is going to be quick. Let alone painless. Still, to perhaps make a fool of myself there seem to me a few things that must happen to bring peace to this kind of conflict.
1: Both sides must accept that the other has a grievance. Right now both Arabs and Israelis seem to think that they are the only victims.
2: You need a lot of political courage to make it work. You need to have people prepared to talk to the other, to listen to the other.
3: Those people need to have enough authority to do something. Gerry Adams does seem to have been able to reign in the IRA, thank God for that. There's certainly no-one I can see in the Levant willing and able to play the same role.
One of the Israeli actions that's been least comprehensible over the last decade has been it's willingness to destroy the power base of anyone in Lebannon and Palestine that might have been able to reign these nutters in. Remember how Hamas would send in a suicide bomber and the IDF would blow up a couple of police stations because those policement should have done more to stop the attach. Thus ensuring that there would be even less chance of the surviving cops being able to stop the next one even if they wanted to. And so the bloody dance continued.
There may be a model though in Israel's relationship with Jordan and Egypt. Those states are strong enough to control their crazies. They have a fairly mature relationship with Israel. Lebannon and Palestine have been rendered anarchies, at least in part by Israel's actions. They will remain thorns in Israel's side until they've got governments strong enough to control their crazies. And bombing their airports won't help that happen.
"The problem is this, Israel and their collective enemies only have one mindset: to prove that they are the strongest one their is."
Which is just silly, has no one explained to these people that "Hulk is strongest one there is"?
JAC
Someone mentioned this may be a chance for Israel to "settle accounts" and I think that's precisely what Israel is doing. Even though Hamas is not connected to the first kidnapping and demanded that those responsible (a shady group backed from Syria) release him unharmed, Israel instantly targeted Hamas elected leaders and Gaza's civil infraestructures. Whats the use of bombing the airport if Hamas dont have an air force and Israel completely control the skies? Power plants? Water supply? Thats just an overwhelming, massive and calculated attack on the population living conditions. Thats not a military response but a demographic one.
As for Lebanon, Israel demands the lebanse army to disarm Hezbola, something the IDF was'nt able to do in 20+ years of presence in the country. They are pummeling a country that just started closing its wounds from the civil war and the Israeli&Syrian ocupation, destroying their infraestructures because they "held them responsible" for not beign able to do what no one has been able to do. And probably they will destroy any chance the anti-syrian camp had of keeping power.
And they kill civilians... I might be naive, but if you know where your foes are and also know that by dropping bombs you will probably kill innocents, blaming your foes for those victims is simply perverse. Do it the hard way; send commandos, risk your soldier's lifes because thats what soldiers are there for. If you decide that some foreighner civilian's life is worth less than your soldier's, you're a war criminal in my oppinion.
And thats my main concern. I agree Israel is the most civil, democratic and modern country in the region, but that doesnt give them any moral superiority to do what they want.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 15, 2006 02:21 AM
I'm going out on a limb here but I'm not so sure this WON'T end well--at least as well as war ever can.
Bill, on the one hand, I think Israel has responded to invasions by Hezbollah and Hamas in the only way that it could. I mean, Israel's recent withdrawals from occupied territories, which were not forced by military defeats, would be seen by any rational mind as a gesture of peace. Instead, Hezbollah and Hamas saw the moves as a sign of weakness to be exploited. Had Israel not reacted swiftly and strongly to their incursions, those groups would have interpreted that as an invitation to engage in even more outrageous acts.
On the other hand, I think you are being overly optimistic about the possibility for a crisp and positive resolution to this conflict. Rising casualties from Israeli attacks may well cause the Lebanese to rally around Hezbollah, which is already a member of Lebanon's ruling government. I realize that Lebanon is not known as one of the great military powers of the world. But it's one thing to fight a radical faction within a country, and another to fight an entire nation.
Syria and Iran have thus far offered no more than condemnations of Israel, but that could change in a hurry. Last year Syria tried to use assassinations to reassert its influence on Lebanon. I think they'd love a chance to come to her "defense." They may not be the most militarily adept country, but they hate Israel, and Israel is attacking a nation with which Syria shares a border. That could motivate them to get into gear. And while I don't see Iran sending columns of troops marching through Iraq, foreign nations have had no trouble sneaking foreign terrorist fighters into that country; after all, Iraq's security situation is a mess. I don't think they'd have any more trouble sneaking terrorist fighters through Iraq to join in the fight against Israel.
The governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia are undemocratic and have long attempted to suppress Islamic fundamentalist movements within their borders. Another Israeli-Arab war could galvanize support for those fundamentalist Islamic movements and destablize those governments, making a dangerous situation even moreso.
I'm not saying these scenarios are certain to play out, but they are possibilities. I do think the current conflict is reason for serious concern.
"The problem is this, Israel and their collective enemies only have one mindset: to prove that they are the strongest one their is."
Which is just silly, has no one explained to these people that "Hulk is strongest one there is"?"
But if we're going with a Hulk theme, then I think we can't ignore the other popular chant of "Hulk just wants to be left alone."
Israel wants to exist. Their enemies refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Does anyone think for a moment that if every Arab, every terrorist group, every aggressor suddenly had a change of heart and said, "Y'know what? We've been wrong all this time. We will fight no more, forever," and that peace declaration stuck without terrorist raids, bombings, and inculcating new generations into anti-Israel thinking, that Israel would then continue to attack its neighbors?
PAD
Well, would Israel give back the lands it stole? What about Jerusalem? What about Golan Heights and the water sources they seized? What about the sizeable percentage of Israelis that demand arabs to be pushed out of "Great Israel" borders? What about the 30% of arab israelis who have limited rights, who cant even join most public positions?
Both sides have reasons to feel a victim, and most arabs would renounce violence if they would see those reasons dissapear. They need stable leaderhip to keep the extremists that wont in reign. But Israel is determined to handpick those leaders, undermining anyone they dont like.
Posted by: Nick Eden at July 15, 2006 10:26 AM
Is there evidence to suggest that the Gazan power station responsible for providing clean drinking water was one of those bases?
I'm guessing the terrorists don't have a separate infrastructure for providing clean drinking water and electricity. Cutting off your enemy's supplies is a logical wartime tactic. It's not pretty, and it's certainly not nice, but war is never either.
And what do you mean by "one of those bases?" As I've already pointed out, the terrorists don't have discrete bases.
And if there was, why not send in the Mossad to take them out?
Probably because the Mossad exists in the real world, as opposed to the world of James Bond films where the actions of a spectacularly sexy few can achieve devastating victories.
And just how using sonic booms to keep people awake in the middle of the night is doing anything other than terrorising a civilian population in order to try and force a political change escapes me.
As I've said, the terrorist have no discrete bases. They are spread out amongst and recruit from the general populace.
No-one would be citicising a special forces raid to get them back. The worry is that by destroyng the instrastucture (and ultimately the government's ability to govern) of Lebannon in response to a couple of missing squaddies not only is Israel harming thousands of innocents, but it's just going to bring about the kind of anarchy that lets the like ot Hamas and Hizbullah thrive. It's a vicious circle.
First, it is vulgar in the extreme to dismiss the captured Israeli soldiers as a "couple of missing squaddies." Second, other Israeli soldiers were killed during these raids. Third, would you be so sanguine about this if your country were invaded, even by a small force? Fourth, Israel attempted to break the vicious circle by withdrawing from occupied territories unilaterally. Hamas and Hezbollah reacted by stepping up their attacks and by engaging in outright acts of war.
A wise man was quoted on the radio this morning: "Anyone who comes in and sees an easy answer is not in possension of all the facts."
Or as we used to say when Americans came in and offered to sort out Northern Ireland: "If there were easy answers we'd have found them by now."
Yes, I know. I never asserted there was an easy answer. You, however, implied there was an easy answer with your blanket criticisms of Israel. That's why I challenged you to come up with a viable alternative. See, merely criticizing is an empty act. Unless you can suggest a viable and workable alternative, your criticisms are meaningless.
No solution is going to be quick. Let alone painless. Still, to perhaps make a fool of myself there seem to me a few things that must happen to bring peace to this kind of conflict.
1: Both sides must accept that the other has a grievance. Right now both Arabs and Israelis seem to think that they are the only victims.
Frankly, that's nothing more than a meaningless bromide. Of course both sides need to come to an understanding; that's the definition of peaceful conflict resolution. Do you have any substantive, viable suggestions as to how this can be achieved?
2: You need a lot of political courage to make it work. You need to have people prepared to talk to the other, to listen to the other.
Again, another meaningless bromide, lacking in any ideas for actually bringing people to the table.
3: Those people need to have enough authority to do something. Gerry Adams does seem to have been able to reign in the IRA, thank God for that. There's certainly no-one I can see in the Levant willing and able to play the same role.
One of the Israeli actions that's been least comprehensible over the last decade has been it's willingness to destroy the power base of anyone in Lebannon and Palestine that might have been able to reign these nutters in. Remember how Hamas would send in a suicide bomber and the IDF would blow up a couple of police stations because those policement should have done more to stop the attach. Thus ensuring that there would be even less chance of the surviving cops being able to stop the next one even if they wanted to. And so the bloody dance continued.
There may be a model though in Israel's relationship with Jordan and Egypt. Those states are strong enough to control their crazies. They have a fairly mature relationship with Israel. Lebannon and Palestine have been rendered anarchies, at least in part by Israel's actions. They will remain thorns in Israel's side until they've got governments strong enough to control their crazies. And bombing their airports won't help that happen.
Israel tried to negotiate with Arafat, offering him unprecedented territorial concessions, and was rebuffed. Israel pulled out of occupied territories unilaterally and Hamas and Hezbollah responded by invading Israel, which, I repeat again, is an act of war by any civilized standards. So while it is tempting to put one's hand to one's forhead and lament how "violence only begets more violence," it's a simplistic lament that omits the fact that Israel has tried to work things out peacefully.
The "vicious circle" lament assumes that everyone everywhere is rational. Not so. Hamas and Hezbollah are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. No more, no less. They don't accept Israel's right to exist. If Israel stops fighting, they won't.
Posted by: El Hombre Malo at July 15, 2006 11:03 AM
Well, would Israel give back the lands it stole?
Israel has already done just that by withdrawing from lands it had occupied.
And to say that it "stole" them is grossly inaccurate. It seized some of those territories while defending itself against the aggressions of its neighbors.
What about Jerusalem?
What about it? Do you suggest they merely give it up in order to appease their enemies?
What about the sizeable percentage of Israelis that demand arabs to be pushed out of "Great Israel" borders?
What the hell are you talking about? A sizable percentage of Israelis want Israel to work out a peaceful solution. But they don't want to sit back and let their enemies invade their country and abduct their soldiers.
I don't get this. When did it become anything other than an act of war to invade another country?
What about the 30% of arab israelis who have limited rights, who cant even join most public positions?
There are many legitimate grievances against Israel. Israel nevertheless has a right to defend its borders.
Both sides have reasons to feel a victim, and most arabs would renounce violence if they would see those reasons dissapear. They need stable leaderhip to keep the extremists that wont in reign. But Israel is determined to handpick those leaders, undermining anyone they dont like.
Again, what in hell are you talking about? Israel has responded to attacks by hostile forces. That has included attempts -- some succesfful -- to assassinate the leaders of those hostile forces, which is a common tactic during wartime. Can you name one instance where they've tried to interfere in the government of a nation not actively engaged in hostilities against them?
Israel is not perfect and deserves criticism for the way it has treated the Palestinians. But let's, you know, limit our criticisms to things Israel has actually done. And moreover, let's keep things in perspective: Israel is in a constant battle for survival against enemies whose goal is not to get concessions from Israel, but to wipe it out of existence. Period.
"I'm going out on a limb here but I'm not so sure this WON'T end well--at least as well as war ever can."
War never ends well. The dead can't speak for themselves, and the survivors are scarred emotionally, psychologically, and physically, which just gives everyone an excuse for the next round.
Bush and his frat brothers ("Rummie","Condi" and "Deadeye Dick") are already stirring up the pot looking for an excuse to hit Iran and or Syria.
Yes, Israel has the right to defend it's citizens. However, the response to the abduction of two soldiers has been how many dead Lebanese civilians?
Disproportionate indeed.
Sigh. I don't have the patience anymore to answer the specifics of the posts above. It seems to me that people can apply a case by case simple test of common sense and common decency in order to know when and if Israel is right and when wrong, instead of listening to propaganda and over-liberal or over-conservative reflexes and cliches. At a certain point Israelis, even some peace suppoerters such as myself realize that that is not going to happen. That people who don't know and don't understand, who sit far away, will make nonsensical cliched and often ignorant statements. That we have to take care of ourselves, and do the best we can in this world.
I support the war completely for a simple reasons. I oppposed the occupation of Gaza and the Lebanon. I oppose the occupation of the West Bank and the Golan. When I told israelis that Israel should not occupy, and that it should be able to defend itself from its borders, they asked: what if the radical organizations (who do not recognize israel's borders, or the interest of their own countries) will decide to attack Israel proper after the withdrawl? and I said that Israel can defend itself, and that I will support a war if it is in defence of Israel rather than an occupation. Nevertheless, almost a year has passed since the withdrawl from Gaza, and 6 from Lebanon. The attacks against Israel started shortly after the withdrawl. If Israel is not allowed to defend itself from its borders. If withdrawl means that Israel cannot defend itself, and that if we withdraw from the West Bank it will mean that radical organizations will attack from Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank (and maybe other countries), while the governments disavow resposibility, than withrawl would be wrong. I do not want Israel to continue occupying the West Bank.
Have Americans been kidnapped in order to force Israel to release its prisoners in Iraq and Cuba?
Since the war in Iraq was wrong, would such a kidnapping be considered justified?
We've searched through the military history of the US, Russia and Europe for ways to fight wars without hitting civilians. It's not going so well. At least our wars are against countries that are actually near us.
Bill, syria and Iran are not going to get involved.
Bill wrote:
Yes, I know. I never asserted there was an easy answer. You, however, implied there was an easy answer with your blanket criticisms of Israel. That's why I challenged you to come up with a viable alternative.
You are mistaken to see what I initially wrote as a blanket criticism of Israel. It was a blanket criticism of both sides.
But if we're going with a Hulk theme, then I think we can't ignore the other popular chant of "Hulk just wants to be left alone."
Israel wants to exist. Their enemies refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Does anyone think for a moment that if every Arab, every terrorist group, every aggressor suddenly had a change of heart and said, "Y'know what? We've been wrong all this time. We will fight no more, forever," and that peace declaration stuck without terrorist raids, bombings, and inculcating new generations into anti-Israel thinking, that Israel would then continue to attack its neighbors?
PAD
and Israel has every right to be left alone at peace with it's neighbours but to achive this requires diplomacy and a great deal of turning the other cheek ( admitidly impossible in these circumstances) as insane as this sounds Israel needs to start acting like the victim not the aggressor and really trying to make an effort to engage in negotions instead of simply trying to impose peace which will never work
I know in that this is a lofty ideal and would liturally be political sucide to any politician who tried it but really is the meet aggression with more aggression approach really working?
as u pointed out "Hulk is the stongest one there is" but has it ever bought him peace nope just a world of pain
Posted by: Micha at July 15, 2006 11:42 AM
Sigh. I don't have the patience anymore to answer the specifics of the posts above.
I don't know if my anything in my posts has added to your exasperation. If so, I apologize. I've tried to research specifics before making my points. You're more knowledgeable about this than I, although I've tried to catch up as best I can.
I'm aware that both inside and outside of Israel, there were those who warned that withdrawing from occupied lands without an agreement was dangerous. The current situation lends credence to that point of view.
And as you've pointed out, there was a very good argument to be made against occupying those lands in the first place.
Nevertheless, I don't think it's overly simplistic to say that the way Hamas and Hezbollah have reacted to Israel's unilateral withdrawal from some occupied lands demonstrates that those groups are uninterested in a peaceful resolution to their dispute with your nation.
Like you, I am at once exasperated with and perplexed by the voices questioning Israel's right to defend herself, or questioning whether her response has been "proportionate." Perhaps it is my emotional side getting the better of me, but crossing into another nation's borders, kidnapping some of her troops and killing others is in my view nothing short of an act of war.
We've searched through the military history of the US, Russia and Europe for ways to fight wars without hitting civilians. It's not going so well. At least our wars are against countries that are actually near us.
To be fair, Micha, while Iraq was a blunder on our part, Afghanistan harbored the architects of the September 11th attacks. Not every attack we've made against a far-away nation has been unprovoked.
Bill, syria and Iran are not going to get involved.
Time will tell. I hope you are correct.
I continue to remain concerned that this could escalate into a wider conflict. That doesn't mean I think Israel is doing the wrong thing. Quite the opposite -- I think Israel is responding in the only logical way.
Unfortunately, that doesn't make the situation any prettier. May God protect you, my friend, and keep you well. And may this conflict end speedily and with a minimum of bloodshed.
Posted by: Nick Eden at July 15, 2006 11:49 AM
You are mistaken to see what I initially wrote as a blanket criticism of Israel. It was a blanket criticism of both sides.
No, I'm not mistaken. Just because you criticized the other side doesn't mean your criticisms of Israel weren't of the "blanket" variety. You accused both sides of engaging in terrorist actions, without acknowledging that Israel faces certain enemies whose stated desire is to wipe it off the map. I therefore challenged you to suggest a viable alternative for Israel to pursue. You have yet to do so.
For God's sake, I'm advocating for a nation's right to defend its borders against an invasion. And yet people are implying or suggesting that Israel merely "turn the other cheek." Even though unilateral concessions made by Israel have been met with nothing more than increased aggression!
Would that I didn't believe this, but it's already tipped into the latter category, with three nations involved and counting. And none of the three so far involved wanted to be battlefields for this mess.
"syria and Iran are not going to get involved."
It's been determined that the missle that struck the Israeli ship was a high-tech Iranian device, not the low accuracy missles used by Hizbollah. Anyone thinking that Iran isn't one of the motivating factors behind all of this is living with their head burried in the sand
Bill, in this specific case I am more dissatisfied with the attacks coming from one side of the isle than the other. But, I felt it would be more fair to criticize people who generalize about our conflict from all sides. I often find myself arguing with right wing people in one place and with left wing people on the other, although I am what would be considered left. I'm also nervous (not afraid as much as annoyed), although I am out of the range of Hizballa rockets. I did not seek to offend you, and I appologize if I did. I did want to criticize in general a certain attitude about the Israeli conflict, that brings so many people to comment about it with broad generalizations and misinformation. You do not hear such discussions about India and Packistan, although their conflict is as long and more bloody. Or about the policies of Britain or Spain, although they have suffered terrorism.
----------
Both Iran and Syria armed Hizballa and have agents in Lebanon. But both have not committed their own armies. Syria denied being hit by Israel, which indicates it does not want to join the war. Iran said that it will come to the aid of Syria if attacked, but somehow forgot about Lebanon. This sounds like countries that don't want to join the war. We don't want them to. The only people who want us to attack Syria are the Lebanese.
------------------
"I'm aware that both inside and outside of Israel, there were those who warned that withdrawing from occupied lands without an agreement was dangerous. The current situation lends credence to that point of view."
Yes. If I want Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and that my home (in Jerusalem) wil not become a target of rockets too, I must show to the Israelis, the Arab leaders, the organizations, and the world (who talks big about dipplomacy but usually does little), that Israel will not be a victim of such attacks after withdrawl.
"Nevertheless, I don't think it's overly simplistic to say that the way Hamas and Hezbollah have reacted to Israel's unilateral withdrawal from some occupied lands demonstrates that those groups are uninterested in a peaceful resolution to their dispute with your nation."
They don't. They attack Israel because it gives them prestige. They are too weak to actually defeat Israel, but since they do not want peace they'll continue attacking until they have incentive not to. These groups are able to operate because the leadership and the majority of Lebanese and Palestinians think it is better to allow them to continue than take the risks involved in stopping them. These risks are real and understandable. But if these governments can guarentee security to Israel than Israel has to act Itself. Israelis cannot be hostages to the weaknesses of the Palestinian or Lebanese political systems.
"crossing into another nation's borders, kidnapping some of her troops and killing others is in my view nothing short of an act of war."
You also have to look at the broader strategic perspective. Israel is surrounded by Arab countries, each of which has a significant Islamic anti-peace segment, which is tolerated to a degree. All of which are dying to get involved in the Israeli Palestinian conflict in support of the Hamas. They will not refrain from getting involved because they feel sad for Israel, or for the sake of peace. Their government will not curtail them for the sake of Israel.
"To be fair, Micha, while Iraq was a blunder on our part, Afghanistan harbored the architects of the September 11th attacks. Not every attack we've made against a far-away nation has been unprovoked."
I'm not against the war in Afghanistan. It was justified. But, how many Afghani civilians died in that war? And how many American cities have been hit as a result of the US's attack on Afghanistan? If the war on Afghanistan is justified, how much more is Israel's war?
"What about the 30% of arab israelis who have limited rights, who cant even join most public positions?"
The funny thing here is the 30%. I don't know where that came from. The Palestinian-Israelis have equal rights. Their problems are similar to those of Africans-Americans today: poverty, lesser opportunities etc. However, their situation is a little more complicated, they belong to the same nation who is attacking us.
"What about the sizeable percentage of Israelis that demand arabs to be pushed out of "Great Israel" borders?"
There is a political party in Israel who supports that position. They united with another right-wing party that does not. Together they got 9 out of 120n seats in the Israeli Parliaments. 10 seats are shared by three arab parties, one communist, one nationalistic, and one Islamic. Do the math.
To hell with that. I'm not scared of being stuck in T2 land. Anyone can take a robot. Animal Man beat up robots.
What I'm scared of is a bright flash of light followed by being on fire.
And ninjas.
What if this conflict leads to the creation of Robotic Nuclear Powered Relgious Fundamentalist Ninjas Who Shoot Fire ... OUT OF THEIR EYES!
Now *there's* a truly terrifying thought.
Bill Myers wrote:
For God's sake, I'm advocating for a nation's right to defend its borders against an invasion. And yet people are implying or suggesting that Israel merely "turn the other cheek." Even though unilateral concessions made by Israel have been met with nothing more than increased aggression!
If the only choices are to turn the other cheek or to slaughter yet more innocents and ensure that another generation of Palestinians hate you souch that they can't see anything better to do with their lives then retaliate in kind, then yes, I do think turning the other cheek would be better in the long run.
I really hope that someone finds another option.
Well, this morning, I was half awake when this line more or less came into my head:
Did you know that President Bush's full name is actually George W.W.III Bush?
I know, there was 9/11 first. And I was all for going into Afghanistan. But I've always thought if we'd just stayed there, concentrated on limiting ourselves to fighting the Taliban (which seems to be experiencing a resurgence), and then maybe set up a perimeter of ourselves and our allies (who would've supported that) instead of going into Iraq as well, perhaps we wouldn't have helped stir things up to the place they are now.
But, then, as Dennis Miller used to say, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
On the other hand, I think you are being overly optimistic about the possibility for a crisp and positive resolution to this conflict. Rising casualties from Israeli attacks may well cause the Lebanese to rally around Hezbollah, which is already a member of Lebanon's ruling government. Well, I don't know that I would ever expect a "crisp" resolution to the Middle East situation (and given that both Israel and Iran possess or will possess nukes I don't know that "crisp" is a word we ever want to see used!) but you point is quite valid. I'm not saying this WILL end well, only that it COULD.
Allowing active terror organizations to exist on one's borders, actively supported by countries who have leaders with far more weapons than common sense seems to me to have no realistic good end. Attacking them at least has the POSSIBILITY of a good resolution. Of course, it could also be a disaster but I can't blame the Israelis from considering a throw of the dice.
Syria and Iran have thus far offered no more than condemnations of Israel, but that could change in a hurry.
Agreed, but I don't think the Syrians will amount to much and while you are abxsolutely correct that the Iranians could step up their terrorist activities within Israel, I'm not sure they can do much more than they have.
Incidentally, to those who insist that israel keep its reactions "balanced" and "in proportion"--would it be ok for them to do to the Iranians what Iran does to them? Arm rebel factions in Iran to the teeth and let them randomly blow up Iranian civilians? We ok with that?
Note to all--that wasn't directed at Bill Meyers, who is one of the more sensible, IMHO, voices here.
Well, would Israel give back the lands it stole? What about Jerusalem? What about Golan Heights and the water sources they seized? What about the sizeable percentage of Israelis that demand arabs to be pushed out of "Great Israel" borders? What about the 30% of arab israelis who have limited rights, who cant even join most public positions?
So if Israel agrees to hand back everything it has ever won in war--something the rab states would never do--and somehow suppresses anyone in its population that doesn't like this, while giving its Arab citizens even more freedom than they currently have (which is more than they would probably have in any ARAB country)...what then? Do you think Hezbollah and Hamas will be satisfied? I don't. Not while a Jew breaths. I take them at their word.
War never ends well. The dead can't speak for themselves, and the survivors are scarred emotionally, psychologically, and physically, which just gives everyone an excuse for the next round.
It's not hard to come up with examples of wars that have ended with dangerously aggressors being defeated. I would see that as a positive.
If the only choices are to turn the other cheek or to slaughter yet more innocents and ensure that another generation of Palestinians hate you souch that they can't see anything better to do with their lives then retaliate in kind, then yes, I do think turning the other cheek would be better in the long run.
Ignoring the fact that I don't think the chices can be reduced just to that, if you reword it to say "If the only choices are to turn the other cheek and watch yourself and your friends and family butchered or to attack those who would slaughter you" the obvious choice might cahnge. yeah, it's a one sided way to present it but so, I think, was yours.
I don't think Israel is without fault ever, but looking at the countries that routinely condemn it I don't see a one that would have tolerated a situation similar to the one Israel has faced. If the Palestinians on Syria's border did anything like launch rockets into Damascus...well, ask the resident of Hama what would happen (you might need a Ouija Board for some).
Posted by: Micha at July 15, 2006 01:46 PM
Bill, in this specific case I am more dissatisfied with the attacks coming from one side of the isle than the other. But, I felt it would be more fair to criticize people who generalize about our conflict from all sides. I often find myself arguing with right wing people in one place and with left wing people on the other, although I am what would be considered left. I'm also nervous (not afraid as much as annoyed), although I am out of the range of Hizballa rockets. I did not seek to offend you, and I appologize if I did.
You didn't offend me, and you're such an intelligent and good-hearted person that you're unlikely to ever do so. Your apology is accepted but entirely unnecessary.
Besides, your nation is at war with forces attacking you within your own borders. I'd have to be a royal asshole to pitch a hissy fit at you while you're facing such an awful situation.
I did want to criticize in general a certain attitude about the Israeli conflict, that brings so many people to comment about it with broad generalizations and misinformation. You do not hear such discussions about India and Packistan, although their conflict is as long and more bloody. Or about the policies of Britain or Spain, although they have suffered terrorism.
Having encountered you often enough, I've learned to make a habit of learning enough about the situation before commenting on it.
That said, there are some principles that transcend context in my view. One such principle is that a nation has a right to defend its borders against aggression.
Posted by: Micha at July 15, 2006 01:46 PM
I'm not against the war in Afghanistan. It was justified. But, how many Afghani civilians died in that war? And how many American cities have been hit as a result of the US's attack on Afghanistan? If the war on Afghanistan is justified, how much more is Israel's war?
Have no doubt, I agree with you wholeheartedly that your nation is justified in waging war against Hezbollah and Hamas, and moreover is entirely justified in the manner in which it is waging that war.
Posted by: Nick Eden at July 15, 2006 02:14 PM
If the only choices are to turn the other cheek or to slaughter yet more innocents and ensure that another generation of Palestinians hate you souch that they can't see anything better to do with their lives then retaliate in kind, then yes, I do think turning the other cheek would be better in the long run.
History has shown that the choices are never as stark nor simplistic as you've portrayed them. The military conflicts between Israel and Egypt did not prevent them from reaching an accord in the 1970s.
You would do well to research the area a bit more before making feel-good statements about the current conflict.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 15, 2006 03:30 PM
Allowing active terror organizations to exist on one's borders, actively supported by countries who have leaders with far more weapons than common sense seems to me to have no realistic good end. Attacking them at least has the POSSIBILITY of a good resolution. Of course, it could also be a disaster but I can't blame the Israelis from considering a throw of the dice.
Oh, agreed. I simply wanted to point out some of the other possibilities. What happens in the Middle East has strategic implications for us, and I think we would do well to anticipate the possibilities. That said, Israel needn't, in the words of our President, seek a "permission slip" to defend itself.
And as I've said repeatedly, I don't think Israel has any reason to apologize for waging this war, nor for the way in which they're waging it.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 15, 2006 03:30 PM
Note to all--that wasn't directed at Bill Meyers, who is one of the more sensible, IMHO, voices here.
I agree. Bill Meyers is a great guy. If nothing else, I like him because our names are so similar. Mine is spelled "Myers." ;)
I agree. Bill Meyers is a great guy. If nothing else, I like him because our names are so similar. Mine is spelled "Myers." ;)
Duh'oh! NO WONDER typing in billmeyerscreations.com took me nowhere at all while billmyerscreations.com took me to the homepage of a gifted talent!
I'm pretty much completely disgusted by this whole situation. What I think is worse, though, is all the armchair quarterbacks looking into the situation and spinning it to their own viewpoint. People are dying. You don't see anything but numbers on any of the reports. If I see one more talking head on the screen pondering what this is going to do to our gas prices, I'll vomit all over. So our wallets will be hit a little more. Boo-frigging-hoo. PEOPLE are DYING. The leaders on both sides think that The Reasons are justified, but you know what? Any time you have to eliminate your opposition in an arguement, you've already lost. The Dark Ages never ended.
Kk, my rant's over. Thanks for reading.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at July 15, 2006 05:35 PM
PEOPLE are DYING. The leaders on both sides think that The Reasons are justified, but you know what? Any time you have to eliminate your opposition in an arguement, you've already lost. The Dark Ages never ended.
Sean, I like you, so I'm trying to temper my response. But I think you're engaging in some feel-good chest-thumping of your own.
Just because both sides believe themselves to be justified doesn't mean that one side can't be more right than the other. I think the Allies were a touch more right than the Axis during WWII, for example. I think we were morally justified in our invasion of Afghanistan following 9/11 (but not so morally justified in invading Iraq). And I think the Israelis, in responding to incursions into their nation by enemies sworn to push them into the sea, occupy a somewhat higher moral elevation here.
Yes, people are dying, and it feels good to wring our hands about it. But what good does that do? Do you have any suggestions for a viable alternative to this war? Do you think it would in any way be responsible for the government of Israel to ignore a threat to its national security?
By the way, folks, let us not forget that while the roots of the Arab-Israeli conflict are deep, and the conflict is complicated, the formation of the modern Israeli state was motivated to protect Jews who had immigrated to what was then Palestine, in order to flee political persecution and attempted extermination in Europe. Despite what radical Islamists may wish to believe, it's not as though some powerful Jewish conquerors established Israel as step one towards Jewish domination of the entire Middle East.
The Arabs have never accepted the idea of an Israeli state and have been waging war for decades in order to drive them out. Were Israel to simply lay down their arms unilaterally, I believe many Arab factions would make good on their promise to destroy Israel. Were groups like Hezbollah and Hamas to unilaterally lay down their arms and start acting like adults, I don't think Israel would respond in the same fashion.
Maybe it's just because the War on Terror, "I'm a war president" conservative march has been going on for so long, but I'm getting really sick of hearing that every atrocity committed by one country against another, whether accidental, in self-defense, whatever the rationale, is automatically acceptable under the blanket excuse of "war is ugly."
I can't even begin to understand what Israel is going through, or the Palestinians for that matter. I just keep thinking back to that episode of Star Trek where two races wiped each other out over something as stupid and meaningless as which side of the face was black and which side was white. People are killing each other and as long as every death is another "act of war," this will go on until no one is left.
I'm far from an idealist. I've lived in the world just long enough to doubt there's a better way than slaughtering people en masse to keep some people safe from some other people. I just think it would be a lot easier to see through the bullshit if we stopped treating war like some black hole that swallows all reason.
I don't know what I'm trying to say. I just hate how common it's become for people to shrug off human suffering, whether it's deserved or undeserved. There are countries in Africa where the deathtolls from recent wars are so horrifying that I can't even fathom the loss to human potential.
Peter,
Sorry this has nothing to do with the current blog, I just havn't been able to find any contact info for you or J.K. Woddward...
I'm trying to contact J.K. Woodward in order to get permission to use his FALLEN ANGEL graphic on a new music DVD titled - SATANIC ANGELS BOOK I.
Could you please direct this to the correct channels.
Thank you,
Gordon Mcghie
Trigger Music Inc.
1-800-765-4851 [North America]
011-1-250-765-4851 [International. Pacific Time Zone]
http://www.triggermusic.com
Posted by: Edible Consumer at July 15, 2006 08:32 PM
I just hate how common it's become for people to shrug off human suffering, whether it's deserved or undeserved.
I personally take umbrage at the implication that I, or anyone else for that matter, who believes Israel is justified is "shrugging off human suffering."
Personally, I felt a chill go down my spine when this latest conflict began. And I was personally grateful to see Micha's posts, confirming that he was OK.
I know people who have served in Iraq. I work with a man whose son was on the front lines when the invasion began in 2002. I don't want to see anymore bloodshed. Anywhere.
But I also know that simply laying down arms does not always prevent bloodshed and suffering -- in some cases, it can worsen it.
I think no one said here that Israel doesnt have a right to defend itself. I just say there must be some other way. "Cutting supply lines" is a military strategy ill suited to deal with guerrillas. An extremist militant have little problem going days or weeks without electricity or running water, a civilan family does not. A guerrilla have little use for Gaza Airport since Israel completely owns the skies but palestinian economic development needs that kind of infraestructure. As for Lebanon, a country that just got rid of a pro-Syrian goverment by a narrow margin, these kind of things can throw the population into the arms of the anti-israeli camp.
Israel has the right to defend itself but also have the responsability to use its force wisely, and to prevent future conflict in extent of its power. And all these years of conflict have taught us that massive force display and civilian casualties dont work. And the "this is war, shit happens" attitude many show when arab civilian victims are mentioned is nauseating. Its on the same level as an arab terrorist justifying a suicide bombing in a israeli market. If you have to risk soldier's lifes to avoid civilian casualties instead of dropping bombs from planes, then the right thing is to do that. To put a foreighner's life below the life of a national is obscene, and the gate to all war crimes.
Ive lived with terrorism all my life, beign a spaniard. And I've heard every reason for contundent action against terrorists and their background. But as most spaniards, I have come to understand that it is wiser to let some escape and be allways right than to commit some wrongs to end with all the shit. And it pays off. We now see the light at the end of the tunnel but even if we didnt, we would at least be sure that they are the only criminals in the matter at hand.
Israel have the power, so it also have the responsability. Every time they kill an innocent because they prefer the "easy" way, they make this last longer. For this to end, extremist have to lose their popular backing, and history teach us that people cant be pummeled into submission by force, on contrary, they tend to become more desperate in their opposition.
"Cutting supply lines" is a military strategy ill suited to deal with guerrillas. An extremist militant have little problem going days or weeks without electricity or running water, a civilan family does not.
Perhaps, but when the guerrillas are firing sophisticated rockets the resupply of said rockets is something to be legitimately suppressed.
If you have to risk soldier's lifes to avoid civilian casualties instead of dropping bombs from planes, then the right thing is to do that.
I totally disagree and I can't come up with one good example of that ever being done. WW2 would have lasted forever if the Allies had adopted a "no civilian casualties" policy (and it's doubtful the Axis powers would have gone along).
history teach us that people cant be pummeled into submission by force, on contrary, they tend to become more desperate in their opposition.
History has any number of exceptions to this--Japan in WW2, etc.
Bill, sorry, I didn't make my point very well. (But, in explanation, I've been at work 14 hours now. Lame, but true!) A lot of the news reports that I've seen have been less on the actual conflict but on what is this going to do to us? I'd just heard the umpteenth talking head wondering what THIS was going to do with gas prices and someone in the room made a crack about guessing that they'd have to cancel their trip to the beach. THAT's what had me riled up. So, you're right, I was most assuredly doing my own chest-thumping. I just don't like the way that the media and some of the people around me are almost trivializing what's happening. Maybe for some people that's the way their minds work. Me, I don't. I think about the people there, or at least I try to. Gotta admit, my first thought was that I'm glad I'm here. But then, I can't help but wonder what it's like to be on either side. Ironically enough, right now CNN's airing their TWA flight 800 special, and that's another time I wondered about what those people experienced. Was the media reaction the same? Hate to admit it, but I don't remember. I just really get upset when there's a whole big conflict in the world and the media or people around me belittle it.
Just reread El hombre Malo's post. Each time I read it, it struck me that you understand the feelings because you've experienced the situation. I'm glad you're able to communicate that, and everything else you said. And you've also made an arguement that I haven't heard before in the whole situation. You too, Micha.
All I'm trying to say is that this situation is deep, and there are some people are treating it like a puddle to be stepped around. I've reread and edited this post more than any other I've ever done,beacuse I want to be sure that I'm at least making myself clear. This is an old fight, the solution isn't simple. There's a lot involved. I just think that people should keep the big picture in mind before they worry about the smaller problems.
I'd really hate to get drawn into world war 3 just because people of different religious background can't agree on the same invisible man in the sky to worship. I mean, COME ON!
Bits of wisdom from *TallestFanEver*
"Ah, screw it. What we're all scared about is that this conflict spirals out of control and we're stuck in T2 land. I say, the world coming to an end would make life alot easier to deal with. If the shit goes down and nukes hit all over the globe, all you have to deal with is Food & Shelter, instead of Everything Else. Bring on the Apocalypse, I say. It makes living a lot less complicated."
"Seriously, if this Irael vs. Everybody conflict spirals out of control, just find your hidey-hole for a while, and then when you poke out your head, its freakin' Mad Max 3: Beyond Thunderdrome outside. How cool would that be?!!!"
"I'd really hate to get drawn into world war 3 just because people of different religious background can't agree on the same invisible man in the sky to worship. I mean, COME ON!"
Are you really this stupid, or do you just play stupid on the internet?
mostly just playing stupid. And drinking. And the fact that getting up in arms about this spiraling out of control is really not needed, so you take it to its final conclusion, and then laugh about it because the inherent idea is so absurd.
I need more rum.
Also, do any and all political threads on here need to get 80+ responses back and forth between the same half a dozen posters with long-winded explanations from both sides? It gets old. Rather quickly.
Posted by Sean Scullion at July 16, 2006 12:15 AM
Bill, sorry, I didn't make my point very well.
Actually, I re-read your initial post, and I think the fault was not with how you wrote it but with how I interpreted it. You did in fact mention that you were upset with those who were primarily concerned with how the latest conflict would affect gas prices. So the latest "Needs an Emergency Drop Shipment of Hooked on Phonics Because He's an Idiot" award goes to... me.
Besides, it probably was a bit callous to dismiss concern about human lives as "hand-wringing." My frustration was with those who are condemning Israel without suggesting a viable alternative. But I think anyone with an ounce of decency is at least saddened by the loss of human life that has occurred and will yet occur.
And yes, we in the U.S. in particular need to get over our self-centered way of looking at the Middle East.
Posted by: TallestFanEver at July 16, 2006 04:31 AM
Also, do any and all political threads on here need to get 80+ responses back and forth between the same half a dozen posters with long-winded explanations from both sides? It gets old. Rather quickly.
Well, as one of the more frequent posters, I've enjoyed the back-and-forth with "the same half a dozen posters" (although, to be fair, the "regulars" amount to more than a half a dozen in most threads). Some thoughts can't be expressed in a mere sentence or two, and through discourse with others in Peter's blog I've learned a great deal and been exposed to different ways of thinking.
I'm sorry if that's killing your buzz. But no one is forcing you to read any threads in this blog.
And count yourself lucky if your buzz is all you have to worry about. There are many others out there with far greater worries.
"Also, do any and all political threads on here need to get 80+ responses back and forth between the same half a dozen posters with long-winded explanations from both sides? It gets old. Rather quickly."
I'm sorry tallest fan, but I'm going to need along winded explanation of what you mean.
JAC
Let's talk about the facts, instead of abstractions.
Israel withdrew to the international border with Lebanon (designated by the UN) in May 2000. Its presence in Lebanon was wrong. The campaign to get Israel out of Lebanon was waged by an organization of mothers of soldiers called The Four Mothers (biblical reference) who stood up to generals.
Shortly after the withdrawl the Hizballa took over southern Lebanon, armed itself with 13,000 rockets from Iran whose range covers a third of Israel, some of them of longer range than before, placed their forces on the border, kidnapped 3 soldiers (with the UN forces turning a blind eye), and started attacking a small area which they claim is also part of Lebanon. Since then, they have attacked that area, kidnapped an Israeli civilian (possibly from Europe), every once in a while attacked Israeli civilian areas with their rockets, and allowed a few incursions into Israel, all the while also aiding the Islamic Jihad in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel did bargain for the bodies of the 3 soldiers and the civilian, and refrained from an all out assault. Israel did not give Hizballa all of the Lebanese prisoners because there are four Israeli soldiers who were missing in Lebanon since the 80's.
One reason was because of the fear of the Hizballa's attack on its civilians, who were basically held hostage. It should also be noted that Hizballa's success is one of the reasons for the greater support for 'armed resistence' among the Palestinians that led to the second Intifada following shortly Israel's withdrawl from Lebanon, and continuing ever since.
Last week Hizballa decided to kidnap soldiers in order to get involved in the conflict in Gaza, and help the Hamas and Jihad in Gaza. They also asked for the release of Palestinian prisoners. It should also be noted that Israel withdrew from Gaza in last September, removing from their homes 8000 Israeli settlers (that should never have been there, but who still have lost their homes). Since then the areas Israel withdrew from and other areas were used to shell Israeli towns and Kibbutzim (inside Israel's border) in the south daily, while weapons were being smuggled from Egypt. Israel did not start an all out asault until June.
Meanwhile in the west bank, suicide bombers try to make their way to Israel. Most but not all are blocked. They also attack settlers (who I completely oppose politically). At the same time that the soldier was taken from a base outside Gaza (for who the Hamas asked for a thousand Palestinian prisoners) a 16(?) year old settler was kidnapped and murdered in the West Bank.
(The kidnapping in Gaza was done by the Hamas, the leading party in the Palestinian government).
In 2006 elections, the leading party opposing future withdrawls has shrunk to 13 or 12 seat in the Israeli Parliament. The prime minister belongs to a party who supports a wide (but in my opinion insufficient for peace) withdrawl from the West Bank.
All this is not happening because of a religious argument or strange medieval reasons. They are happening because of reasons easily understandable to a westerner. Remember how you felt after the attacks on your countries.
The reason why the HIzballa is fighting is simple. The Hizballa's leadership position in Lebanese politics, as well as in the forefront of the Islamic fight depends on its continued harassing of Israel. They are not fighting to win, they are fighting to continue fighting, so they are able to attack Israel whenever it is politically expedient for them.
It is imposible to fight a complete war against an army with multiple bases and caches all over Lebanon by commando attacks. A military incursion by force with tanks will cause more harm to civilians, while causing more casualties to Israeli soldiers. Shortly after the kidnapping a tank went into Gaza, all the soldiers in it have died. Israeli soldiers are a significant part of the citizenship, since military service is compulsory, so we value their lives too, as much as civilians (my sister was stationed next to the Lebanese border as a UN laison because of her English which is better than mine). The Hizballa does not wear uniforms and works from inside the civilian population, as does the Hamas in Gaza. Their rockets are hidden inside houses.
If Israel slaughters innocent civilians so do the American , British, and Spaniards who went to Aphganistan, Iraq, or any other war they participated in. If you believe that that makes the civilians or soldiers of these countries the legitimate targets for attacks that's your business.
------------------
Turning the other cheek is nice if it is not your cheek.
Oh, there will be no nuclear war because of this conflict. The only one that has nuclear weapons at present is Israel, and it is not going to use them.
Bill Myers,
While you're taking umbrage, human beings are still suffering. I'm not looking for a reply or another neatly typed justification. What I'd like is for everyone who really does feel horror at the loss of human life in the middle east and all over the world to make that horror the thing they convey to other people. Because I really don't think most people care how many people die as long as they're far, far away from where the bombs and the bullets are. In two differing reports of a bombing campaign, in Beirut I think, one report said a hundred people were killed and another report said at least forty of the people killed were civilians. If both of those numbers are right, almost half the casualties were people who got in the way. Discuss the reasons and tactics of war by all means, as it's certainly not going away, but war needs to be talked about in context, otherwise it's an incomplete picture and people get very callous about the cost. Suffering and death are the context. Our leaders have forgotten this or they just don't care, and I don't want the same thing to happen to the rest of us.
Bill Mulligan said:
"...when the guerrillas are firing sophisticated rockets the resupply of said rockets is something to be legitimately suppressed.
"
Doe sthe term "rocket fuel" rings a bell to you? Do you believe civil infraestructures carry rocket fuel?
" WW2 would have lasted forever if the Allies had adopted a "no civilian casualties" policy (and it's doubtful the Axis powers would have gone along)."
WWII was a war between armies. Armies that did really had an use for airfields, fuel supply lines and bridges. And even so, the fire bombing of Tokio or the british carpet bombing of Köln are widely seen as war crimes. Even then they were seen as disproportionate use of force. Even Fascists and germans in Spain found a military justification for the bombing of Guernica, but the truth is all these actions have only one motivation; to terrorize population.
As for the japanese, to believe there was no resistance due to the atomic bombings is naive. The emperor's message in the radio and what Japanese consider to be a correct behavior in defeat are considered the main cause of japanese compliance in the ocupation. Even the (few) japanese prisoners during war, prior to the atomic boms acted that way. Please read "The Chrysanthemum and the Sword:Patterns of Japanese Culture", Ruth Benedict work on Japan written with the data she surveyed for the US Army to prepare for a future ocupation of the isles.
I would also recomend you to read Mario Vargas Llosa work on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He's been awarded the Jerusalem prize as a long term friend of the state of Israel, wich he sets as an example for most countries in the world (mostly his own, he is peruvian-born). I would translate his today's column in El Pais but I fear its lenghty. I link it here for all of you who can read spanish. He makes a good point on how any attack to Israel policy toward palestinians is quickly mistaken by most for an attack to the existence of Israel.
http://www.elpais.es/articulo/elpporopi/20060716elpepiopi_5/Tes/Israel/matices
Also I would like to share this other link with you.
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_292.shtml
OK, at the risk of getting everyone really, really, really sick of me...
Posted by: Edible Consumer at July 16, 2006 09:58 AM
Bill Myers,
While you're taking umbrage, human beings are still suffering. I'm not looking for a reply or another neatly typed justification. What I'd like is for everyone who really does feel horror at the loss of human life in the middle east and all over the world to make that horror the thing they convey to other people.
In other words, you want people to feel how you want them to feel, and to communicate what you want them to communicate. Because you know what we should all be feeling and how we should express it.
I used to be a far-left anti-war liberal. I believed that all war for any reason was wrong, and that anyone who disagreed just didn't get it. They didn't understand the suffering because they needed a hero like me to help them care.
Talking down to people as though they lacked a human heart because they weren't marching to the beat of my drummer closed more minds than it opened.
I still consider myself a liberal, but I'm no longer against war in all its forms. And it's funny how often I get attacked by people who think I just don't get it. They can't even imagine that I once thought as they did -- because having trodden in that magical paradise, they can't imagine anyone would wish to leave.
I know you haven't necessarily said that all war is morally unjustifiable, but you are acting as smugly as I once did. So trust me, I "get it," far moreso than you're willing to believe.
By the way, I'm sorry if this reply is unwelcome, as you implied with your earlier post. And I am equally sorry if you feel this is another "neatly typed justification." It actually represents my sincerest thoughts and feelings, as all of my posts have.
Because I really don't think most people care how many people die as long as they're far, far away from where the bombs and the bullets are.
Have you heard of an Iranian girl named Nazanin? She was going to be executed for killing a man who was attempting to rape her. I signed a petition that was sent to the U.N. and circulated e-mails to all of my friends and family asking them to do the same. The Iranian high court issued a stay of execution so the case could be reviewed. There's reason to believe that public pressure exerted by people like myself helped.
My girlfriend works for a juvenile detention facility where we live. My girlfriend and I are white suburbanites. Many of the kids who end up in the facility are non-whites from poor backgrounds. My girlfriend has been spending time outside of work trying to think of programs that could help enrich these kids' lives for the brief time they're in the facility -- even though when they leave they often go back to an urban environment that frequently does not directly touch her life.
You see, just because something isn't readily apparent on the surface -- or being expressed in a way that meets with your approval -- doesn't mean it's not there.
While I don't begrudge anyone from focusing on their "feelings" vis a vis the war, it's not my thing. I'd rather focus on tactics, strategy, outcomes, etc. that may seem callous and others are free to pretend that they are better than I am because they claim to "feel" the suffering of others. To each his own though it looks foolish when they try to claim the high ground.
Doe sthe term "rocket fuel" rings a bell to you? Do you believe civil infraestructures carry rocket fuel?
Er, I don't know. Since they have found weapons in freaking Mosques I wouldn't be surprised. At any rate...does the expression "transporting rocket fuel over bridges and roadways" ring a bell?
WWII was a war between armies. Armies that did really had an use for airfields, fuel supply lines and bridges.
Ok, that's a bit of a qualifier. Your original statement was just "If you have to risk soldier's lifes to avoid civilian casualties instead of dropping bombs from planes, then the right thing is to do that."
As for the Japanese, to believe there was no resistance due to the atomic bombings is naive. The emperor's message in the radio and what Japanese consider to be a correct behavior in defeat are considered the main cause of Japanese compliance in the ocupation. Even the (few) japanese prisoners during war, prior to the atomic boms acted that way. Please read "The Chrysanthemum and the Sword:Patterns of Japanese Culture", Ruth Benedict work on Japan written with the data she surveyed for the US Army to prepare for a future ocupation of the isles.
A good book to be sure, one that certainly puts into doubt the statement "history teach us that people can’t be pummeled into submission by force, on contrary, they tend to become more desperate in their opposition." The Japanese WERE indeed "pummeled". Their opposition crumbled. Your generalization was too general.
Not that I would use japan as a model for the Middle East. The Japanese acted MUCH more sensibly than the Palestinians have.
Are you really this stupid, or do you just play stupid on the internet?
See: the name you posted this garbage with.
I've thought several times about posting to this thread, but I really don't have anything to add. I'm so at odds with my thoughts on this whole issue (Israel & Lebanon, not idiots posting only to insult other posters), that I'm not even sure where to begin.
1) Israel is not carpet bombing anything.
2) Israel does not seek to subjugate or occupy Lebanon.
3) Since the beginning of this conflict the Hizbala fired more than a thousand rockets into Israel. These rockets are mobile. They are transported by land from Syria or from air or sea by Iran. Then they are transported throughout the country by roads and bridges using vehicles that use fuel. Afterwards, if they are not used they are hidden somewhere, in Shiate villages and cities, often in residences. Rocket fuel is irrelevant. They are not trying to go to the moon, the rockets have fuel in them.
4) I am not far away. I am about two to three hours drive from being in range of the Hizballa's missles (maybe less).
5) If the suicide attack in Madrid was done by a group that had bases in Morroco, and was part of the Morrocan government; and if in support of that attack this organization based in Morroco would have kidnapped a member of the Spanish coast guard in order to release Muslim prisoners, and would have bombarded the Spanish towns along the Mediterranean coast, I assume that the Spanish army would have reacted, and that he question whether this attack was meant as part of a reconquista effort of Al-Andalus or just for political pressure would have been less important to you. Please adapt this to your own country wherever you are.
To be honest I’m just a lurker on this site and only come here to receive updates on Peter’s comic book and novel work however I feel inclined to comment on this topic. A poster I know at another forum described Israel reaction as performing brain surgery with a chainsaw. In any case Israel played right into their enemies hand, because they are getting the reaction that they deliberately provoked when they kidnapped the two solders. In light of my being an American citizen this might sound hypocritical but I truly feel that Israel should have waited and preceded more carefully before entering a conflict that could have widespread implication for both the Israeli and Lebanese people. What Iraq is to us Lebanon might become for Israel.
As for Israel having it’s fair share of neiboring enemies well you can thank England and America for that as they were the ones that created a nation state for Jews displaced by World War two by displacing the people that were already living there. At least that what I think happened as I’ve been out of school for many years now, and I apologize if my understanding on the topic is flawed. Please feel free to correct me, as I would rather be humbled and educated rather than continuing base my opinion on this issue using wrong information.
1) I never said Israel was carpet bombing, I was responding to the WWII reference on the issue of civilian victims beign acceptable or not.
2) When you use force to make the population do what you want them to do, then you are trying to subjugate them; "repress, quash, keep down, subdue, subjugate, reduce, put down by force or intimidation". If Israel tried to subjugate Hezbolah, I wouldnt have any problem with it, but its the whole Lebanon population they are terrorizing.
3) Again, I just disagreed about the convenience of bombing civil fuel depots like the airport's and someone came up with the rockets.
But still, While Israel demands Lebanon army to go south and disarm Hezbolah, they deprive them of the means to do it, both fuel and roads. As I said again, Hezbolah is a guerrilla, much less dependent on roads, infraestructures and fuel than a regular army. Attacking those only make the rest of Lebanese weaker. Moreso, throwing fliers to lebanese civilians, urging them to leave the attacked area when you have deprived them of roads and fuel to do it properly is a joke.
4) I hope you and yours do nor come into harm
5)Madrid attacks were made by a group that have bases in Morocco and we know for sure Morocco goverment does not have the will to engage that group. We also know exactly who the supporters of ETA are, since they dont hide and enjoy the same rights any other spaniard have. In both cases a part of spanish society demanded swift action, military action. And in both cases we have decided to end the causes of the conflict and not simply try to "subjugate" the attackers and their suporters.
In the early 80's, part of the goverment sponsored a group that kidnapped and killed terrorists and their civilian suporters, ultimatelly kidnapping an innocent by mistake. This only caused more people to back ETA and the spanish society to demand for a strict adherence to law and civil behavior. Spanish Misnister of interior affairs ended up in jail, as well as other high rank officials.
20 years later, ETA has little or no support for their violence and its negotiating a permanent cease fire. Restrain pays off. With Islamist terrorists we are doing the same; use intelligence and police to keep them as bay, cry our dead but make sure no one can ever label us guilty for an innocent death.
And as for how the spanish army would have reacted... Armies dont have to react in any other way than however the goverment says. Period.
---------------
As for what Bill Mulligan said about Japan:
The book I mentioned describe how japanese prisoners, way before Atomic attacks, were cooperative and eager to help the american troops that captured them. In battle they would fight to the last man but whenever one was captured, he became docile and eager to appease. Not out of cowardly or sense of futility but for the same reasons they fought so fiercely: to be as good as you can in the position you are in. As a soldier, the best soldier, as a prisoner, the best prisoner. Japanese idiosincracy and adherence to the Emperor's word was what made them docile after defeat, not pummeling.
Every invaded country without that idiosincratic peculiarity have shown resistance and have tried to make the invade/agressor life miserable. Spanish did to the french, polish did to the german, vietnamese did to the americans... Even if your country goverment is wrong, people will hate whoever is killing them and gravitate to whoever group is doing more to fight back. It doesnt have to do with reason, but with feelings.
Putting aside the history of the area (and though we must never forget history, peace is only won by concentrating on the future)....
Seems to me that Israel has every reason to be a) be angry and b) retaliate against aggressors that act, well, aggressively, against its citizens. Whether that be Hezballuh, Palestians or whoever... if they target civilians they get NO support from me.
However, Israel loses a great deal of support when it fires missiles, storm or otherwise into heavily populated civilian areas and then claims that 'it's 'unfortunate' when civilians die. It's not 'unfortunate', it's a totlaly forseeable event and a calculated decision that killing civilians is not as bad as NOT killing Hezballuh/enemy operatives.
Civilian deaths are the tragc tool of both sides in a war. Depending whose side you're on they are unfortunate collateral damage or murdered innocents - watching one hour of any news station teaches you that.
The steps that must follow are:
The Lebanese government must call on hezbullah to stop its campaign and must condemn their actions as overtly provocative (fighting an enemy inside your own land is one thing, attackign the enemy on their own soil is different)
The Israelies must call off their bombing asap. They've had their show of strength and it must be clear to anyone that unless they plan to invade the Lebanon the harder they bomb, the LESS likely this enemy is to back down and lose face. Equally, the more civilian deaths, the more potential enemies are created in the surviving population on both sides.
The two above items must be negotiated internationally. Neither side is inclined to make the first move, which is a pity because the first one to do so is likely to get most of the international goodwill out of it.
Yes, I know sounds remarkably easy. It's not.
But the fact is that the alternative is two (or more) nations looking for bigger and bigger rocks to throw at each other. And we all know where that leads.
Despite most of the comments, there's one truth: it's not our business. Israel will do what Israel wants. We didn't vote for the current conservative Israeli government, and it's not our right to do so.
(Yes, most of us didn't vote for the current conservative American government, but we can still voice grievances. It is our government, after all.)
In all honesty, being partly of Irish extraction, I feel the way I did when the IRA and Catholic factions were turning Northern Ireland into a bloodbath. I hate it. I feel tied to it. But I can't do anything to stop it, because it's not my right. The only thing I could do was negative - not attend the Catholic fundraisers that supported terrorist groups.
And I suspect that American Jews who are frightened about this can only do the same; stop supporting Israel with money and praise until they choose to come to the bargaining table. That is, if the table doesn't get incinerated in a nuclear fireball.
It is amazing to me that we have leaders i
I know PAD's post implies that he somehow expected or thinks bush will criticize Israel on this, but in actuality, he is one of the few supporting israel of world leaders, and has long been a supporter of Israel (as have other presidents and evangelical christians in general today).
His cautions, it seems obvious to me, are a desire not to see the whole aread erupt, as we have been told would happen, and did not happen, after both Afgjanistan and Iraq. The truth is, he needs it, and we need it, to be peaceful there in order for us to be safe.
So I wish this wasn't happening.
However, I can't blame Israel. On the one hand, you have a relatively free nation and on the other, nations, terrorists, and a population that seems unwilling to admit the other side will be there, whether they like it or not. It is a no brainer to me. Until they admit Israel ain't going anywhere, there will never be true peace.
and until arab nations stop seeing a vast jewish conspiracy behind everything, and look to their own nations and leaders, most of them will continue to be hundreds of years behind the times.
One day, there will be alternatives to oil, and unless they get their act together, they will be left with nothing.
As to this specific conflict, again, the problem is it doesn't matter what israel does, it doesn't matter how much land it fgives up, how many concessions, these groups of terrorists, and many of these governments simply want to destroy Israel and have it not exist anymore. So negotiations are meaningless really, there is no good faithm they only buy time. The nut in Iran is unbelieveable in his statements-he doesn't even try to hide it.
A small nation like Israel in the heart of enemies has no choice but to be extremely tough-and if people there don't like it, then change their governments, and ask for real peace.
spiderrob8, I think you hit the nail right on the head.
1 I might be naive, but if you know where your foes are and also know that by dropping bombs you will probably kill innocents, blaming your foes for those victims is simply perverse.
****
I don't think it is perverse. When armed robbers take over a bank, and the police have to go in with a shootout, if innocents are killed, the police don't get tried for murder. The bank robbers do.
I see no difference here. I don;t blame FDR for civilain deaths in WWII, I blame Hitler and company.
>>When armed robbers take over a bank, and the police have to go in with a shootout, if innocents are killed, the police don't get tried for murder. The bank robbers do.
I see no difference here. I don;t blame FDR for civilain deaths in WWII, I blame Hitler and company. >>
With respect, given that a) the missiles aren't presumably being aimed at specific locations where the kindapped soldiers are being held (or there's a new type of missile on the market that only blows up kidanppers and not kidnapees), wouldn't the more comparable example be that a bunch of 'Most wanted' robbers from Glendale/The Bronx commit a murder a child/rape a whole family in a neighbouring area and the police, following criticsm that they're weak on crime - wait a couple of days and then go into Glendale/The Bronx and throw a ton of grenades down a busy street where the gang are beleived to regularly hang-out in the hope that it'll take out some of them and put others off?
Not to me. When dealing with nations, you have to deal with the broader problem. The problem is not just these specific soldiers kidnapped, or these specific guys who kidnapped. There's a far broader problem, and dealing with that one symptom, would simply lead to more problems in the future.
It would be like dealing with the one guy who commits murder, but not dealing with the organization (the gang or the mafia or whatever) that creates and encourages that condition to exist, arresting the pusher on the streetm but not the guy who supplies him all the way down the supply line (as well as the demand for it).
It would be like saying after 9.11, well heck, the hijackers are all dead, so justice has prevailed and there is nothing else to do. The problem isn't the guys who came up with the plan, or supplied them, trained them, gave safe haven to them, or the mindset in general in the middle east that creates this problem to begin. That would be being totally reactive instead of proactive.
> people cant be pummeled into submission by force, on contrary, they tend to become more desperate in their opposition.
Depends. I'm convinced that the Germans might have won their war against the Soviets if they had treated the population better. The average Soviet had no love for their dictatorial, totalitarian nutcase of a leader. They were mostly living in medeival-level squalor. If the Germans hadn't stupidly treated them like sub-human creatures (which their propaganda assured them the Soviets were) and instead had helped them as they came through, acting as 'liberators' in spite of the realo purpoise being far different, they might have done it.
>As for the japanese, to believe there was no resistance due to the atomic bombings is naive. The emperor's message in the radio and what Japanese consider to be a correct behavior in defeat are considered the main cause of japanese compliance in the ocupation.
Shortly after the occupation began, Japanese were practically worshiping MacArthur as being instrumental in reliving them of many years of misery at the hands of the Imperial army. Don't believe it? Talk to people who were around back then and saw Japanese soldiers herding civilians off cliffs to 'save' them from falling into the hands of Americans. Or families torn apart as children were wisked away to the countryside - ostensibly to protect them from bombing raids, in reality to be enslaved in work camps to the war effort.
As for the anti-Israel sentiments ... Canadians have shown in poll after poll that they support giving up hard-won freedoms in order to fight terrorists. Yet, inexplicably, they then turn around and don't support a country which suffers from terrorist actions on an almost daily basis.
I may admit to being Canadian, but it's been quite a while since I've been proud of it.
>20 years later, ETA has little or no support for their violence and its negotiating a permanent cease fire. Restrain pays off.
It isn't generally known outside the country, but Canada had a problem of its own with a home-grown terrorist faction - the FLQ (Front de Libération du Québec) - in the mid-60s and early 70s. Blowing things up, killing a few people. Eventually, they kidnapped a British diplomat and provincial cabinet minister and killed the latter, proudly taking responsibility for it. OK, enough's enough. Then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau called in the War Measures' Act, declared Martial Law, brought in the army and stomped the terrorist movement flat. The War Measures' Act was then lifted and peace has pretty much been de rigueur ever since, a couple of stand-offs with the natives aside. So, sometimes taking firm action also works.
"Depends. I'm convinced that the Germans might have won their war against the Soviets if they had treated the population better. The average Soviet had no love for their dictatorial, totalitarian nutcase of a leader. They were mostly living in medeival-level squalor. If the Germans hadn't stupidly treated them like sub-human creatures (which their propaganda assured them the Soviets were) and instead had helped them as they came through, acting as 'liberators' in spite of the realo purpoise being far different, they might have done it."
Precisely my point. If they hadn't choose to force soviet population they could have win in the East. There was even a plan to create a russian pro-german army under a White Czarist general. But it was Hitler hatred of slavic people that prevented that army (that just needed the supplies to start fighting) from giving russians an alternative to Stalin. Israel is making the pro-western Lebanese leadership irrelevant. How can they get to people when their international allies are bombing them?
The only info I have about FLQ or Quebequian terrorism is what I read on Alpha Flight regarding NorthStar origin :)
Now, I am sure they didnt have the popular back up ETA or IRA have. Here we have GRAPO (they say they are communist) and we could deal with them strictly police-wise. Same happened with Bayer-Meinkhoff (however thats written) and Red Brigades in German and Italy. Small groups with limited support, you can deal with violently.
Interesting novel, ten-fifteen years back, called AIRBURST. Don't recollect the author's name. Plot revolved around a commando raid on a secret Israeli weapons depot, making away with one of their tactical nuclear warheads. The warhead is eventually used against Washington, but it proves to be a cleverly contructed fake.
The most memorable part of the otherwise forgettable book came at the end as a high-ranking representative of Israeli intelligence meets informally with an American equivalent.
The latter is incredulous upon learning it was all a carefully-plotted ruse to draw out an extremist cell and help to track them down and eventually eliminate them.
"But, but, one of the staff was the Prime Minister's own son!"
"Yes. It ensured there would be no likelihood of the enemy seeing it as a ruse."
"But, why didn't you let us in on it? Didn't you trust us?"
"Of course not. We've lived for decades with our backs to a wall, surrounded by implacable enemies who wish to eradicate us. We do whatever it takes to survive. That you ask these questions proves you are unable to understand that."
Over the top and a bit ridiculous in terms of exaggerated plot elements, but it did serve, in my mind, to quite effectively highlight the vast chasm which exists between the two mind sets. The discussions being held here show there is still much truth to it, unfortunately.
The current Israeli government is not conservative, it is a coalition of a Centrist party (which is the larger member) and Labor, which is moderate-liberal party. The centrist party is willing to withdraw from a large but insufficient part of the West Bank, but does not support negotiations both because it is not willing to offer better terms to the Palestinians and because it does not want to negotiate while terrorism continues. I support a more liberal position than both, but I must admit that I'm not sure if the Palestinians are wililng to make peace on acceptable terms. The more liberal Labor, who I'd like to see in power, was discredited by the collapse of the peace process and the subsequent violence and has no chance of getting enough power to folow the policies I support.
---------------
Bush's support for Israel has been wrong at times, but not in this case.
---------------
"Civilian deaths are the tragc tool of both sides in a war. Depending whose side you're on they are unfortunate collateral damage or murdered innocents"
There is a difference between attacking civilians in order to kill civilians and civilians dying during an attack on terrorists.
I don't know how to fight terrorists who are working from inside a civilian population, and are undistinguishable from civilian population without any civilian casualties. In the past I felt Israel was not careful enough, and have demonstrated against its actions. But in this case, there is a standing order to the pilots to abort attacks if there is a risk of hitting civilians. Doing more than that would mean not fighting this war at all.
-----------------
"The steps that must follow are:
The Lebanese government must call on hezbullah to stop its campaign and must condemn their actions as overtly provocative (fighting an enemy inside your own land is one thing, attackign the enemy on their own soil is different)
The Israelies must call off their bombing asap. They've had their show of strength and it must be clear to anyone that unless they plan to invade the Lebanon the harder they bomb, the LESS likely this enemy is to back down and lose face. Equally, the more civilian deaths, the more potential enemies are created in the surviving population on both sides."
This is insufficient. The key issue is to end the situation in which the Hizballa sits inside Lebanon and on the Israeli border, attacking whenever they please. If the Lebanese cannot disarm the Hizballa (which they should but can't), they should at least enforce a complete ceasfire and take control on the border. If not, Israel will be doomed to continue fighting a war with a state inside a state.
Returning the soldiers is also important. Although this war is not only about the soldiers, but about the situation that made he kidnapping acceptable.
--------------------
"When you use force to make the population do what you want them to do, then you are trying to subjugate them; "repress, quash, keep down, subdue, subjugate, reduce, put down by force or intimidation". If Israel tried to subjugate Hezbolah, I wouldnt have any problem with it, but its the whole Lebanon population they are terrorizing."
All wars are about making countries do what you want. The Hizballa are Lebanese. I don't know of a way to fight Hizballa outside of Lebanon. However, Israel is not trying to repress, quash, keep down, subdue, subjugate, reduce, put down by force or intimidation Lebanon. We are trying to reduce the Hizballa's fighting ability, while getting the Lebanese government to be able to assert its authority. We have not attacked the Lebanese army.
--------------------
"But still, While Israel demands Lebanon army to go south and disarm Hezbolah, they deprive them of the means to do it, both fuel and roads. As I said again, Hezbolah is a guerrilla, much less dependent on roads, infraestructures and fuel than a regular army. Attacking those only make the rest of Lebanese weaker. Moreso, throwing fliers to lebanese civilians, urging them to leave the attacked area when you have deprived them of roads and fuel to do it properly is a joke."
You have a mistaken view of how the Hizballa fight. The Lebanese army has better means than a guerilla force to move around, like armored weapons, helicopters and ships. In any case, once a ceasefire is acheived the roads can be fized quickly enough for the Lebanese army to redeploy. Nobody expects the Lebanese arm to act during the fighting. I am not familiar with a case in which civilians wishing to flee a part of Lebanon where leaflets were dropped could not do so. The leaflets mostly involved Beirut's Shia neighborhood.
-------------------
The reference to ETA is irrelevant unless we were talking about a situation in which Spain withdrew from the Basque country, and the state formed there made war against it. Spain's security forces and law control the Basque country, and the Basques are Spanish citizens. The Muslims inside Spain are citizens or residents as well, and also subject to Spanish law (although apparently more discontent).
Similarly Israel has a population of Palestinian citizens who have equal rights, and whose involvement in terrorism in relatively small (but not nonexistant). They have representatives in the Israeli Parliament who speak positively of Assad and the Hizballa, and has visited both countries. If terrorism happens it is treated by police and the courts of law. Our problem is with the Palestinians in areas we withdrew from, such as parts of the West Bank and Gaza, or in areas we control militarily but are not part of Israel. They are not subject to Israeli law.
In Lebanon restraint clearly did not pay off.
----------------
"Madrid attacks were made by a group that have bases in Morocco and we know for sure Morocco goverment does not have the will to engage that group."
The situation I described is much more extreme. I don't think the Madrid terrorists have military bases in Morroco. They do have public and ideological support which is tolerated to a degree by the government like in most Muslim countries). The Hamas has supporters and offices in Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, but Israel did not attack these countries. Israel did not attack Lebanon while he HIzballa was arming and controling groups in the West Bank. Israel attacked a country whose territory was used to launch constant attacks against Israel.
-----------------
"And as for how the spanish army would have reacted... Armies dont have to react in any other way than however the goverment says. Period."
We have a cultural misunderstanding here. Israel never had a military dictatorship. When I speak of the army acting, I take it for granted that it is not acting independantly of the government.
-----------------
"As to this specific conflict, again, the problem is it doesn't matter what israel does, it doesn't matter how much land it gives up, how many concessions, these groups of terrorists, and many of these governments simply want to destroy Israel and have it not exist anymore. So negotiations are meaningless really, there is no good faithm they only buy time."
Not really. Offering concessions to moderates may possibly achieve peace. But it is also essential to draw the line where the concessions end, and that these concessions are not a sign of weakness that should justify continued fighting. There are forces in the Arab and Muslim world that wish to continue fighting beyond the concessions Israel can and should offer (such as the Hizballa). As it is necessary to show the wililngness to make concessions, it is also necessary to show that continued fighting will fail. Those arabs who have accepted Israel did so because they have given up defeating it by force. For the extremists to become moderate they must realise both that fighting wil not succeed and that negotiations will succeed. There are people on both sides of the political divide in Israel who tend to forget one side of the equation.
"To be honest I’m just a lurker on this site and only come here to receive updates on Peter’s comic book and novel work however I feel inclined to comment on this topic. A poster I know at another forum described Israel reaction as performing brain surgery with a chainsaw. In any case Israel played right into their enemies hand, because they are getting the reaction that they deliberately provoked when they kidnapped the two solders."
This is a wrong analysis of the situation. The objective of the Hizballa was not to draw Israel to war, but to score points by kidnapping soldiers, as part of a long term policy of harassing Israel in order to gain a leading position in Lebanon and in among Islamic movements. The objective of the war is not to perform brain surgery, it is to stop the Hizballa from harassing Israel whenever they please. This is acheived by weakening the Hizballa's fighting ability sufficiently and enabling the Lebanese government to assert the authority that it could not before.
"Israel should have waited and preceded more carefully before entering a conflict"
How? If Israel had done nothing than the Hizballa's objective would have been acheived, there leadership position, its ability to attack Israel at will and seem like a hero of Islamists everywhere would have been successful. Israel's weakness would have strengthened Islamists in Gaza and the West Bank as well as in other Arab countries.
"What Iraq is to us Lebanon might become for Israel."
What Iraq is to America, Lebanon was to Israel in the 80's, which is why we left Lebanon. If the US has learned from Israel's experience it would not have gone into Iraq. But unlike the US we cannot leave the middle east. So we have to make sure that Lebanon doesn't come after us into Israel.
"As for Israel having it’s fair share of neiboring enemies well you can thank England and America for that as they were the ones that created a nation state for Jews displaced by World War two by displacing the people that were already living there."
This is false Palestinian prpaganda. The US didn't do much for Israel before the 60's. Israel was formed out of the Jewish community established during the British mandate in Palestine, which then went on to receive some refugees from the holocaust and from Arab countries. But the British government only supported this endevor briefly in the early 20's, and opposed it for most of the time until 1948. It certainly did not create Israel. Nor did the british displace Arabs. In fact the Jewish community in Palestine did not displace the Arab population either. In fact it increased during the British mandate. Some of the Arab population was displaced during a war between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine following the end of the British mandate in 1948, during which Israel was founded. The Arab objective of this war was to expel all of the Jews in the area, and indeed no Jews lived in the areas of mandate Palestine controled by the Arabs, while some Arabs became citizens of Israel.
The effort to create a nation state for Jews preceded the Holocaust.
I consider http://www.mideastweb.org/ to be reasonably reliable source for information on the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
In any case, the formation of a Jewish nation state in a small part of the Arab world which also happened to be the Jews ancient homeland is much more justfied than the formation of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zeeland, and all the European colonial endevors, as well as the origin of the many Arab nation states in the same region, and the Muslim nation state in Packistan, and some European countries. In any case, there has now been a Jewish nation state in the middle east for more than 60 years, in which 6 million Jews and one million Arabs live in a democratic society, regardless of its origin.
>>It would be like saying after 9.11, well heck, the hijackers are all dead, so justice has prevailed and there is nothing else to do.
I take your fair point about seeing the bigger picture, but in this case - as far as I know - the people who perpetrated the kidnappings which sparked this are STILL alive, so it's not as if it's a case of 'they're dead, let's move on to the accomplices'. It's a case of 'we can't find them, so let's bomb into submission the places of people who might be supporting them and if innocents get in the way, well, that's life (or death)'.
In war, maybe that's a fair strategy, but knowingly bombing targets full of civilains to do so leads to something which surely must be beyond politics. It becomes a decision born out of both pragmatism and morality. Yes, it's happened throughout history. I don't think that should make the decision any easier. And I certainly don't think this is a 'Dresden' scenario so far.
There's a dichotomy that always bothers me. A suicide bomber who *deliberately* targets innocents is surely much worse than a person whose 'necessary/sanctioned' actions kill people simply by *default*. But a person who sacrifices themselves for their cause is one who takes the step out of strength of faith, while the innocents sacrificed for the bigger picture are all too often given no choice. They don't sacrifice anything. They simply ARE sacrificed.
The fact is that you'll never convince an innocent family living in terror in Lebanon that their deaths are an unfortunate necessity any more than you can/should convince an innocent family in an Israeli market that the suicide bomber about to blow them to Kingdom Come has even the slightest justification or thought-processes.
I certainly wouldn't want to justify either. Trouble is, both sides find countless ways to do just that.
Shortly after the occupation began, Japanese were practically worshiping MacArthur as being instrumental in reliving them of many years of misery at the hands of the Imperial army. Don't believe it? Talk to people who were around back then and saw Japanese soldiers herding civilians off cliffs to 'save' them from falling into the hands of Americans. Or families torn apart as children were wisked away to the countryside - ostensibly to protect them from bombing raids, in reality to be enslaved in work camps to the war effort.
Interesting. I suspect however that if MacArthur had treated the Japanese people more cruelly and not been the model of occupation-government behavior, said people-who-were-around-back-then would probably have been speaking in glowing terms of the noble Japanese Imperial army.
And just because this situation looks like it can't get more depressing, let me toss in this post by a poster to the "Rapture Ready" message board named "ohappyday":
"Is it time to get excited? I can't help the way I feel. For the first time in my Christian walk, I have no doubts that the day of the Lords appearing is upon us. I have never felt this way before, I have a joy that bubbles up every-time I think of him, for I know this is truly the time I have waited for so long. Am I alone in feeling guilty about the human suffering like my joy at his appearing somehow fuels the evil I see everywhere. If it were not for the souls that hang in the balance and the horror that stalks man daily on this earth, my joy would be complete. For those of us who await his arrival know, somehow we just know it won't be long now, the Bridegroom cometh rather man is ready are not."
The idea of looking forward to Doomsday is an utterly alien one to me. Reminds me of John Stewart's comment that a portion of Americans believe the the End is coming in accordance to God's will and the rest of the American populace believes that the End is coming because of people who believe the End is coming in accordance to God's will.
Or something like that.
First off, Micha, I'm glad you're all right. Stay well, chummer. Reading your response to Lester reinforced an idea that has been lurking around in the back of my head. Seems like a lot of the smaller odd governments, the ones we in the west would call the bad guys, are flexing their muscles in an attempt to either show off to us, like the little kid on the playground with the redwood-sized chip on their shoulder, yeah that's right, we bad, or to show their own population that Hey, We're Doing Something, Things Aren't So Bad So Don't Revolt, Okay? spiderrob also makes a good point, where Israel is they're going to be a target. Every so often, they're going to be tested, and unfortunately the people giving the tests only understand and respect these kind of responses. Or at least, they seem to, from what I know.
What many here seem to forget: Hezbollah has outright said they want nothing more than the outright destruction of Israel. They don't want peace. They don't really care about the Palestinians. All they want, from many, MANY public announcements, is to destroy Israel.
Israel is the only ones truly trying to create a peace there. While they give up land time and time again, all they see in return is suicide bombers. All they see is Hezbollah and Hammas furthering the attacks, kidnapping and killing. I say it is about time for Israel to say Enough is Enough, and do what the rest of the world always knew would have to be done. Fight for peace.
I hate war, but I don't see how Israel had any other choice. And when push comes to shove, America will side with them, even if it comes to an all-out war. America will not see Israel wiped form the map.
I'm convinced that the Germans might have won their war against the Soviets if they had treated the population better. The average Soviet had no love for their dictatorial, totalitarian nutcase of a leader. They were mostly living in medeival-level squalor. If the Germans hadn't stupidly treated them like sub-human creatures (which their propaganda assured them the Soviets were) and instead had helped them as they came through, acting as 'liberators' in spite of the realo purpoise being far different, they might have done it.
While most historians consider Hitler's invasion of Russia to the single biggest mistajke of his sorry life, I think you are correct--it would have worked, had he not been so stupid as to throw away the considerable power of the anti-bolshevek forces who might have fought on Germany's side.
Similarly, the Japanese were not altogether unwelcome in some of the lands they "liberated" from European colonial rule but it only took a brief taste of Imperial Japanese brutality to make the locals appreciate the genteel racism of the English and Dutch.
We should all be grateful for the often demonstrated stupidity of evil.
Micha, reading your posts leaves little of value I think I can add. Please take care.
And at least Bush isn't criticizing them (at least not at the moment) for taking action against the cretins of Hezballuh who see land give-backs, not as a sign of a desire for peace, but a show of weakness.
Hezbullah doesn't see land give-backs as a sign of weakness either, PAD. They see it as naked peace-mongering that threatens to stabilize the region -- something that doesn't sit well with their philosophy of a non-existing Israel uber alles. So long as the Hezbullah mindset and their adherents continue to run around, I fear their will always be incidents designed to shake down the peace process back to square one.
I think this thing is either going to die down very quickly or tip over into full-blown, multi-nation war very quickly. No half-measures here.
Actually, I see Israel getting caught in a protracted not-quite-war with Hezbullah in Lebanon alone, kinda like the Taliban in Afghanistan, with jihadi volunteers coming in to help. In such a case, there may be a chance of some insurgents being "flypapered" away to fight that war instead (because if there is anything that a would-be "martyr" would want more than to kill Americans, it would be to kill their Evil Zionist Jew Masters (tm)).
I'm not at much risk in this war since I live in jerusalem, a likely target for suicide bombers, but a very unlikely target for long range missles (and also out of range of almost all known Hizballa missles, although you can never be sure). I'm also not very likely to be killed in a suicide bombing since I don't have a very interesting life, and am not likely to be on a bus or in a restaurant.
"Actually, I see Israel getting caught in a protracted not-quite-war with Hezbullah in Lebanon alone"
That's exactly the kind of thing this war was trying to prevent and avoid. Idealy this war should and in a ceasefire soon. I am very concerned that Israel will not know when to stop. Nasseralla seems to be wanting now to prolong it out of pride. The Lebanese government wants a ceasefire. Who will prevail? It might be convenient if Bush does pressure Israel to stop, but the timing has to be right. If this war stops with Hizballa feeling as if they are able to continue as before or even more so, than they will continue attacking Israel, and this will encourage the Hamas and maybe others, and will create a prolonged bleeding (death by a thousand paper cuts). The UN resolution involving Israel's withdrawl from Lebanon called for Hizballa disarming and disbanding. The current israeli prime minister who cries now to the world was the one who decided that Hizballa should not be asked to disarm. I hope the Israeli government does not expect that it will disarm, and will realize that we should stop fighting for less, instead on insisting on what is justified but unlikely. Not that anybody would appreciate it if we do stop for less.
I also believe that we should negotiate with the Hamas for a ceasefire in Gaza. I am critical of the government for not doing this. Although, make no mistake, the Hamas, and even more so the islamic Jihad, want the same think the Hizballa wants, a continued bleeding. If they go for a ceasefire it will be because of the pressure of the Israeli army, and only temporarily. But I am afraid Israel will waste this opportunity because they don't want to give credance to a group like Hamas. Ironically, I believe the US doesn't want us to negotiate with terrorists. The kidnapped soldier is a complication too, because we should negotiate for a ceasefire but not agree to give anything for a kidnapping, or more will be kidnapped.
I am very concerned about the Lebanese civilians. as usual everything is propaganda. The Lebanese try to make it seem as if Israel is slaughtering indiscriminatly (you are familiar with this from your wars), but obviously if we did there would be many more casualties. But I can never be certain that Israel is doing all it can to avoid killing civilians. I just can't judge in this case. When I knew Israel wasn't I demonstrated against. But here I don't know. I know there was no chance to fight this war with no civilian casualties, and not fighting this war would have meant telling the Israeli people that their lives are in the hands of the Hizballa and Hamas, that the army cannot protect them.
I am still a peacnick at heart, so I keep going through what if's, going 5, 10, 15 steps back. If we had done this back then, then maybe.... But this is the kind of trickery that is typical of of the self-rightuous in this conflict. Israel is expect to make the absolutly right choice in every step, while the arab choices seem understandable no matter what they do. Since it is unlikely that Israel will always (or even often) make the right choice, we can never know if making all the right moral choices would have resulted in a good outcome or in more violence. It is easy for the self-rightous to say that it would have. Meanwhile, the extreme right can claim that since no matter what we do thinngs go bad, it is pointless to try to be moral. I would have liked to see a more liberal government, although I cannot guarentee that it would not have had to face the Hizballa too. The Israeli liberals lost power because the violence that started after the peace process collapsed. Could they have acted differently so it wouldn't have collapsed? Maybe. We can go back even further with what ifs. The truth is that the Israelis have their own hot tempered, racist, violent, angry, people who got pushed to the extreme out of violence and so on.
The recently created connections with moderate Lebanese bloggers are down the drain. They are back to hating us. They will not become terrorists, tey live too comfortably, and are not Shia. But the hate wil remain. They say we should have attacked only the Hizballa. I wish, but I don't knnow how to fight an army in Lebanon without it affecting Lebanon. They say that we should only have attacked the mini-state that the hizballa created in the south. But the Hizballa is spread all over Lebanon, their center is in Beirut, they sit in the government and have semi-official status as 'resistence'. anyway, how about the innocent Shia civilians in the south? Or do these Christian-Lebanese not care for Shia's. They also say we should have attacked Syria. They hate Syria. But does it seem sane to you to attack Syria when the army attacking you is in Lebanon? Would killing innocent Syrians be be better?
I've read somewhere that the hizballa's initial attack was meant against the US effort to build democracy and moderation in Lebanon. That's possible. But I prefer to focus on more down to earth causes.
About the speculation about WWII Japan and Russia. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 82, the Shia cheered for it liberating them from the PLO. So did our Christian allies, who went on to massacre Palestinians. Beware of allies in contries you occupy.
"We tell to the population of South Lebanon that we want to avoid civilian victims. We recomend them to flee from their towns and homes and that they head north, because we are going to attack the south of the country with great force" (rough translation from Spanish source)
This said by Udi Adam, Chief of IDF North Command.
20 civilians traveling North on the region were killed this Saturday on two different strikes.
In this link you can see how precise the bombings over Beirut are. The article is written by Maruja Torres, a well known spanish journalist and long time lover of the city of Beirut, who was also there in 82. She describes how Christian, sunni and shia alike are actually talking about integrating Hezbolah into Lebanon army. That is how people react when they feel victims.
I believe the IDF is without doubt the most civic army in the region, but I also believe there is too much vengeance and punishment and too little military tactics in whats happening. ¿Whats the point of bombing Beirut lighthouse? Does Hezbolah have a fleet? Why are bombs landing on hospitals? Why bomb the harbours people are using to flee Lebanon to Cyprus? The whole IDF rethoric in their statement is one of subjugation as I said before. Its a discourse of "Do what I say or else...". And their actions seem only headed to make Lebanon poorer, a move that Hezbolah took advantage of before, by building a welfare network that gave them respectability among the poor and won them their seats in parlament.
Alright, I finally found something to talk about:
Syria and Iran are discussing the possibility of a "prisoner swap" between Israel and Hezbollah.
What a @#$^ing crock.
The Israeli soldiers are not prisoners, they are hostages. They were kidnapped from within Israel's border.
I swear, the nerve of these bastards...
Oh, and just for kicks, Bush finally plans to veto a bill if it passes: the bill would increase funding for embryonic stem-cell research.
Glad to see that Bush has his priorities in order.
"she describes how Christian, sunni and shia alike are actually talking about integrating Hezbolah into Lebanon army."
This would be much more than I hoped for. In fact it is probably not true. The problem is that Hizballa acts as an independant force wih its own policy of harassing and threatening Israel, but if Israel wants to do something about it, then the Lebanese government claim they don't know anything about it and wallow in their feeling of victimhood. If there is one army in Lebanon that would be wonderful, and unlikely.
I am not saying it will happen. She is not saying it will happen. All she says its there is a growing pupplic oppoinion in favour of that possibility. So in fact is neither true or false.
I realized I need to explain something. Why didn't the Lebanese army disarm the Hizballa? Why didn't it enforce its authority, especially after kicking Syria out? There are two reasons: Lebanese are afraid of returning to the civil war between the sects so they don't want to confront the Shia militia; and even more so since the Hizballa is following the lofty goal of 'resistence' namely fighting Israel; nobody wants to be accused of doin anything in Israel's interest, even if it is in their own interest.
Why is this important? Because the same thing is happening with the Palestinians. You have the Palestinian 'police', which is made up of several security forces belonging to different leaders, the irregular independant groups associated with the Fatah like the Al-Aqsa brigade, the popular resistence committies etc., you have the Hamas's brigades, and their new security force, the Islamic Jihad, and the popular democratic front. The Palestinian government dare not assert its authority over these 'resistence' groups since they don't want to harm the 'national unity', although these groups do fight among themselves if say the Hamas insults te leader of the Fatah, or the Al-Aqsa brigades need salaries and so forth. The Palestinian president would like a ceasefire, but he only dares to negotiate ceasefires with various organizations. The Hamas made an agreement with him once, but not the Jihad, who is connected with the Hizballa. He speaks of the need for 'one authority, one army' etc. But Arafat, and maybe others seem to have prefered the situation of competing organization (free market?). This is also given as a justification for the need of the Hizballa. This also convenient in the negotiation front where the Hamas does not recognize Israel, but does not oppose the Palestinian President negotiating with Israel.
Basically the situation is between Israel's demand for dismantling of the organization and an end of violence, followed by negotiations. And the Palestinian president who offers negotiations, maybe partial ceasefire, and after the negotiations conclue han supposedly order will be acheived in the newly created Palestinian state, assuming peace is reached and all the difficulties are solved, and the Palestinian people and the Israelis agree.
Quite simple, isn't it.
I have a lot of sympathy for the Lebanese, partly for the entirely weak reason that I've known some lovely people from the area. But let's face it--if you allow rogue elements to do as they please on your territory you can't be surprised if you end up caught in the crossfire. If I let the crips stay in my house it should come as no shock when the bloods pop a few caps into my living room, yo.
Of course in Lebanon's case the crips weren't actually invited and they won't leave.
Micha, in all of this talk about the whys and wherefores of the war being waged, there is one thing I'd like to make sure doesn't get lost: I fervently hope for your continued safety. I know you've said that Hezbollah's rockets don't quite have the range to reach Jerusalem, but I don't think anyone can truly be sure of their safety in a time of war. Be safe, my friend. I will pray for you and all of your countrymen.
And thank you as always for continuing to educate us about your area of the world.
hello I'm Arabian and I'm going to say things that may upset you:
- doesn't Hezbollah have the right to take action to free Lebanese prisoners in Israel ?
- "hitting the roads will cut the supplies" this is not a pen and paper campaign or a video game where you have to follow a set path to get from one place to the next, and they are not going from Normandy to Berlin , the distance is very short.
- very convenient for Israel to be the best democracy in the middle east after expelling most of the population , what do you say to give them the right to come home.
- why doesn't Israel just give the occupied lands back thy don't have cities in them , just sumer houses and settlements , every one in the Arab world considers all of Israel on Arab land but we don't want that anymore Israel can have what it has but it is impossible for the Palestinians to have a viable stat with any less.
- Israels out-lash against targets that have nothing to do with Hezbollah makes us feel that its impossible to build anything while we are at the mercy of Israel , the Israelis better change their policy before the advance of technology makes it easer quicker and cheaper to build devastating weapons.
Thanks Bill. I am so far unaffected by this war, except for stress. My sisters are in Berkley and Melbornerespectively, and they are probably as stressed.
"she describes how Christian, sunni and shia alike are actually talking about integrating Hezbolah into Lebanon army."
" am not saying it will happen. She is not saying it will happen. All she says its there is a growing pupplic oppoinion in favour of that possibility. So in fact is neither true or false."
I am not sure it is true that there is a growing public opinion in favor of integrating the Hizballa into the Lebanese army. This seems to reflect more the views of secular moderates in Beirut (i.e. the Cedar revolution people), who oppose the Hizballa, and are western leaning. But I doubt if it is the view of the Shia at large, or even the public at large outside Beirut, or the actual leaders of the various groups and sects, since it basically means dismantling the Hizballa as a private militia. Even if it has popular support among the forces that conducted the Cedar revolution, it is another question if they dare or can actually get it done.
Hey, El Hombre Malo, there has been much talk recently of an international peacekeping force coming to Lebanon. How do you feel about it?
"hello I'm Arabian and I'm going to say things that may upset you:"
Don't worry about it. I have been arguing with people for many years. As an Israeli peace activists I argued with people for peace during the height of the intifada. People threw things at me and spit in my face. I don't get upset easily.
"- doesn't Hezbollah have the right to take action to free Lebanese prisoners in Israel ?"
No. The Lebanese government can negotiate with the government of Israel for the return of Lebanese. But if a group like Hizballa commits an act of war to release the prisoners, they should expect war in return.
I know of only two reasons why Israel actually would want to keep these prisoners. (1) because there are 4 Israeli sldiers missing in Lebanon since the 80's (not including the new ones), and we think Lebanon has information where they are. (2) I don't know who the other Lebanese prisoners are, but one of them is aman called Samir Kuntar. Look him up in Wikipedia. He came into Israel from Lebanon in 1979. He went into a house and held a boy and hisfather hostage, while the mother and her baby daughter were hiding, the mother covering her daughter's face so she wont make a noise. The saughter suffocated, the father and son were murdered by Mr. Kuntar. For obvious reasons Israel does not want to give him back. If Lebanon caught Hariri's murderer, they would not give him to the Syrians.
- "hitting the roads will cut the supplies" this is not a pen and paper campaign or a video game where you have to follow a set path to get from one place to the next, and they are not going from Normandy to Berlin , the distance is very short."
Still, a missle shot into Israel, or fighter trying to get into Israel has to move from point A to point B somehow.
"- very convenient for Israel to be the best democracy in the middle east after expelling most of the population , what do you say to give them the right to come home."
There are three reasons why we don't want to take te Palestinian refugees back:
1) Subjective reason: We want to have a state in which the Jews are the majority, instead of being a minority among arabs. That's what we've been working for. If millions of Arabscame into Israel, it would stop being a Jewish state, just as if millions of Jews came into Lebanon it would stop being an Arab state, and so forth for every country.
2) Objective reason: if millions of Arabscame into Israel, than it would stop being a Jewish nation state with an arab minority, and become a bi-national state. We believe that bi or multi national states in general (like Yugoslavia and Lebanon), and this state in particular, will be unstable, and suffer constant civil war. Our objective is to reach peace in which the Israelis and Palestinians can have their own states in part of Palestine/Israel. Maybe in the future there wil be enough peace and trust for a confederacy or something like that.
"- why doesn't Israel just give the occupied lands back thy don't have cities in them , just sumer houses and settlements ,"
That's not eactly true, there are cities and towns. But I, and many Israelis want to give the Palestinians the territories occupied in 67. We have fought hard to get the Israelis out of Gaza. But it is difficult for us to convince Israelis to support withdrawl, when the lands we give to Arabs become sources of terrorism against Israelis. We are also not sure if the Arabs are willing to accept Israel as a Jewis state in the pre 67 borders.
" every one in the Arab world considers all of Israel on Arab land"
I know. Some Jews view all of Israel to be Jewish land. I view Israel/Palestine to be a Jewish and Arab land. Just as my parents are also the parents of my younger sisters.
"but we don't want that anymore Israel can have what it has"
Yet you also want us to take in the Palestinian refugees. That meens that there will be a Palestinian state without Jews in the West Bank and Gaza, and another Palestinian state with a large Jewish minority in the what is now Israel. That we cannot accept. I do support am arab-Palestinian nation state in the occupied territories and a Jewish state with an Arab minority enjoying equal rights, in Israel.
"but it is impossible for the Palestinians to have a viable stat with any less."
True. I oppose any plan that will not give the Palestinians 100% of the territories, or eqivalent by land exchange. But the political party I support lost the elections, because people blame us for the Intifada and terrorism. The person who won, supports withdrawl from 90% (or less) of the West Bank. At the moment I think it wouldbe best to take the 90%, start building a peaceful state, and then talking about the other 10% from a position of strength and confidence. But I don't think that will happen.
"- Israels out-lash against targets that have nothing to do with Hezbollah makes us feel that its impossible to build anything while we are at the mercy of Israel"
The constant terrorism against Israelis by Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Palestine make Israelis feel that it is impossible for them to trust anybody, and that they are at the mercy of Arabs who think they should not be in the middle east. Israelis feel that the only thing they can trust is the strength of the army.
"the Israelis better change their policy before the advance of technology makes it easer quicker and cheaper to build devastating weapons."
Or what? Arabs and Jews will continue dying with deadlier weapons. Israelis cannot stop the violence alone, while the Arabs continue encouraging the violent people. If I am to convince Israelisthat military force doesn't work I have to showthem that something else does. I also need the Arabs to understand that 'armed resistence' does not work, or we will always be facing violence. Countries cannot be pacifists.
I forgot something:
""- very convenient for Israel to be the best democracy in the middle east after expelling most of the population , what do you say to give them the right to come home."
There are three reasons why we don't want to take te Palestinian refugees back:
1) Subjective reason: We want to have a state in which the Jews are the majority, instead of being a minority among arabs. That's what we've been working for. If millions of Arabscame into Israel, it would stop being a Jewish state, just as if millions of Jews came into Lebanon it would stop being an Arab state, and so forth for every country.
2) Objective reason: if millions of Arabscame into Israel, than it would stop being a Jewish nation state with an arab minority, and become a bi-national state. We believe that bi or multi national states in general (like Yugoslavia and Lebanon), and this state in particular, will be unstable, and suffer constant civil war. Our objective is to reach peace in which the Israelis and Palestinians can have their own states in part of Palestine/Israel. Maybe in the future there wil be enough peace and trust for a confederacy or something like that."
I forgot reason 3) Cultural reason: for many years Jews moved or ran away or were expeled from one place to another in this world. We always tried to rebuild our lives and look to the future. It is difficult for Jews to understand why Palestinians, instead of making a better future for their children, are always trying to go back to a past that no longer exists, and to which the attempt to return will bring more and more harm.
I know that many Palestinians lost their homes. I'm sorry. But giving them their homes back will cause more problems and suffering. Trying to get the homes will bring suffering. My father lost a home in Romania during WWII (I'm not saying the Holocaust because there was no great suffering in my family). And then he lost a home again when he ran away from the communists. Now he has a new home. It is important to remember the past, but we do not want to be enslaved to it. We do not want to go back.
"Subjective reason: We want to have a state in which the Jews are the majority, instead of being a minority among arabs. That's what we've been working for. If millions of Arabscame into Israel, it would stop being a Jewish state, just as if millions of Jews came into Lebanon it would stop being an Arab state, and so forth for every country."
I haven't been following this discussion, so excuse me for butting in and reading stuff out of context of the conversation, but I gotta tell you, Micha, I wouldn't use this part in your argument if I were you. Substitute "whites" for "Jews," "blacks" for "Arabs," and, say, "Utah," for "Israel," and you'll see my problem. I hope.
Substitute "whites" for "Jews," "blacks" for "Arabs," and, say, "Utah," for "Israel," and you'll see my problem. I hope.
The difference tends to be that, much like with many Muslims, being Jewish is racial as well as religious: it's a culture onto itself that incorporates both aspects in a way that "white" or "black" are not.
So, I think to a large degree, Micha makes a great point. To some degree, he doesn't.
Yes, you can look at the Israeli/Palestinian situation and see the conflict, you can see the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, in Rwanda. Simply separating the groups isn't a great solution (and the US has also had it's own history of racism and discrminiation, and so forth).
But part of it is simply getting all groups involved to move past their hatred and learn to accept one another.
For Israel, this may one day mean that they are no longer the Jewish state that they were created to be - this would hopefully mean that one day, Jews won't have to worry about being wiped out by just about every other group on the planet just because they're Jewish.
But in the mean time? Well, they've faced persecution for more than 2000 years, particularly from those religions that sprang forth, in part, from their own in Christians and Muslims. So I can't blame them for wanting a place to call their own... a land that they've lived upon as long as Arabs have, and long before Muslims and Christians came along.
Just a few comments, since this is a long thread.
1.) I feel the big "winner" with the latest developments has to be Iran. Just a few short days ago attention was on the Upcoming G-8 Summit and what those nations were going to do about their nuclear ambitions. So Iran is supporting Hezbollah and getting their nuclear ambitions off the front page. Shocking! Shocking, I say.
2.) No, I am not offended about reporters who will at least include in their reports how this affects gas prices. The Average Joe may empathize with suffering. But most feel hat a resolution is out of their control. The inability to heat your home - or fuel your car because gas has skyrocketed to $5 a gallon is a fear many don't want to contemplate, and it is one that will affect many directly if it were to happen.
Again, not that reporters should make that the headline, but it would be IRRESPONSIBLE NOT TO include possible effects of oil prices in the coverage.
3.) Busg came out pretty strongly today about hezbollah and Syria. The presidents of both parties since at least Nixon have tried to use the "both sides are to blame" approach. Bush seems to clearly be supporting Israel.
4.) For all those who are condemning israel's actions. they moved out of settlements in Gaza. That was painful for many. But they figured it was a small price to pay for peace. So what happens? They get attacked from the land they withdrew from! It is clear the aim of Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. is not a "Palestinian Solution" or any other kind of political solution. their only solution is to destroy Israel, which they would almost certainly do if we weren't supporting Israel.
"Hey, El Hombre Malo, there has been much talk recently of an international peacekeping force coming to Lebanon. How do you feel about it?
"
I usually approve of international peacekeeping efforts, and those have proven quite effective in many places. But unfortunately such forces dont usually have neither the will or the freedom to cut the activities of a group like Hezbolah. Also I would like to point that there was an international force in southern Lebanon not so long ago, and IDF bombed one of their supervised refugee camps in 96, killing 109. Right now I would only put my faith in an international force that has a strong leadership and is comprised of real professional troops and not just rifle-holders. But the few nations that do have troops like that are also too politically motivated. French would simply try to appease arabs while the USA or UK wouldnt shot down an Israeli plane who breaks the cease fire limits. Maybe if China decided to start extending its influence beyond economic measures, this would be a great chance for them to do so. But now am just fantasizing.
"for many years Jews moved or ran away or were expeled from one place to another in this world. We always tried to rebuild our lives and look to the future. It is difficult for Jews to understand why Palestinians, instead of making a better future for their children, are always trying to go back to a past that no longer exists, and to which the attempt to return will bring more and more harm.
I know that many Palestinians lost their homes. I'm sorry. But giving them their homes back will cause more problems and suffering. Trying to get the homes will bring suffering. My father lost a home in Romania during WWII (I'm not saying the Holocaust because there was no great suffering in my family). And then he lost a home again when he ran away from the communists. Now he has a new home. It is important to remember the past, but we do not want to be enslaved to it. We do not want to go back. "
See, what you want these people to do is to be like you. European Jew culture was basically an urban one, not linked to the land but to crafts and bussines. Palestinians have an agricultural culture, based on land. For them it will take more than some years to forget those lost homes and working fields, because its an idiosincratic trait of their culture. An olive or fruit tree is not just bussines but heritage, an olive tree can stay in a family for hundreds of years. For centuries, when jews were forced out of one place, they moved to another because they carried all the important things with them. They were their own most prized possesion and their worth was measured in what they could do. Agricultural cultures measure worth in what you can pass to your children. Turkish or british could rule as long as they wanted because as long as this way of life wasnt attacked, palestinians didnt care. So they now carry the keys of their old houses because that is what's left of their heritage, and they cant stop demanding their land back because that would be like saying "what our elders did was not so important after all".
hello
- micha about the Palestinians that are already Israeli citizens what are you going to do about them when they grow in population ? have another round of expulsions?
- you ask the refugees who don't have homes to look for another life but Israel keeps bringing Jews who have lives from all over the world and buts them in Palestinian homes .
- the best model i think is the UK where the Scots and welsh share in the sovereignty but the English control everything. and 2 or three cities should be shared cities especially Jerusalem while the rest are exclusively controlled but others can live in them according to the rules the city established , and only the ones willing to live together cane be in the shared cities while the others go to their exclusive cities.
- to Jerome the reason their is no peace is because Israel will always be backed up no mater what destruction they bring to the region.
- to Craig "But part of it is simply getting all groups involved to move past their hatred and learn to accept one another"
their are material problems like the land and refugees , if it was only feelings than fighter planes gun ships and rockets and tunnels wouldn't be involved.
lorshas:
when you say "The English control everything" you sure meant "british". Actually, with the current semy-authonomy the Scotland parlament enjoy, I've heard complaints that Scots can get elected to british parlament and decide on issues that affect the english, while no one but scotish chamber can decide on the same issues regarding scotland (ie: education)
I am not surprised that Americans find the idea of a Jewish state difficult to understand, living in the 'new world'. Isael is a creation of the 'old world'.
Here is the thing. Jews wanted a to have a Jewish nation state they way Arabs have Arab states, French have a French state, Spain a Spanish state (and the Basque sought their own Basque nation-state or automnomy), Irish Ireland, Italians Italy, Russians, Japan and so on. European and even non-European modern nation states are mostly based on people who have a shared cultural, linguistic, historical, ethnic (sometimes), and even religious culture (Irish-Catholicism, Greek-Orthodoxy, Tibetan -Budhism, Armenian-Christianity). These countries may have cultural minorities (immigrants or native) who are or at least should be treated with equality and their culture respected, yet the existence or the need of the majority of the people for such cultural homes is not questioned.
In fact, even in this day and age we see cultural sub groups trying to obtain for themselves at least a certain level of autonomy in not independent states of their own: the Basques and the Catalans in Spain, Corsica in France, the Walloons and the Flemes of Belgium created seperate institutions for the two linguistic groups, in Britain we saw the devolution of Scotland and Wales, Chechoslovakia broke down to the Check Republic and Slovakia, the Soviet Union collapsed into nation-states, in North Africa we see the Berbers reasserting their unique national culture and language. And these are the places where it happens peacefully. You know of Yugoslavia, Chechniya, Sri-Lanka, the Kurds as examples for places where there is conflict between a majority national culture and a minority.
Furthermore, we see in Europe problems related to immigration. The Europeans are asking themselves, are the immigrants simply becoming members of our German, Italian, British, Spanish culture? Or are they creating their own cultural enclaves? Should we try to assimilate tem into our culture, or do they have the right not to be assimilated?
It should also be noted that these are new questions. In the past the answer was obvious. The European nation states suppressed and try to forcebly assimilate members of cultural minorities, such as the Bretons in France, the Kurds in Turkey, the Lap in the Scandinavian countries (Norway only seperated from Sweden in 1905).
Now, to people living in the New World, in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zeeland, South American countries this might seem strange. After all your melting pot supposedly enables cultural, ethnic and racial groups to leave behind these messy identities. But let us remembver a few things. First, I assume that you Italian-American, Polish-Americans, Irish-Americans, Americans of Swede descent from Minesota, Mexican-Americans, Japanese-Americans etc. do not wish to say your old countries vanish, the cultural uniqueness eliminated. It is nice to live in the melting pot, but also nice to visit Ireland, Scotland (I have been in both those countries and their tourist undustry caters to such visits). Secondly, the New World welcomes (sometimes) the people of various diffents cultures and nationalities, but you expect them to assimilate into what is essentially an anglo-saxon (maybe even Christian) culture, unless they choose to live in cultural enclaves like Chinatown or Amish country. Thirdly, the new world won its ability to create this paradise by eliminating almost completely the ancient cultures of the native-americans and the aboriginee of Australia, the Mauri (spl?) of New Zeeland, and you can rest confident that these people will not ask to come back. Forthly, the New World is not beyond the needs of national culture: we see it in the need of the Quebequois to have a French speaking province in the otherwise Anglo-Saxon Canada; we see it in the need of African Americans to assert their own unique culture; the different Saint-Patrick parades and the Cinqo de Mayo; the friction over the degree of assimilation of hispanic immigrants; and the need of the Native Americans in the US, Canada, and South America to have their own reservations where they can persue their own culture without being swamped by the majority culture (even while others go on to live in equality as a minority inside the majority).
Israel, is like a reservation for Jews, based on the conclusion of European Jews that we need what everybody else had, a cultural home where we will be safe both from prejudice and complete cultural assimilation. There is no denying it that this meant Jews emigrating in numbers into an area that until then was culturaly part of an Arab-Muslim world (since the Arab-Muslims conquered and assimilated or marginilized the previous cultures in that region). But, we only took a small part of the Arab-Muslim world, we did not eliminate it completely; we never sought to assimilate or convert the Arab Muslims who can be secure that their own minority culture (besides its contact with the many Arabs outside Israel) will not be threatened; we came seeking to buy land for money from the Arabs, not expulsion of Arabs only happened when war errupted 1948; we did not leave our own countries like European colonists seeking riches in a new world, but went to a poor country where a marginalized Jewish community existed, and to which we had a known longstanding connection; we had a real need for a cultural home and we had nowhere else, there are no other Jewish countries, everywhere else the Jews were a minority, sometimes doing better sometimes worst, but always a minority, going anywhere else for this project would have been less justified; we deliberatly pick a small area and withdrew from parts of the ancient land of Israel so that we can be a majority and extend full rights to an Arab minority rather than rule undemocratically over an Arab majority.
So, was it fair thathe Arabs loose a part of the Arab lands? No. But there has been many greater in recent human history. Is the desire of the Jews to have a Jewish state opposed to the wish of the Arabs that this are be an Arab state with an Arab majority and culture? Yes. But our national desires are no different than those of the Irish, the Scots, the Italians, the Germans, the Norweigans, the Indians (of India), the Arabs; in fact it is a product of the same historical process.
I appologize for the length of this post. This is a complex subject that goes beyond the issue of Israel.
Ive read a text by Shlomo Ben-Ami on the present situation here:
http://www.elpais.es/articulo/elpporopi/20060718elpepiopi_6/Tes/guerra/Israel/frentes
Again, its in spanish but I am sure there must be an english version somewhere. Interesting how he depicts Hamas as a reliable player in the zone, and on the convenience of negotiating with Ismail Hanyieh. Its not the first time I read about Hamas in such way, both from Vagas Llosa and israeli sources.
I agree with Micha's post:
Israel responds to a national desire (wich was born in the same way as most european nationalism were born and in the same time), it's creation was an injustice but not the biggest one around and its existence has to be aknowledged, wish some extremists in the Arab world fail to do.
(I could speak lengthy about some of the paralelisms he choose tho, but overall I agree)
----------------
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/735997.html
What Vargas llosa really said was "I dont want to end up beign ashamed to be Israel's friend".
----------------
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story-07170600448.htm
Interesting article on the precedents and ultimate goals of Lebanon operations by Uri Avnery .
----------------
El Homber Malo is correct both on the issue of peace keeping force and the cultural differences. Palestinians have lived for generation in the same place, Jews have moved around. as a result of that we find it difficult to understand each other, despite being related. Both Palestinians and Jews had been dealt badly by history.
-----------------
"- micha about the Palestinians that are already Israeli citizens what are you going to do about them when they grow in population ? have another round of expulsions?"
About 20% of he citizens of Israel today are Arab-Palestinian. Some of then are Druze who have no problem with Jews. It is possible that in 40-50 years the Arabs will become 50% of the population of Israel if their population growth excedes that of the Jews. But, we think that in the future, as the Israeli-Palestinians receive all the benefits of living in Israel, the population growth of the Palestinians will become similar to that of Jews (which,unlike the Europeans, is not negative), and a reasonable balance of majority minority will be created; we hope that over time the bad blood, hatred and mistrust between Jews and Arabs will become less strong, so that in the future they can live together even if Jews do not have a clear majority; we hope that if Israel lives in peace than Jews wil want to come to live here, as well as maybe some people who are not Jewish and not Arab; and we hope that in the future the Jews and the Arabs wil create a joint culture, while maintaining their own identities.
"- you ask the refugees who don't have homes to look for another life but Israel keeps bringing Jews who have lives from all over the world and puts them in Palestinian homes."
The Palestinians lost their at one time in 48-9. New Jews being born or coming to Israel today are not taking new Palestinian homes.
The reason that Palestinian refugees don't have a home is that after they ran away from Palestine they spend the next 50 years sitting in refugee camps dreaming of going back to their old homes, and were not allowed by the other Arabs to build new homes in the other Arab countries. During these 50 years, Jews who ran away or came from Europe or the Arab world, or the Soviet Union or eksewhere built new homes for themselves in Israel or in the other countries they got to, and the Jews in Israel helped them build the new homes (in Israel).
"- the best model i think is the UK where the Scots and welsh share in the sovereignty but the English control everything. and 2 or three cities should be shared cities especially Jerusalem while the rest are exclusively controlled but others can live in them according to the rules the city established , and only the ones willing to live together cane be in the shared cities while the others go to their exclusive cities."
In the past the Scots and Welsh were a minority with equal rights whose countries were part of a United Kingdom controled from English London. Recently, the Scots and the Weslsh felt the need to have their own control of their internal affairs and culture with their own parliaments while remaining a part of a United Kingdoms.
In the past the Basques and the Catalans were minorities in a Spanish state controlled from Spanish-Castilian Madrid. Recently they have felt the need to have more autonomous status, but still as part of the Kingdom of Spain.
In the past, the Walloons and the Felemes of Belgium lived in once country controled from Brussles, and the Walloons were more dominant. Recently they had felt the need to seperate into a seperate Wallon and Flemish parliaments while maintaining a joint central government, and a shared Brussles.
These are nice examples. But, the Welsh do not think that he English should go away, that they do not belong, that they stole their land and they should get it back. Nor do the Catalans, Basques or Flemings. These devolved unions in Spain, Britain and Belgium are based on a certain level of trust, respect and acceptance that does not exist in Israel-Palestine. I believe that it is necessary for the Arabs and Jews to have seperate states at least for a while before trying some kind of union. As for Jerusalem, I think it should be devided, but the old city, where the religous stuff is found, should be like the Vatican, a seperate entity.
------------------
There are times where I believe the US would be right to be more critical of Israel. I actually demonstrated for that when Collin Powell visited Israel. But I also think the Palestinians are naive if they think that they will get their country by the US or Europe twisting Israel's arm. Nobody is going to solve it for us, we have to do it ourselves.
-------------
Agian, sorry for the length.
"since the Arab-Muslims conquered and assimilated or marginilized the previous cultures in that region"
Arab christen sects are older than protestants and Catholics, and if they didn't keep emigrating away from there region then they would have compromised more than 40 million in the region.
And the Turks have been running the Muslim world for centuries not Arabs and the Berbers are still strong after 13 centuries not to mention the Persians who adopted the religion but taught us Arabs almost everything else.
And while the world sees us Arabs as one and while wee do feel kinship to one another, we are also very deferent in our lives and would never accept submitting to another's way, think Europe but with the same language. Scots and Irishmen may speak the Englishmen's language but they are not the same.
And micha if Israelis make peace and a solution sound impossible then it will be impossible. Things are extreme because the Palestinians are fighting to get something for themselves not to deprive somebody else of it. The Palestinians are fighting for a chance to have a future and from what you say the Jews are fighting for someplace to call the old country.
But what is your response to "about the Palestinians that are already Israeli citizens what are you going to do about them when they grow in population? Have another round of expulsions?"
Sorry about the last part seems we are doing this at the same time.
And about the refugees if you're waiting for the Palestinians to forget about their homes then you are being optimistic, even the ones who have settled in Jordan didn't forget they just live on, and in the future the if the tables turn then just look at Kirkuk
- to Jerome the reason their is no peace is because Israel will always be backed up no mater what destruction they bring to the region.
Do you really believe it is merely that simple?
There is no peace, in large part, because some groups like Hamas and Hezbollah want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth; they want Jews dead, pure and simple.
The fight goes on, with fewer than 250 words suggesting that Israel is making 10 enemies for every one it captures or kills, and thousands of words explaining why Israel Is Always Right and The Arabs Should Just Get Over It.
I was going to say "a buttload of words" defending Israel instead of thousands, but I'm not sure how many a buttload is and can't find a conversion table.
You could cut the chauvinism with a knife. Those Arabs, ya can't live with 'em, no reasoning with some people, we warned 'em to get out of the way.
Thank you, Hombre Malo (yo soy un hombre sincero) for remembering in your posts that the Palestinians (and the Lebanese schoolkids that are dodging bombs) are people and not collateral damage:
"I might be naive, but if you know where your foes are and also know that by dropping bombs you will probably kill innocents, blaming your foes for those victims is simply perverse."
John Mosby as well:
"the missiles aren't presumably being aimed at specific locations where the kindapped soldiers are being held (or there's a new type of missile on the market that only blows up kidanppers and not kidnapees), wouldn't the more comparable example be that a bunch of 'Most wanted' robbers from Glendale/The Bronx commit a murder a child/rape a whole family in a neighbouring area and the police, following criticsm that they're weak on crime - wait a couple of days and then go into Glendale/The Bronx and throw a ton of grenades down a busy street where the gang are beleived to regularly hang-out in the hope that it'll take out some of them and put others off?"
I'm sick and tired of rationalizations that justify the death of innocent bystanders. Don't put sugar on shite and expect me to eat it.
I agree that the Arab nations are led by monsters, but I gotta wonder: is that because every moderate gets killed, discredited or shouted down by friend and foe alike?
I was trying to illustrate a point about people's blind spots, that Israel seems to be one of the things We Cannot Talk About without first making it clear that we are First and Foremost Friends of Israel always, always, always. It's like trying to talk rationally about Cuban policy in Miami. I'm writing a comic book about the Middle East this summer, and Oy, vey, you should hear ...
""since the Arab-Muslims conquered and assimilated or marginilized the previous cultures in that region"
Arab christen sects are older than protestants and Catholics, and if they didn't keep emigrating away from there region then they would have compromised more than 40 million in the region."
Maybe they didn't want to be a minority in Arab-Muslim countries? Before the Arab-Muslims came they were the majority.
I believe they became Arab Christians only after the Arabic became the dominant language after the conquest of the middle east.
"And the Turks have been running the Muslim world for centuries not Arabs and the Berbers are still strong after 13 centuries not to mention the Persians who adopted the religion but taught us Arabs almost everything else."
the Berbers also became a minority in North Africa as a result of the arab invasions. The Persians lost their religion but not their national culture or their majority in Persia, but many others in the middle east lost all three or some of them.
The changing of the middle east from a Christian Byzantine area to an Arab-Muslim area happened because of the first Arab-Muslim invasion, not the Turks. The Turks did conquer Asia Minor from the Greeks and Armenians. Today the Greeks know that they cannot get Istanbul back, the armenians know that they can't get all of old Armenia back, and the Turks know thatthey can't get all the Othoman Empire back. They don't like each other but tthey live in peace. I hope this will happen with Israel/Palestine too.
"And while the world sees us Arabs as one and while wee do feel kinship to one another, we are also very deferent in our lives and would never accept submitting to another's way, think Europe but with the same language. Scots and Irishmen may speak the Englishmen's language but they are not the same."
I know that not all Arabs are the same. This is also true of Jews, except that we are fewer and that we accept many aspects of the culture of other countries we live in, which is why we felt it important to have a country where the ways are our ways.
"Things are extreme because the Palestinians are fighting to get something for themselves not to deprive somebody else of it."
Thyey are fighting to have a state for themselves in Palestine, which I understand. But if they are fighting to have a state that will replace Israel completely than that I cannot accept. I want to fight so the Palestinians and the Israelis will each have a state in part of Palestine-Israel.
I also have a problem with the way the Palestinians are fighting. If the Palestinians think they will get a Palestinian state by killing Israelis, they are wrong, and if they kill Israelis, Israelis wil kill back, and then we have a whole cycle of death. The cycle will only stop if both sides stop.
"The Palestinians are fighting for a chance to have a future and from what you say the Jews are fighting for someplace to call the old country."
No. the Americans call the countries they came from 'Old Country'. So when an Egyptian-American talks about Egypt he says it is his old country. But when an Egyptian speaks of 'Egypt' its 'his country'. For Israelis Israel is not the 'old country' it is 'our country'. we fight to defend it. I believe that we Israelis can have 'our country'and the Palestinian-Arab 'their country' in Palestine-Israel. I don't know if they agree.
"And about the refugees if you're waiting for the Palestinians to forget about their homes then you are being optimistic, even the ones who have settled in Jordan didn't forget they just live on, and in the future the if the tables turn then just look at Kirkuk"
I don't want to refugees to forget their homes. It is important to remember the past. I understand that. But if they want to return to their homes and destroy Israel, the result will be war, and both Jews and arabs wil die. If you think that the Arabs cannot accept that they will not go back to their old homes, if you think that they wil just continue fighting forever, than it is bad for both Jews and Arabs. It is sad, but if the Arabs continue fighting Israel will defend itself.
Poor Michael. The Jews never let anybody criticize Israel. If somebody does they start to riot. That's why nobody anywhere ever criticizes Israel.
(I was being ironic, I hope you realize)
> their are material problems like the land and refugees , if it was only feelings than fighter planes gun ships and rockets and tunnels wouldn't be involved.
Sure, sure. And that was the case in Northern Ireland, right? Uh, no. Lots of people were killed in terrorist activities over the years and it had nothing to do with letting refugees take their homes back.
And as for fighting those reponsible, if I were the Palistinians, I'd be seriously ticked off at my fellow Arabs, too. Maybe israel threw me out of my home, but Saudi Arabia (to name just one) has the cash to build me another. But, no, I'm on my own and ain't gonna get help from my 'brothers'... Yeah, I'd love that, sure. :p
Posted by michael at July 18, 2006 10:04 AM
The fight goes on, with fewer than 250 words suggesting that Israel is making 10 enemies for every one it captures or kills, and thousands of words explaining why Israel Is Always Right and The Arabs Should Just Get Over It.
I was going to say "a buttload of words" defending Israel instead of thousands, but I'm not sure how many a buttload is and can't find a conversion table.
You could cut the chauvinism with a knife. Those Arabs, ya can't live with 'em, no reasoning with some people, we warned 'em to get out of the way.
Ah, yes, the old "no one who disagrees with me can think for himself" argument.
Michael, the problem with applying the "10 new enemies for every existing one killed" to the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict is the context. The U.S. invaded Iraq for dubious reasons, ignoring evidence that cast into doubt the assertion that Iraq was a threat. They turned out not to be a direct threat to our security. Since we ill-advisedly and unnecessarily invaded that nation, however, they have become fertile ground for the very kinds of threats we mistakenly believed them to pose.
Israel, on the other hand, was invaded by Hezbollah and Hamas. Some Israeli soldiers were killed, and others were wounded.
After Israel began UNILATERALLY PULLING OUT OF OCCUPIED TERRITORIES, which to any rational person would have to be interpreted as a GESTURE OF PEACE, they were INVADED, which any rational person would recognize as AN ACT OF WAR.
(I'm sorry I put that in all caps. I generally consider that to be rude, but the point has been made so many times and everyone seems to keep missing it or willfully ignoring it.)
So this contstant carping about Israel perpetuating the violence, about the "chaunvinism" displayed by the United States in favoring Israel, and about the plight of the Palestinians and other Arabs omits the most salient fact about this whole mess: Israel made gestures of peace, and Hezbollah and Hamas responded with acts of war.
Israel has a right to exist as a nation. Any nation has a right and an obligation to defend its borders against naked aggression. Therefore, Israel has a right to defend itself against Hamas and Hezbollah.
The Palestinians deserve a homeland. Israel has not always dealt with the Palestinians justly. That does not give Hezbollah and Hamas the right to invade Israel with impunity.
Israel created an opportunity for advancing the peace process when they began unilaterally withdrawing from the occupied territories. Rather than seize the opportunity for further peaceful gains, groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are continuing on the only path they've ever known: knee-jerk violence. The idea that Israel has not tried hard enough to negotiate with them is absurd.
Israel is not perfect. I have criticized them in the past and am likely to do so again in the future. But they have a right to exist and to defend their borders.
Michael, you've demonstrated an aptitude for useless generalities such as "making 10 enemies for every one it captures or kills." Can you, however, present a reasoned alternative for Israel that would allow it to protect its borders while keeping its hands completely free of blood? And can you present us with evidence that would give such an alternative credibility?
from micha
"I believe they became Arab Christians only after the Arabic became the dominant language after the conquest of the middle east."
You believe wrong the Arab Christians where their long before and they are the ones who let the Arab Muslims in to the region .but yes there are others that adopted the language.
"I don't want to refugees to forget their homes. It is important to remember the past. I understand that. But if they want to return to their homes and destroy Israel, the result will be war, and both Jews and arabs wil die. If you think that the Arabs cannot accept that they will not go back to their old homes, if you think that they wil just continue fighting forever, than it is bad for both Jews and Arabs. It is sad, but if the Arabs continue fighting Israel will defend itself"
If this was anywhere else maybe time will heal everything the founders of Israel made a big mistake in fulfilling their future by destroying others. I hope you don't take it personally if some one fights to get their homes back. And don't be angry at me because I stand by their right and I wish them well.
And don't be angry at me because I stand by their right and I wish them well.
You know, we probably should be angry with you, because it sounds, more or less, as if you are saying that all the senseless violence is ok.
I mean, geez, how long are you guys allowed to hold a grudge here?
Jews are the most persecuted group on the planet, having been forced out of about every place they've ever lived, but I don't see them seeking revenge against the Germans for World War II.
Yes, it's tragic that the Palestinians have suffered, but guess what? So have many other groups over the millennia.
So, I just don't get this ridiculous notion that somebody has the right to be a terrorist to get their home back, when it's not even so much getting their home back as it is simply the supposed right to attack and kill Jews.
Posted by: lorshas at July 18, 2006 12:32 PM
from micha
If this was anywhere else maybe time will heal everything the founders of Israel made a big mistake in fulfilling their future by destroying others. I hope you don't take it personally if some one fights to get their homes back. And don't be angry at me because I stand by their right and I wish them well.
lorshas, there is much historical evidence that the Jewish people were wrongfully driven from their homeland in ancient times. Despite the mass expulsions, there has been some Jewish presence in your region for the last three millenia.
When Israel was established in 1948, the United Nations General Assembly proposed that Palestine be divided into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, with Jerusalem under U.N. Administration. Most Jews in Palestine accepted the proposal, most Arabs rejected it. Violence erupted, the Jews formed the state of Israel so that they could protect themselves, and now the Palestinians are without a homeland.
What you are saying is that certain people in the Arab community want everything or nothing at all: either Israel gives up everything and the Jews flee once again, or the fighting continues.
Given that Israel is not likely to acquiesce to being driven out of existence, the forces that want to destroy it have a choice: either continue the senseless violence, or attempt to fashion a compromise that will allow people to live peacefully. If certain forces in the Arab world continue to choose the former, it will do no good to point the finger at everyone else.
Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has not been entirely just. The Palestinians deserve a homeland and self rule. But Ehud Barak offered them something very close to that by proposing to give the Palestinians 90 percent of the West Bank and Gaza strip.
It may not have been everything they wanted, but it was a damn sight better than what they had and would have been a foundation of strength upon which to build. For various reasons (Micha has explained to me how complicated the situation was), they rejected the offer without making a counter-offer. Whatever their reasons, the Palestinians had a shot at getting what they wanted and walked away from it. To blame everyone but the Palestinians for that failure is irrational.
There is a chance for peace. But both sides must be willing to sit down at the table and talk in good faith. You can point fingers at Israel -- and in some instances, deservedly so -- but the Arab community needs to take responsibility for its mistakes and misdeeds as well.
"If this was anywhere else maybe time will heal everything"
What is it about this place that makes it impossible?
"the founders of Israel made a big mistake in fulfilling their future by destroying others."
Maybe they did. But if every country whose founders made big mistakes would be destroyed there would not be many countries left.
In any case the Palestinians have a future in Palestine, just not all of Palestine. The Arabs at large surely have a future, if they choise.
"I hope you don't take it personally if some one fights to get their homes back."
I hope they don't take it personaly if I fight back to defend my home and the lives of my friends and relatives.
"And don't be angry at me because I stand by their right and I wish them well."
I'm not angry, I'm sad. It is the Palestinians who should be angry. I have a country that can defend itself. It will be the Palestinian who will suffer most if they continue fighting for 50 or a 100 or more years because you promised them that one day the table will turn. Yes, I am very sad for us and for them.
Bill Myers:
Without comenting on many other things you said, Id like to point out that Hamas is not the group that seized the soldier. Hamas have requested to that group to release the soldier from hour zero of this whole dilemma. Hamas, as pointed by Shlomo Ben Ami, have showed restrain and tried to find a peaceful way out of this particular conflict, and as despicable its ideology is, they have been behaving ever since getting elected.
Today's terrorists can become tomorrow's moderate leaders.
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_292.shtml
Posted by: El hombre Malo at July 18, 2006 01:29 PM
Without comenting on many other things you said, Id like to point out that Hamas is not the group that seized the soldier.
Fair enough. Facts are facts, and I got that one wrong.
Hamas have requested to that group to release the soldier from hour zero of this whole dilemma. Hamas, as pointed by Shlomo Ben Ami, have showed restrain and tried to find a peaceful way out of this particular conflict, and as despicable its ideology is, they have been behaving ever since getting elected.
Today's terrorists can become tomorrow's moderate leaders.
Hamas nevertheless continues to preach hate, and the destruction of Israel remains part of the Covenant of Hamas: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
A couple of gestures is not enough to mitigate a history of violence. If Hamas wants to be respected and viewed as responsible and civilized, they will need to earn the world's trust.
I hope they do. The Palestinians could use better leadership. The leadership they've had has not done much to truly advance their cause, but has instead continued to rely on violence in order to cast attention away from the corruption and incompetence that has long characterized the Palestinian government.
The Hamas did kidnap the soldier.
There is a conflict between the leadership of the Hamas in Gaza, the one in Damascus and the armed wing in Gaza.
The Hamas has kept a ceasefire for four reasons:
1) They lost many people to Israel
2) They didn't want to sabotage the Israeli withdrawl and then the Palestinian elections.
3) The Palestinian people were getting fed up with the violent struugle because of the harm it caused them.
4) They received respectability when the Egyptians negotiated with them.
5) They won the elections and wanted to secure their power.
But, the Jihad and the Al-Aqsa brigade did not stop fighting. The military arm of the Hamas wanted to join the fight, so when they had a good justification as far as Palestinian opinion is concerned, they did.
Yes, I think we should negotiate with the Hamas for a ceasefire. Maybe one day they'll become moderate.
But when they say they want to negotiate right now, what they want is that Israel release a thousand Palestinian militants for this one soldier. If Israel will agree to that, it will become a good idea to kidnap more soldiers and civilians anywhere to release more militants. Israel will not be able to defend themselves, and arresting terrorists will become pointless.
I doubt even Spain could fight ETA if every time it arrested a terrorist, it had to release it.
[by the way, apparently the Hamas and the HIzballa are militants, but the people who attack in Iraq, Madrid, London and New York are terrorists.]
Posted by: Micha at July 18, 2006 01:47 PM
The Hamas did kidnap the soldier.
It would seem I was premature in admitting I had my facts wrong. I went online to the news sites I was using to keep myself informed and couldn't find anything about Hamas kidnapping a soldier, so I thought I had mis-remembered it. Guess I didn't.
"You know, we probably should be angry with you, because it sounds, more or less, as if you are saying that all the senseless violence is ok"
I'm saying that all the senseless violence is invertible as things stand.
"I mean, geez, how long are you guys allowed to hold a grudge here?"
as I said before it not about a grudge , its about real material problems.
"lorshas, there is much historical evidence that the Jewish people were wrongfully driven from their homeland in ancient times. Despite the mass expulsions, there has been some Jewish presence in your region for the last three millenia"
holed the wikies i am Arabian and a Saudi , while you hear and read this stuff I live it.
"What you are saying is that certain people in the Arab community want everything or nothing at all: either Israel gives up everything and the Jews flee once again, or the fighting continues"
where did i say that , look at my UK idea i think its the best for the present and the future , if you have a tri-government that has Jew only Arab only and shared it would:
- separate those who hate each other , and create a shared society that would hold things up until new generation grow up without the experience of violence that would make the shared society grow stronger while still having a place for the extern right from both sides to hang out with out ruining things .
the Palestinians would get the west-bank and Gaza and start with Jerusalem as the first shared city along with another city that has a large Arab population , and Jews get everything els , and when the shared population grows they can build new cities in the desert .
and the Jews would get exclusive control over air and sea indefinitely in exchange for annual income.
"You can point fingers at Israel -- and in some instances, deservedly so -- but the Arab community needs to take responsibility for its mistakes and misdeeds as well"
between the US Israel dictators and terrorists what do want me to do?
lorshas, you've proved my point for me. The Israelis already offered the Palestinians 90 percent of Gaza and the West Bank and limited self-rule, and they rejected the offer without making a counter-proposal.
Was it everything they wanted? No. But history has shown that gains are often made incrementally.
Of course, if the Palestinians accepted such an offer, they'd have to start taking responsibility for their own welfare and prosperity and stop blaming the Jews and the U.S. And I don't think they're prepared to do that.
"between the US Israel dictators and terrorists what do want me to do?"
Tell me how the U.S. has prevented you from acting as an advocate for women's rights. Tell me how the Israelis have prevented you from advocating for democratic reform within your country.
And tell me how it's the U.S.'s fault that your government uses anti-American propaganda to distract your people from the corruption and injustice being committed by your very government. Propaganda that many of your people are far too eager to eat up.
When I say Hamas didnt kidnap the soldier, I was quoting Shlomo Ben Ami, as well as when I talk about Hamas beign palestine's more reliable player so far. I tend to trust an Israeli former minister on these issues, but who knows...
When people talk about Israeli offers to Palestinians and the latter foolhardy of not accepting them, they forget every Israeli proposal is steel hard in one subject: the return of the 2 million refugees.
Arafat used those refugees as a dart against any offer, while Israel mantained that they will never accept those back.
Also, Palestinian insist on Jerusalem beign their capital, while Israel dont even consider it an occupied territory. Jerusalem is not so much a sacred city for muslims but an historic rallying point. Shia and Sunni collide on most issues, but all praise Soliman, who defeated invaders and united Arabs (even orthodox christian arabs who were fed up with catholic invaders).
Soliman is like Jean D'Arc, King Arthur and Alexander the Great piled into one for muslims, and Jerusalem is the symbol of that.
It might be naive on the Palestinian part to insist on those points but its important to keep them in mind when talking about why negotiations never seem to go right.
"Tell me how the U.S. has prevented you from acting as an advocate for women's rights. Tell me how the Israelis have prevented you from advocating for democratic reform within your country.
And tell me how it's the U.S.'s fault that your government uses anti-American propaganda to distract your people from the corruption and injustice being committed by your very government. Propaganda that many of your people are far too eager to eat up"
sorry a thought that terrorists and fundamentalists are the same let me modify my statement
"between the US Israel dictators terrorists and fundamentalists what do want me to do?"
Here's a thought (or several).
1) America, suck it up deal with Syria. The best way to avoid direct conflict, or mediate a resolution, is to talk to all parties involved.
2) Israel, instead of bombing the Lebanese government into the arms of Hizbollah, offer to assist them in ridding their country of these fanatics. Probably a lot easier, and less cost intensive than the current plan. The added bonus is if you do find Iranians in Lebanon, you've got something to use.
3) Back to you Uncle Sam. Don't call for democracy, then cry about the results. Cutting off aid to the Palestinian Authority is working real well. Just as well as that Cuban embargo.
IMHO, anyhoo.