PeterDavid.net

I'd definitely like a President who swears appropriately.

The question is: How can Lebanon army take on Hezbolah succesfuly if the IDF couldnt do that in 20 years of ocupation. They drove the syrian back so far, but you cant possibly expect them to disarm Hezbolah when much better armed and trained IDF couldnt do the job.

Actually, I think he said Syria needs to get Hezbollah to knock this shit off.

And btw

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060718/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel

How the hell targeting Lebanon army help undermining hezbolah grip over the country?

Yeah, I think Bush said Syria needs to do it, not Lebanon.

So, I was good with this comment from Bush until I found out he said Syria.

Then I just scratched my head like I always do when Bush opens his mouth.

I actually was sort of impressed with Bush, mostly because he was actually talking policy with someone. We non-conservatives tend to get the impression that Dubya doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, so for him to have an actual lucid conversation about policy was startling and impressive.

(Then again, I guess this is an example of why some people think the President won the debates...)

I also think there was nothing wrong with what he said. If people get upset, it's because they're a bunch of hypersensitive a-holes who are also quite likely hypocritical, since I'm quite certain that many of these people have said far worse about the US.

This is what he said:

""See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s--- and it's over,"

-basically, as many believe, he thinks Syria has great influence over them, and could get this over with quickly.

-From a newspaper article-Buthaina Shaaban, one of Assad's aides, has hinted that, if allowed to return to Lebanon, the Syrians are prepared to disarm the Hezbollah and make sure that the Lebanese border with Israel is as calm as the ceasefire line between Israel and Syria has been for decades.

i have lived in Belfast pretty much my whole life and grew up through the Troubles. i was talking to a friend from the other side of the religious divide and was surprised he felt Israel were justified in their on-going attacks. you see in Northern Ireland Protestants are supposed to support Israel and Catholics are supposed to side with Palestine. Politics in NI is a curious thing. Like i said i was surprised by my Catholic friends comments and he refused to back down. the only way i could try and reason with him was by asking if he felt Britain would be justified in launching missile attacks on Ireland or Republican areas of NI after bomb attacks on mainland Britain. he wouldnt respond to this question but tried to turn it into a debate about the last 300 years of British occupation and the justification of the IRA and the "struggle". like i said politics and religion are strange bedfellows here
i have stated in a previous thread that Bush and cronies want to destabilise the whole middle east and it seems to be happening. in my opinion this is leading towards a new global war with religion as its foundation. i truly hope i'm wrong but as i've witnessed here the past is a hard thing to forget and nearly impossible to forgive, religion and politics again in my opinion mix as well as oil and water

While listening to NPR on the way home last week, A Lebanese citizen was found to be saying "We have nothing to do with Hezballah, Why are we being hit?" or something to that effect. I found myself yelling to nobody,

"THEN DO SOMETHING ABOUT THEM!"

It sure looks to me like they don't care enough, and they must somewhere, deep down, agree with what Hezballah is doing. (I never heard ONE Lebanese citizen placing any blame on Hezballah. As we all know, it takes two to tango.)

If you can't revolt and/or reign them in, or DO SOMETHING-ANYTHING for pity sake, It's hard to muster the proper amount of outrage I should be feeling.

(Oh and it's widely reported Iran / Syria are supplying Hezbollah.)

Presidents that curse in a time of war are A-OK in my book. Well, other than the whole "blood-for-oil", "manipulate-the-American-public-into-a-Iraqi-quagmire" thing. But still, he said shit! Woo hoo! I am so on this story!

AT any rate, Iran's nukes suddenly were not the topic of conversation at the G-8 summit, which I am sure suited them just fine.

Agreed. I dislike Bush for many things, but I'd actually be more worried about a President that never swore. And c'mon, calling terrorist activities shit is justified, it's not like he called any individual a shit-head or directed curses at the UN (as the initial CNN.com headline made it appear). It's a classic non-news filler story that makes mw want to smack the media with a 2x4.

The media reaction has been kinda weird. Headlines have implied Bush cursed out the UN, Bush cursed out Syria, Bush cursed out Lebanon, or Hezbollah.

But he didn't do any of the sort. He said "shit" as in the activities Hezbollah is engaged in, and he said it pretty casually.

Hardly this earth shaking news, yet the drudgereport has been running with this since it happened, changing the headline every few hours

Zeek:

Lebanese revolted and forced a pro-Syrian goverment out and got rid of Syrian troops...They were doing something. Disarming Hezbolah must not be an easy task since Israel occupied Lebanon for 20 years and didnt manage to do it.

It is funny-this will be seen as provincial, but I read "The U.S. currently has 25,000 passportholders in Lebanon" and I think what could the bulk of them possibly be doing there.

An incredibly sophisticated analysis from your Commander-in-Chief.

Who are the "they" in "...what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over"?

El Hombre Malo, please stop using this demagogic argument. I think you know it is not true. It's like saying that the US never conquered North Vietnam, and therefore it is impossible to conquer countries.

Israel did not try to disarm the Hizballa while they were in Lebanon. They did try to disarm the PLO in Lebanon and were partially successful. Israel fought for 20 years a pointless and wrong war to defend its soldiers who should never have been there from hizballa, but it never made an all out assault to disarm it. the Lebanese army never tried to disarm the Hizballa, and they had good reasons not too. They didn't want to fight the Hizballa (it's not that they tried but couldn't). But unfortunatly that meant that the Hizballa remained part of Lebanon, sanctioned by the state, and that it continued to attack Israel. So it was Lebanon that attacked Israel, despite the double talk. I find it strange that Palestinians and lebanese assert their right to attack Israel but are offended when Israel attacks back.

Did Ireland ever attack Britain after independence?

I think criticizing some off the cuff comments made in casual cobversation while they were eating is a bit much. I don't think the moment is meant to call for "an incredibly sophisticated analysis."

I agree with this article I guess:

With that apercu, the President joined a long line of gaffe-making chief executives that includes Ronald Reagan ("[I have signed legislation that will outlaw the Soviet Union.] We begin bombing in five minutes") and Jimmy Carter (who told congressmen that, if Sen. Edward Kennedy were to run against him, "I'll whip his ass"). What was maybe as jarring as the blunt remark was that CNN ran the profanity, unbleeped and unexpurgated, in audio, in the on-screen caption and in its ticker. (Though, oddly, it blanked out the curse word on its website.) I expect the denunciation of the President from The Parents Television Council at any moment.

Of course, Bush and his administration are no strangers to the semi-public off-color remark. Candidate Bush described a New York Times reporter to running mate Dick Cheney as a "major-league asshole" and had his remarks picked up on a microphone; as Vice President, Cheney told Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont "Go f___ yourself" on the Senate floor. (I'll leave it to the pottymouths at CNN to spell out the whole expletive.)

And like those earlier vulgarities--like, in fact, pretty much everything the Bush administration does--it will probably cut both ways with the public. The President's detractors will see another cringe-worthy example of the cretin we elected, bumbling boorishly through diplomacy, dropping an s-bomb into a situation with enough real bombs already falling, while popping gobbets of food into his face and chewing open-mouthed. His fans will see a straight-shooter, a man without airs, someone who has remained himself even in the prissy confines of a diplomatic luncheon and has the honesty to call a turd a turd, no matter what the world's elites think.

Personally, I could care less that a grown man used a swear word when speaking to another grown man. I'm more disturbed that the President used "irony" to describe what seemed to be an entirely unironic situation. Have we learned nothing from Alanis Morrisette?

You can watch it here:
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/world/2006/07/17/sot.bush.expletive.affl

It is funny-this will be seen as provincial, but I read "The U.S. currently has 25,000 passportholders in Lebanon" and I think what could the bulk of them possibly be doing there.

No, the really funny part is that any American who wants to be evacuated out of Lebanon will have to pay the US Government for the privilege.

And, no, this is not a joke.

1Who are the "they" in "...what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over"?
*****

From comments he makes at the end, though some reporters seem unsure who the they is, it is pretty clear to me he is talking about the UN/Kofi Annan. Since it starts in the middle of the conversation it is not entirely clear, but the context seems to me to be that.

spiderrob8:

Lebanon is a big touristic destination, it was before the civil war and these last years of peace were helping them become again. Beirut have great hotels, beaches, casinos, and there is an important cultural heritage. That without having in mind that during the civil war, many lebanese left the country and became Americans, french, spaniards... and have since go back there to help build a better Lebanon.

(Oh and it's widely reported Iran / Syria are supplying Hezbollah.)

Yes, it has been widely reported, and I don't doubt it in the least.

However, Hezbollah is located in Lebanon. Not Syria, or Iran. Lebanon.

It is Lebanon's responsibility to deal with him, and if they can't handle it, then they need to outright say so, and they might as well be absorbed into Syria and cease to exist as a country if they want Syria to take of the problem for them.

Micha:

PLO was out of Lebanon long before the IDF left the country. Hezbolah waged a gerrilla war against IDF for all those years and you try to tell me Israel didnt do anything about it?

Of course the Lebanese army could do more about hezbollah, but they have a status as heroes, since they are seen as the only ones who standed against Israel during the invasion. Moreso, Hezbollah created a social welfare network in the parts of Lebanon where no other goverment could reach during that time,making civilians dependant on them. So the political cost of violently bringing them down would make any goverment colapse.

If you also take account of Lebanese army situation, after 20+ years of ocupation from two diferent countries, I think its not demagogic to mention it is near impossible for the lebanese goverment-army to dispose of Hezbolah.

Craig J. Ries

So the Lebanese, who revolted some months ago to stop the syrian influence in their affairs, who have democracy and different ethnic background, should be annexed by a dictatorship or face the bombs because they are not able to cope with Hezbolah.

Right.

Right.

I'll tell you right now that you completely misinterpreted my comments.

Actually Sasha, from what I've been hearing, the US military will evacuate US passport holders from Lebannon to Cyprus. From there it's up to the individuals to find transport home (or where ever else they want to go).

> I think its not demagogic to mention it is near impossible for the lebanese goverment-army to dispose of Hezbolah.

Well, that's the thing. As we get the news in Canada, it seems clear that much of the Lebanese armed forces would side with the Hezbolah and the reason the government hasn't sent the army in to clear them out is that they KNOW it would result in full-blown civil war. No if ands or buts.

Now being the raving loon that I am, I'd be tempted to cut the south loose. "You do not wish to obey the legitimate government? Fine. You are no longer part of Lebanon. Have fun." And then watch as Israel takes over for real and solves the problem for me.

Yah, I know. But it'd be awfully tempting.

Okay, let's start the clock: How long before a future post in which Peter criticizes Bush or the Republicans, and visitors knee-jerck accuse PAD of hating everything they do, never praising them, and never criticizing the Dems, and just plain forgetting that this blog entry took place? :-)

I might.

But I think you simplify the repercusions of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

They are holding the whole lebanese people hostage to do as they please. But police dont shoot the hostage to get to the murderer.

Or at least, shouldnt.

Yeah but he's praising him for something he really didn't say...:)

But what he DID say was apparently valid. If Syria would stop using Hezballoh as their Lebanese army of occupation by proxy they would be in little condition to cause Israel much damage. As it is, they have seen their capabilities reduced by half, if some accounts are to be belived (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886032979&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

Yeah, I think Bush said Syria needs to do it, not Lebanon.

So, I was good with this comment from Bush until I found out he said Syria.

Then I just scratched my head like I always do when Bush opens his mouth.

Why? It make perfect sense. The Lebanese are not going to be able to do much is the Syrians continue to supply the terrorists. Syria can take over Lebanon and execute its leaders at any time they desire. It's unlikelythe Lebanese can do much about that. Which may well be entirely their own fault but if we want to see something accomplished we have to focus on the real players in this situation.

But I think you simplify the repercusions of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

I don't believe I am.

What is the most likely outcome of the Lebanese army putting down Hezbollah? Civil war. That's pretty obvious.

Buf if they're not willing to do it, then somebody else, like Israel, just may.

Syria isn't going to do it - they'd probably be more than welcome to take over the country again, but they're certainly not going to stop Hezbollah, and I don't see how anybody thinks we can make them do it either.

So, no, Bill, it makes no sense whatsoever: Bush said he wants Syria to stop Hezbollah.

That's nonsense to think that Syria would stop Hezbollah, because they have no interest in doing so when, as you say, they are the ones supplying the terrorists.

It really comes down to whether Lebanon wants to do it themselves, or Israel to do it for them. They're finding out the hard way that I don't think they want Israel doing it.

Also, there was another comment about the shared border between Israel and Syria (at the Golan Heights), and how there isn't much, if any, violence there.
But that makes perfect sense - Syria supplies Hezbollah to cause problems elsewhere, mostly Lebanon, whom Syria controlled until just recently. Why cause problems at their own border when it's so easy to do it elsewhere?

Lebanon got Israel out of their country, and then Syria. If they really expect to exist as an independent nation, they they're going to have to fight for it, and that means fighting Hezbollah.

Oh, I think the Israelis can easily convince the Syrians that it is indeed in their interests to stop suplyying Hebollah. Their leadership is not so beloved by the military that a humiliating defeat would not likely lead to a coup. Israel could take out their airforce in a weekend. I suspect the only reason it hasn't been done is the possibility of dragging Iran into the conflict.

As long as Syria continues to supply Hezbollah or whatever replaces it, the situation will continue. Imagine if Mexico supplied some US terror groups with high tech arms. We could knock them off one by one but there will always be new crazies willing to take military aid (especially if the aid is given to anyone who will cause trouble--the KKK one week, the Symbionese Liberation Army the next). Until the Mexican government was stopped the situation would never end. (Note to the literal minded: I don't seriously think Mexico will do anything of the sort, it was just either them or Canada. And, I mean, Canada, c'mon).

I suspect the only reason it hasn't been done is the possibility of dragging Iran into the conflict.

I think I agree with this as well, but I'm honestly not sure how much of a threat Iran would be.

It's not like they'd have it easy going over or through Iraq, thanks to the US presence there (nor would it have been if Saddam was still in power). But they cannot be discounted, either.

I'm just not convinced that Israel's leadership has the kind of clout with Syria needed to get Syria to genuinely try and stop Hezbollah.

So, I'm not sure Syria would be doing anything even if they didn't have Iran's support.

Aggrieved parties aren't just going to "cut that shit out" when their homeland has been invaded and stolen from them. The creation of the state of Israel at the expense of Palestine has been the SOLE cause of trouble in the Middle East for the last 60 years. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending otherwise just perpetuates the crime against the Palestinian people.

The "SOLE" cause of trouble? Are you kidding?

Too many Bills...

Sticking your head in the sand and pretending otherwise just perpetuates the crime against the Palestinian people.

Uhuh.

The only people sticking their head in the sand are those who act like the Palestinians are the only ones who have ever been aggrieved in that part of the world over the last, oh, 2500 years or so.

But, as I said, you don't see Jewish terrorists in Germany...

Aggrieved parties aren't just going to "cut that shit out" when their homeland has been invaded and stolen from them. The creation of the state of Israel at the expense of Palestine has been the SOLE cause of trouble in the Middle East for the last 60 years. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending otherwise just perpetuates the crime against the Palestinian people.

Cough "Iran/Iraq War" Cough.

"Too many Bills"

It's relatively easy to figure out which is which. If it sounds reasonable and well thought out it's probably Bill Myers.

If it sounds like it was written under the effects of white wine and cough syrup, it's probably me.

Posted by: Bill Maxwell at July 18, 2006 12:48 PM

Aggrieved parties aren't just going to "cut that shit out" when their homeland has been invaded and stolen from them.

Actually, when Jews began immigrating en masse to Palestine in the late 1800s, many of them bought their land. With money. In fair transactions.

In 1947, in response to mounting violence, the U.N. General Assembly proposed dividing Palestine roughly in half, into one Jewish state and one Arab state. The Palestinians rejected the offer, and Israel declared itself a nation in 1948.

Had the Palestinians been willing to accept a compromise, and had they been willing to accept the moral justification for a Jewish state in an area from which Jews were unjustly expelled millennia before, we might not be in this mess today.

Posted by: Bill Maxwell at July 18, 2006 12:48 PM

The creation of the state of Israel at the expense of Palestine has been the SOLE cause of trouble in the Middle East for the last 60 years.

While Israel may make a convenient scapegoat for all of the problems in the region, all such problems cannot be reasonably traced to Israel. The various Arab factions in the Middle East can't get along with each other in many instances. Or are you going to try to pin the Iran-Iraq war on the Israelis?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 18, 2006 01:23 PM

"Too many Bills"

I say that a lot when I look at the mail.

It's relatively easy to figure out which is which. If it sounds reasonable and well thought out it's probably Bill Myers.

Bill, I appreciate the compliment, but your commitment to logic, willingness to assess the facts before forming a conclusion, and civility towards people with whom you disagree has helped me to elevate my own debating style. So, y'know, enough with the modesty and shit.

(Beavis voice) Huh-huh, huh-huh, I said "shit." Bush said "shit." Huh-huh, huh-huh, his name is "Bush."

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 18, 2006 01:23 PM

If it sounds like it was written under the effects of white wine and cough syrup, it's probably me.

I'm at work right now, and boy could I go for some white wine and cough syrup.

Although I'm sorry if you're feeling ill. Be well soon.

"PLO was out of Lebanon long before the IDF left the country. Hezbolah waged a gerrilla war against IDF for all those years and you try to tell me Israel didnt do anything about it?"

PLO was out of Lebanon after Israel entered the country. I didn't say Israel didn't do anything. They didn't invade the rest of Lebanon in order to disarm the Hizballa, although its army could and had done it in the past.

"Of course the Lebanese army could do more about hezbollah, but they have a status as heroes, since they are seen as the only ones who standed against Israel during the invasion. Moreso, Hezbollah created a social welfare network in the parts of Lebanon where no other goverment could reach during that time,making civilians dependant on them. So the political cost of violently bringing them down would make any goverment colapse.

If you also take account of Lebanese army situation, after 20+ years of ocupation from two diferent countries, I think its not demagogic to mention it is near impossible for the lebanese goverment-army to dispose of Hezbolah."
It is demagogic to claim that they couldn't do it because Israel couldn't. The other reasons are partially correct. But I believe if the Lebanese people at large decide that it is better for them not to have the Hizballa in the south they could do it. They just thought that it was better to have it there. What do they care about Israel's problems. I hope they reconsider now that the Hizballa will be weaker, and its presence obviously harmful.

Israel cannot attack Syria and Iran for the very simple reason that they did not attack us. They supply weapons and manuver, but the attack came from Lebanon. If Israel is blamed so much for attacking a country that attacked it, how much trouble would we get for attacking Syria or Iran. And what about the inocent Syrians and Irani who would be killed inevitably. Are they not important?

If you can't revolt and/or reign them in, or DO SOMETHING-ANYTHING for pity sake, It's hard to muster the proper amount of outrage I should be feeling.

Mmm. Is it equally hard to muster it when someone says that if we don't like what our administration is doing, we should revolt, or reign them in, or just DO SOMETHING ANYTHING for pities sake? Just... do something!

I mean, after all, it's what an awful lot of people in other countries have been saying to Americans who bitch about being associated with the current American government, and who think saying "I didn't vote for them" is a good enough pass.

"Jews were unjustly expelled millennia before"

MILLENNIA is the operative word there. No one has a legal claim to land lost thousands of years ago. The poor Native Americans lost their land unjustly hundreds of years ago and have zero chance of ever reclaiming it.

"The various Arab factions in the Middle East can't get along with each other"

When the Arabs fight amongst themselves, it doesn't affect us in the US. When we give Israel bombs to drop on the Arabs, we get 9/11.

Posted by: Bill Maxwell at July 18, 2006 02:18 PM

"Jews were unjustly expelled millennia before"

MILLENNIA is the operative word there. No one has a legal claim to land lost thousands of years ago. The poor Native Americans lost their land unjustly hundreds of years ago and have zero chance of ever reclaiming it.

What is the precise statute of limitations, then, for an injustice of these propotions? A month? A year? Five years, 10 days, three hours? A thousand years?

I personally believe my countrymen's attitude towards the injustice we committed against Native Americans to be unconscionable, by the way. The United States is here to stay -- there's nowhere else that could accommodate all of us, anyway -- but that doesn't mean we can't deal with the Native Americans more justly.

By the way, there has been an uninterrupted Jewish presence in the Middle East for the last three thousand years. The Jews formed a nation to protect themselves against Arab attacks.

But I take it from some of the posts in this thread that only Arabs can be victims, never Jews.

Posted by: Bill Maxwell at July 18, 2006 02:18 PM

When the Arabs fight amongst themselves, it doesn't affect us in the US. When we give Israel bombs to drop on the Arabs, we get 9/11.

Ah, it seems you have been drinking the Kool Aid of Arab propaganda. Al Qaeda has never really given a damn about the Palestinian cause, and only took up its banner because it was convenient.

Al Qaeda began as the Maktab al-Khadamat, of which Osama bin Laden was a founding member. The Maktab al-Khadamat was formed to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and received U.S. assistance.

After the Soviets were driven from Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden returned to his homeland of Saudi Arabia. When Iraq invaded Kuwait and put the rulers of Saudi Arabia, the House of Saud, at risk, Osama bin Laden offered the services of his organization. Saudi Arabia's King Fahd rejected this offer in favor of letting the U.S. establish a military presence in that country. This outraged bin Laden, who soon thereafter formed al Qaeda to oppose our presence in the "land of the two Mosques."

There were also more subtle sociological forces at work. In order to fight the Soviets, Maktab al-Khadamat warriors had to do some nasty things. Much like when our own troops came home from Vietnam, the Maktab al-Khadamat didn't receive a heroes welcome when they returned to their home countries and many were shunned. Having an enemy -- any enemy -- against which to rally gave them a sense of belonging. I'm not trying to justify the evil of Al Qaeda by talking about their wounded inner children, mind you -- there is no excuse in the world for their evil -- merely trying to help explain how it came to be.

I do not believe any rational person can look at the facts surrounding the formation of Al Qaeda and conclude that our support for Israel is the root cause.

I do not believe any rational person can look at the facts

There's your key phrase right there.

Bill Myers, I'm constantly amazed at the depth of your knowledge...what are you doing at a funnybook writer's site:)

I'm no Bush supporter, and I do honestly think that we only invaded Iraq out of the greed of our current leaders. But I think even Bush is smart enough to know that an all out war breaking out in a region that has people with that have major wmd's and some that have nukes is a very bad thing. Considering many of those terror groups are more then willing to die for their cause, or atleast get someone else to do a suicide attack for them, I'm sure not a single one of them would have any problem with using a nuclear bomb if it came down to it.

Posted by: Scavenger at July 18, 2006 03:35 PM

There's your key phrase right there.

Bill Myers, I'm constantly amazed at the depth of your knowledge...what are you doing at a funnybook writer's site:)

I aspire to be a funnybook writer and wish I was half as good today as Peter David was 10 years ago. So, y'know, I'm at his site because, well, Peter's one of the best.

And I really like a lot of the other people who frequent this board, as well.

My knowledge, however, is not as deep as you might believe. Often, my facts are culled from sources like Wikipedia while I'm composing my posts.

My rule of thumb: if I believe something to be true, I nevertheless check it out using an external source (Wikipedia gets a bad rap but a recent study showed that they are no more inaccurate than more "traditional" encyclopedias). If the facts contradict my beliefs, I scrap the post and think about my own point-of-view. Sometimes that means looking for more facts and, ultimately, changing my mind if that's what the facts warrant.

I also try to be open to other points of view like I find here. Often people here will point out facts of which I had been unaware.

There are those of you who may question my open-mindedness, given my responses to your posts. My mind is indeed rather unapologetically closed to hyperbolic arguments that are long on sentiment and short on logic and facts. And frankly, when I offer such emotions-based arguments (I'm human, I slip up) I am always grateful when someone calls me on it. So I try to return the favor. Although not everyone is equally grateful.

"Actually, when Jews began immigrating en masse to Palestine in the late 1800s, many of them bought their land. With money. In fair transactions"

"fair transactions" and "offers thy couldn't refuse" supervised by the British, well if you call extortion fair, that aside most of the land was taken by force and forcibly kept.

"In 1947, in response to mounting violence, the U.N. General Assembly proposed dividing Palestine roughly in half, into one Jewish state and one Arab state. The Palestinians rejected the offer, and Israel declared itself a nation in 1948.
Had the Palestinians been willing to accept a compromise, and had they been willing to accept the moral justification for a Jewish state in an area from which Jews were unjustly expelled millennia before, we might not be in this mess today"

you can understand they're shock if somebody suddenly declares a nation in most of your country.

"While Israel may make a convenient scapegoat for all of the problems in the region, all such problems cannot be reasonably traced to Israel. The various Arab factions in the Middle East can't get along with each other in many instances. Or are you going to try to pin the Iran-Iraq war on the Israelis?"

No the last one is on the USA , but between the 2 you cant go wrong.
and while many wars have come and gone in the region this conflict keeps freshening up.

"an area from which Jews were unjustly expelled millennia before"

next you will say Palestinians where justly expelled.

Bill, your post of Al-Quaida is very interesting. I didn't know that. thanks.

I don't know if you read Fallen Angel but i'm starting to think Israel is like Bete Noir, it is like a reflection of the rest of the world. Why else are people so obsessed about it?

well if you call extortion fair

A spade is a spade, and, well, I'm calling you a spade, lorshas.

You've only made a handful of posts here, yet I don't believe you're here with the intent of gaining a greater understanding of what's going on in your part of the world. Nor do I get the impression that you are going to give the rest of us a better understanding of your point of view in a way that is rationale and fair to everyone else.

Or rather, if there's any understanding to be gained, it's very much coming across, imo, as nothing more than the sterotypical kinds of things that are causing so many problems in the Middle East to begin with - such as your more or less advocating violence against Israel, never accepting the fact that your ancestors are just as guilty of forcing a group of people to flee as everyone elses, and so forth.

Quite honestly, you make it sound like the Palestinians are the only group to ever suffer from such hardships in human history. And you back that up with a "darn those Jews" type attitude instead of asking why the hell the Arab world isn't helping Palestinians recover from their misery (and by that I don't mean invading Israel to take the land back).

Okay, let's start the clock: How long before a future post in which Peter criticizes Bush or the Republicans, and visitors knee-jerck accuse PAD of hating everything they do, never praising them, and never criticizing the Dems, and just plain forgetting that this blog entry took place? :-)
****

Oh yeah, this was one praise heavy entry, just like the last one in which he basically seemed surprised that Bush was supporting Israel.

What an endorsement!!!

"Mmm. Is it equally hard to muster it when someone says that if we don't like what our administration is doing, we should revolt, or reign them in, or just DO SOMETHING ANYTHING for pities sake? Just... do something"

Hey that's what you are doing.

Because You guys HAVE been policing him. Take a look at how he's dealing with Iran and N. Korea. If hadn't been for all the peacniks who have taken it upon themselves to keep the heavy hand in check, we'd be carpet bombing them now.

Okay, let's start the clock: How long before a future post in which Peter criticizes Bush or the Republicans, and visitors knee-jerck accuse PAD of hating everything they do, never praising them, and never criticizing the Dems, and just plain forgetting that this blog entry took place? :-)

Oh yeah, this was one praise heavy entry, just like the last one in which he basically seemed surprised that Bush was supporting Israel.

What an endorsement!!!

Well, considering the self-evident rule that Bush always makes the wrong decision, who wouldn't be surprised when W. finally makes the exception that proves the rule? :)

Posted by: lorshas at July 18, 2006 03:59 PM

"fair transactions" and "offers thy couldn't refuse" supervised by the British, well if you call extortion fair, that aside most of the land was taken by force and forcibly kept.

Fair enough. We in the U.S. like to point to treaties signed by Native Americans selling land to us, but like to gloss over the coercive tactics we used to get them to sign such treaties -- tactics such as violence.

So if that's the way it happened in Palestine, it was wrong. Forgive me, however, for not necessarily accepting your version of events at face value without doing more research. As I'll point out below, you're not exactly the most fair-minded person in this debate.

Posted by: lorshas at July 18, 2006 03:59 PM

you can understand they're shock if somebody suddenly declares a nation in most of your country.

Certainly I can. But let's not oversimplify history, shall we?

The Palestinian state to which you're referring was formed in 1920 as the British Mandate of Palestine. Prior to that, the area was under the control of the Ottoman Empire.

The Ottoman Empire was constantly threatening Europe and had more than once invaded the continent. In World War I, the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany and was therefore on the losing side. Part of the consequence was losing control of the area that became the British Mandate of Palestine.

Oh, did I forget to mention that the Ottoman Empire was primarily Muslim? Or are we pretending that only Christians and Jews have engaged in imperialism and colonialism, and that Muslims are all perfect?

Posted by: lorshas at July 18, 2006 03:59 PM

"While Israel may make a convenient scapegoat for all of the problems in the region, all such problems cannot be reasonably traced to Israel. The various Arab factions in the Middle East can't get along with each other in many instances. Or are you going to try to pin the Iran-Iraq war on the Israelis?"

No the last one is on the USA , but between the 2 you cant go wrong.
and while many wars have come and gone in the region this conflict keeps freshening up.

You can indeed "go wrong" blaming all of your problems on Israel and the U.S. The U.S. was among the nations that shamefully and immorrally supported the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Nevertheless, I don't recall any Arab nations attempting to intervene in the Iran/Iraq war.

And while I am sickened by my country's invasion of Iraq, I can't help but note an incredible irony. You blame us for our support of corrupt governments. So we take one out, and give the Iraqis an opportunity to create a representative government. In response, they go nuts committing factional violence and declare any government formed in the wake of our invasion to be a tool of the U.S. Would they rather have Saddam back? Because, you know, that could be arranged.

The Arab world needs to learn to take responsibility for itself. Take Iran, for example. They have a government that could by no means be described as a puppet of the U.S. What has that government done? It has repressed its people by imposing a barbaric, twisted interpretation of Islam that resembles Europe's Medieval attitudes, particularly in their oppression of women. It has failed to provide its people with an opportunity to prosper, instead squandering its resources by supporting terrorist ventures and now seeking a nuclear arsenal.

But, of course, that's our fault, isn't it? Because everything the Arabs can't do for themselves is the responsibility of the U.S. and the dirty Jews and their vampiric fangs, horns and forked tongues.

The Arab world is sitting on vast riches, and has a populace that has historically shown itself to be capable of great intellectual and spiritual advances. So, frankly, I'm not inclined to let your people off the hook -- because you are as capable as any people on Earth of creating a positive destiny for yourselves.

Posted by: lorshas at July 18, 2006 03:59 PM

"an area from which Jews were unjustly expelled millennia before"

next you will say Palestinians where justly expelled.

You believe that because you've given yourself over to your hatred. I've said repeatedly that the Palestinians deserve a homeland, and that the Israelis treatment of them has not always been just. You are ignoring those statements because they conflict with your view of me as an enemy.

I think the swearing thing is nothing. Bush has never been known as a gentile speaker and it's wildly known that he has a tendency to be cruder in private. So he got caught with a live mike. It's not the first it's happened to a presidet. It's not even the first time it's happened with him.

What strikes me is his statement "I think Condi will be going there soon."

YOU THINK!??!?!??!

The middle east is teetering on another Arab-Israeli war and you think your secretary of state may get involved "soon"?? She she should already be wheels down in Tel Aviv and Damascus trying to at least get the parties talking.

As for Hezbollah controlling southern Lebanon, what you have to realize is that for the last several years, in addition to being a terrorist organization, Hezbollah has also been building schools, roads, and other aspects of Lebanon's infrastructure. In other words, they've been doing what the Lebanese government would have been doing if they hadn't been a puppet regime of Syria for the last 20 years. It's the same strategy that enabled Hamas to take control of the Palestinian Authority's legislature from Arafat's corrupt Fatah party.

So, when the Lebanese people finally had a chance to elect a new government, it shouldn't be shocking that Hezbollah-backed candidates managed to win a few cabinet seats. This power has given them a free hand to move about in the south and set up their rocket attacks. So, the Lebanese people became victims of a variation the old line used to defend Mousollini's fascists in Italy: Sure, they're terrorists, but they got the trains to run on time.

And now the people of Lebanon are paying the price for the faustian bargain they struck.

Posted by: Micha at July 18, 2006 04:00 PM

Bill, your post of Al-Quaida is very interesting. I didn't know that. thanks.

You're welcome.

I don't know if you read Fallen Angel but i'm starting to think Israel is like Bete Noir, it is like a reflection of the rest of the world. Why else are people so obsessed about it?

For many reasons. Some of them are practical: our economy is tied to oil, and the Middle East controls vast oil resources. What happens there affects our economy.

Some of them are religious: Jerusalem holds a position of great importance in Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

I have not yet read Fallen Angel but believe I should. I probably have no right to call myself a Peter David fan if I don't. :)

You know, I just realized one of my statements implied that I think Peter David was better 10 years ago than he is today. That was never my intent. I think his writing is always getting better, which amazes me because it was always damn good.

My point was that I'd give my eyeteeth to be as good as he was 10 years ago. Lord only knows what I'd have to forfeit to be as good as he is now.

All I can do is keep writing, I guess, and let the chips fall where they may.

"Maktab al-Khadamat" means " the service office" who would call an organization The Service Office? no self respecting terrorist would join that.

"Jewish state in an area from which Jews were unjustly expelled millennia before"
and
"By the way, there has been an uninterrupted Jewish presence in the Middle East for the last three thousand years"

this plot is a little convoluted and need a little editing

"The Jews formed a nation to protect themselves against Arab attacks"

so it wasn't planed long before? do a wiki on "the Balfour Declaration"

I'm at work right now, and boy could I go for some white wine and cough syrup.

Although I'm sorry if you're feeling ill. Be well soon.

People take cough syrup whwn they're sick? Huh! Well, live and learn...

I have not yet read Fallen Angel but believe I should. I probably have no right to call myself a Peter David fan if I don't. :)

Oh yeah, great stuff, maybe my favorite PAD work ever, even though it doesn't have the stuff that USUALLY makes me like a Peter David story. Proof positive that he's no one note pony.

Folks, we can argue forever on whether or not there ever should have been an Israel. I say yes, others say no. But that question has been answered. The Israelis have won their wars and created a society that easily bests those of its opponents. Handing it all over to the Palestinians is as likely as me giving my house to the Cherokee or Europeans handing over land to decendants of the Ostrogoths. Not. Going. To. Happen.

The refusal to understand this is one reason why the Palestinians are not getting "fair" treatment. The Israelis have acted like a culture worthy of support, the Palestinians, largely, have not. That they seem willing to wallow in poverty and sacrifice their children in pointless slaughter when they could accept less than total victory and begin to make something of their lives tends to extinguish sympathy.

Bill Myers,

Although PAD has said (on several occasion, I think) that the writing of issues of Fallen Angel that he had recently finished is the best that he's done, I wouldn't say that anyone has to read or like any particular piece of his work to be considered a fan. Some things just aren't a particular reader's cup of tea. For example, I've been burned out on Spider-Man for years and haven't been picking up FNSM. I still consider myself a fan of his work.

Oh and I, at least, perfectly understood what you meant by the "ten years" remark when you first posted it.

Posted by: lorshas at July 18, 2006 05:36 PM

"Maktab al-Khadamat" means " the service office" who would call an organization The Service Office? no self respecting terrorist would join that.

The Maktab al-Khadamāt was also known as the "Afghan Services Bureau" and was created to raise funds and recruit fighters for the war to liberate Afghanistan from the Soviets. Al Qaeda came afterwards.

Don't ask me why it was named as it was. I didn't name it.

so it wasn't planed long before? do a wiki on "the Balfour Declaration"

I'm so far ahead of you it isn't even funny. I know about "The Balfour Declaration," and about the Arab paranoia that there is a Zionist conspiracy to wipe you all out.

I'm no longer interested in debating the morality of giving the Jews a homeland in order to protect them from things like genocide at the hands of the Nazis in the 20th century. It's clear that you're not willing to have an honest debate about that.

As my friend Bill Mulligan has pointed out, however, Israel exists and the best efforts of Arab nations to change that fact have failed and will likely continue to do so. If that fact so galls you that you'd rather see continued death and destruction than reach a compromise, well, so be it.

There is an alternative. The Israelis offered the Palestinians 90 percent of the West Bank and Gaza. They could have accepted it. The Israelis have been unilaterally withdrawing from occupied territories. Hamas and Hezbollah could have laid down arms and initiated talks with Israel regarding further concessions.

That you'd rather make excuses for the Palestinians and support continued violence in lieu of a peaceful resolution deeply saddens me.

And before you go off on another rant, I know my nation has many flaws. I have personally struggled to change things wherever I could, rather than make excuses for my country. We are not the paragon of virtue we sometimes like to believe we are. But neither are we the Great Satan you've painted us to be.

"There is an alternative. The Israelis offered the Palestinians 90 percent of the West Bank and Gaza. They could have accepted it. The Israelis have been unilaterally withdrawing from occupied territories. Hamas and Hezbollah could have laid down arms and initiated talks with Israel regarding further concessions."

As I also commented on the previous post, Israel also unilaterally excluded Jerusalem or the return of the refugees from any agreement. They simply wont discuss it. While Palestinians want Jerusalem to be their capital (they dont even demand all of it like UN gave them but just the eastern part of it) Israel refuse to concede an inch of it.

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. (this I actually copy-pasted from the other thread).

I say this not to justify palestinian leadership inhability to negotiate, but to point out that there are reasons, good reasons in their point of view, not to accept what Israel offers.

It's late here and I am sure when I log on tomorrow the thread will be at a completely different point. I am eager to see where this end *grin*

Personally I find it refreshing that Bush would talk like that. Too often politicians, presidents in particular, come off more scripted than the average movie. I think the world would be slightly better if people said what they meant, meant what they said, and were CLEAR ON ALL COUNTS. If you think someone should knock shit off, say it.

As I also commented on the previous post, Israel also unilaterally excluded Jerusalem or the return of the refugees from any agreement. They simply wont discuss it. While Palestinians want Jerusalem to be their capital (they dont even demand all of it like UN gave them but just the eastern part of it) Israel refuse to concede an inch of it.

Actually, I seem to recall some aspect of Jerusalem being fungible in this regard and a rather clever way of determining who exactly had sovereignity of the Holy City (instead of being an Israeli city or a Palistinian city, it would legally be God's city or somesuch).

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).

You mean Saladin, right? When I see Soliman, I assume Solomon, the architect of the Temple.

"You mean Saladin, right? When I see Soliman, I assume Solomon, the architect of the Temple."

Yes, of course. A friend of mine uses Solimán as his nickname in internet and I just switched Saladin with Soliman (the Second, greatest ruler of the Ottoman Empire)

"...I seem to recall some aspect of Jerusalem being fungible in this regard and a rather clever way of determining who exactly had sovereignity of the Holy City"

I might be wrong, but I remember an interview with the mayor of Jerusalem sternly stating that the city was, is and would be ethernally jewish, when asked about any partition of concession. Also remember how the Palestinnian Authority offices in Jerusalem have been repeatedly closed.

The correct quote is:

"See, the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit, and it's over."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bushtalk18jul18,1,7695647.story

As I pointed out elsewhere, the true outrage is not his use of the word "shit", it's the complete misuse of the word "irony".

"...I seem to recall some aspect of Jerusalem being fungible in this regard and a rather clever way of determining who exactly had sovereignity of the Holy City"

I might be wrong, but I remember an interview with the mayor of Jerusalem sternly stating that the city was, is and would be ethernally jewish, when asked about any partition of concession.

The mayor of Jerusalem might say that but his opinion wouldn't mean much if the Israeli national government decided otherwise.

"The mayor of Jerusalem might say that but his opinion wouldn't mean much if the Israeli national government decided otherwise"

I think back then this guy was a leader on one of the governing coalition parties. Micha would know for sure.

"See, the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit, and it's over."

As I pointed out elsewhere, the true outrage is not his use of the word "shit", it's the complete misuse of the word "irony".

[sighs]

[rubs bridge of nose as if in pain]

(mumbling) only 916 days left, only 916 days left, only 916 days left, only 916 days left, only 916 days left . . . .

Well.

Reflecting upon my own posts in response to lorsha, it's becoming clear to me how easy it is for human beings to get swept up in their passions, and to act in the very ways they claim to despise. Because I have done just that.

I detest the way people like lorsha lob invective at the U.S. and Israel yet I returned his invective with my own. I indicated a lack of patience with arguments that are emotions based and lack facts to back them up, and yet I pilloried Saudi Arabians for eating up anti-U.S. propaganda served up by a government trying to cover up its own misdeeds, without citing any facts to back it up.

(In fact, I believe I read it in a newspaper article some years back. But that's just not good enough. Not when I've written something that I can't rescind. And even if I could, I can't "unring the bell" in the minds of those who have already read it. I will now set about to researching whether it's true, but, y'know, I should have looked up the facts FIRST and drawn my conclusions AFTERWARDS.)

It's easy to do as lorsha has done, and point the finger at everyone else. But really, you want world peace? The first thing you have to do is look inward. Look at your own flaws and conquer them. Decide what you can do, on whatever scale you can do it, to make things better.

Yes, I know. It's cornball. It's cliched. It sounds silly, sappy, and foolish.

Yet I believe it is nevertheless true.

>a recent study showed that they are no more inaccurate than more "traditional" encyclopedias

Ach, keep up with the briefings, lad. Brittanica debunked that one months ago.

http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf

I see your point, Bill, but I think the reality of Saudi propaganda is one that virtually anyone would acknowledge.

Here's some info on our Saudi friends:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/pdfdocs/KSAtextbooks06.pdf

http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/news/bn2005/bn-2005-01-28.htm

Pretty chilling stuff.

No matter how bad the Israelis act it would be very very difficult for them to lower themselves to the level of those who would destroy them. This hasn't stopped them from getting a disproportionate amount of condemnation from those who somehow manage to tolerate Arab atrocities with nary a whisper.

For that matter, if the marchers who weep for Mumia Abu-Jamal or whoever the murderer du jour is ever held signs and vigils for the Palestinians executed by the PLO for supposed collaboration with Israel, well, I haven't seen it.

Dubya needs to get some cursing lessons from the LBJ Library--now THERE'S a president who could swear!

Brittanica debunked that one months ago.

Sounds like one particular company got a little pissy that they were being compared with Wikipedia in the first place. :)

people who are appalled that Hezbollah has any public support should keep in mind that Hezbollah runs a network of schools and hospitals. and i believe their political platform has remarkably progressive economic elements.

so, while some people probably vote for them because they kill Jews, there are probably also those who vote for them because they're out there helping people.

-will meyer

spiderrob: Oh yeah, this was one praise heavy entry...
Luigi Novi: No, it was an entry in which Peter agreed with Bush, and defended him from the media, who seem to be acting as if his comments were unreasonable.

Nice Straw Man, though. Goes great with the Astroturf Logic. :-)

Know what I find really freakin' funny? That anyone who would claim to want peace would bomb or send rockets anywhere. And that is BOTH sides.

Also, I find it odd that the major press in this country act as a press agent for the Israeli gov't. I mean, maybe these soldiers wouldn't have been captured had Israel not been doing flyovers Gaza and trying to provoke further violence this past year (since the supposed "pullout". You gotta love Bush saying it was "too soon" for a cease-fire. Apparently not enough people have died for his taste.

BTW, I originally came here to see if PAD had seen the interview with DiDio over at Newsarama. It's very telling on DiDio's view of YJ. And in the talkback part I finally feel like people are getting what I've been saying for 3 years about the man (DiDio, not PAD).

Michael

Bill Meyers:
In 1947, in response to mounting violence, the U.N. General Assembly proposed dividing Palestine roughly in half, into one Jewish state and one Arab state. The Palestinians rejected the offer, and Israel declared itself a nation in 1948.

By the way, there has been an uninterrupted Jewish presence in the Middle East for the last three thousand years. The Jews formed a nation to protect themselves against Arab attacks.

Arab attacks like the King David Hotel in 46? or like Sharafat in 1951? or Deir Yassin in 48?

there's a long history of violence and Terrorist attacks from Zionists before the founding of Israel.

i'm not saying that to demonize Jews, just to point out that the shoe has been on the other foot.

it should also be pointed out that Iran has the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East. i've been led to believe that there's a long history of Jewish peoples living quite peacably with the Arabs.

it's too simple to just say that the Arabs have always hated the Jews and that's the way things are.

the genocidal strain of radical Islam is a fairly recent development.

Bill Mulligan:
Folks, we can argue forever on whether or not there ever should have been an Israel. I say yes, others say no. But that question has been answered. The Israelis have won their wars and created a society that easily bests those of its opponents. Handing it all over to the Palestinians is as likely as me giving my house to the Cherokee or Europeans handing over land to decendants of the Ostrogoths. Not. Going. To. Happen.

by the same token i wouldn't expect Palestinians to hand over half their land to form a Jewish Nation because of some ancient historical ties.

in my view, Israel has a right to exist simply because they exist, not because of ancient history.

i think a good solution for the current situation would be a multinationl UN peacekeeping force being assigned to police the border between Israel and Lebanon.

Also, I find it odd that the major press in this country act as a press agent for the Israeli gov't.

Right, you have to look real hard to find any critisism of Israel. Good grief, how insulated ARE you?

The Israelis do anything and it's front page news. The iranians hang two young boys for being gay and, if it gets mentioned at all, is just shrugged off as what happens in that part of the world.

I'm not saying that the Israelis should be held to the standards of the Arab nations and it's obviously hopeless to hold Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc to the standards of Israel and/or the 21st century in general, but the claims by some that "Israeli interests" (ie "them durn Jews") control the media is bogus.

by the same token i wouldn't expect Palestinians to hand over half their land to form a Jewish Nation because of some ancient historical ties.

One big difference--the Palestinians DID hand it over, by losing their war against Israel. And they are no closer to winning it back militarily than they were in 1948. Further away, in fact. They exist at the Israeli's whim. They are lucky they aren't pulling this sort of thing on the border of China or Russia or Turkey. They'd be a memory.

The question of whether or not Israel should exist is over and done with, as much as the question of "should the USA take the west from the Indians?" Asked and answered. The Palestinians can blow up as many of their children as they want, it won't set the wayback machine to 1920. They lost the war. Time to do the best with what you have.

If I'm harsh on my Arab brothers it's because I well know from personal experience that they are NOT the savages portrayed by many, doomed by some genetic weakness to be forever in the shadows of modern times. Many are the product of ignorance and political propaganda, not just from their own corrupt leaders but from those who, for whatever reason, encourage the suicidal notion that Israel can be forced to their will. Not going to happen. The Israelis want it more. They have always won. There is no reason to think they won't keep on winning. Even if the madman in Iran managed to drop the Bomb on Tel Aviv...There would still be an Israel.

Iran, however, would be a steaming pile of sand. It's important that this be understood.

Iran, however, would be a steaming pile of sand.

[shrug] I would have said "blasted into glass", but that's just me.

"Ah, it seems you have been drinking the Kool Aid of Arab propaganda."

As opposed to your eating up the Zionist propaganda like ice cream? You're obviously an apologist for Israel. No matter how many hundreds of innocent civilians are killed in Israeli air raids, it was worth it to protect the fatherland. They've become the mirror image of the evil that created them.

Actually Sasha, from what I've been hearing, the US military will evacuate US passport holders from Lebannon to Cyprus. From there it's up to the individuals to find transport home (or where ever else they want to go).

Nope. According to this CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/18/lebanon.evacuation/index.html), evacuees would have had to pay to be evacuated out of Lebanon. Apparently realizing that his approval rating could actually go lower, the Bush adminstration has waived the "fee to flee."

They've become the mirror image of the evil that created them.

Bill, as a Christian and with nothing but the love of Jesus Christ in my heart, I implore you to please get back on your medication cycle.

No rational person can possibly believe that Israel is remotely equivalent (let alone a "mirror image") to the regime you allude to by any objective standard.

You have potty mouth.

-CCR

"No rational person can possibly believe that Israel is remotely equivalent (let alone a "mirror image") to the regime you allude to by any objective standard."

The families of all the dead innocent civilians in Lebanon right now could believe it. Although the apologists will say they were 'guilty' by association. Even the dead Canadians.

Posted by Bill Maxwell at July 19, 2006 01:07 AM

As opposed to your eating up the Zionist propaganda like ice cream? You're obviously an apologist for Israel. No matter how many hundreds of innocent civilians are killed in Israeli air raids, it was worth it to protect the fatherland. They've become the mirror image of the evil that created them.

Bill, I made the remark about you "drinking the Kool Aid of Arab propaganda" because you attempted to link our support of Israel with the attacks on September 11, 2001. I responded by pointing out that Al Qaeda was formed as a response to our military presence in Saudi Arabia, which was a response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Our involvement was motivated by a desire to protect the flow of Saudi oil to our country. That's not a noble motive, but it sure as hell had nothing to do with Israel.

Hurl as much invective at me as you'd like. Unless, however, you can provide me with some facts that show that Al Qaeda was formed as a direct response to our support of Israel, you're going to lose that argument.

As for being an "apologist" for Israel: not hardly. Not even close. I've criticized them before and will likely do so again. But they have a right and responsibility to defend their borders against naked aggression.

BTW, let's keep in mind that technically speaking, Israel has never won a war on it's own. The US always helps them. So if the little brother of the biggest kid in the neighborhood decides to act like an ass and then he wins a fight with his big brother behind him, would we really call him a winner?

Oh and this from Bill:

Right, you have to look real hard to find any critisism of Israel. Good grief, how insulated ARE you?

Actually I watch and read almost constantly and I've yet to see any balance in this story. When the MSM talks of this conflict Israel is always "defending itself". When the Palestinians do something it is always "terrorsim". What the heck do you call the flyovers into Gaza if not terror? Or the flyovers into Lebanon that aren't reported by the US MSM? Israel acts like a bully more often than not.

As for Israel mirroring the evil it claims to fight, I'd say anytime you initiate violence against a violent opponent, that is exactly what you are doing.

Michael

The refusal to understand this is one reason why "the Palestinians are not getting "fair" treatment. The Israelis have acted like a culture worthy of support, the Palestinians, largely, have not. That they seem willing to wallow in poverty and sacrifice their children in pointless slaughter when they could accept less than total victory and begin to make something of their lives tends to extinguish sympathy"

so all the Palestinians need to do is look nice and talk nice then they can destroy as they pleas without opposition?

and how can people build lives if the Israelis keep destroying them , they're indiscrimination is not giving them a chance.

"Folks, we can argue forever on whether or not there ever should have been an Israel. I say yes, others say no. But that question has been answered. The Israelis have won their wars and created a society that easily bests those of its opponents. Handing it all over to the Palestinians is as likely as me giving my house to the Cherokee or Europeans handing over land to decendants of the Ostrogoths. Not. Going. To. Happen"

that is not ancient history and it didn't stop , destroying homes and families is still ongoing to this moment even for the Palestinians who have Israeli citizenship.

"I'm so far ahead of you it isn't even funny. I know about "The Balfour Declaration" and about the Arab paranoia that there is a Zionist conspiracy to wipe you all out.

I'm no longer interested in debating the morality of giving the Jews a homeland in order to protect them from things like genocide at the hands of the Nazis in the 20th century. It's clear that you're not willing to have an honest debate about that"

you said before that Israel was declared a state as a reaction but the "The Balfour Declaration" proves the British Wehr extorting land to give to the Jews.

but why didn't they give them a part of Australia or any of the other colonies?

"As my friend Bill Mulligan has pointed out, however, Israel exists and the best efforts of Arab nations to change that fact have failed and will likely continue to do so. If that fact so galls you that you'd rather see continued death and destruction than reach a compromise, well, so be it...

And before you go off on another rant, I know my nation has many flaws. I have personally struggled to change things wherever I could, rather than make excuses for my country. We are not the paragon of virtue we sometimes like to believe we are. But neither are we the Great Satan you've painted us to be"

"best efforts of Arab nations" Egypt and Jordan are friends now and thy almost got a new one in Lebanon and the refusal to return the Golan heights is stopping Peace with Syria, and no Arab stat has don any effort against Israel for the last 30 years. but you keep repeating the old chant.

"But neither are we the Great Satan you've painted us to be"

as individuals their are more good people in the US than in the Arab world but as a state...

"yet I pilloried Saudi Arabians for eating up anti-U.S. propaganda served up by a government trying to cover up its own misdeeds"

HA man this makes me laugh and cry , the propaganda is pro US since forever.

"If I'm harsh on my Arab brothers it's because I well know from personal experience that they are NOT the savages portrayed by many, doomed by some genetic weakness to be forever in the shadows of modern times. Many are the product of ignorance and political propaganda"

cities get bombed homes get destroyed Israeli officials get on TV and say "all the Lebanese deserve to die" sorry for getting the wrong impression.

"Iran, however, would be a steaming pile of sand"

hey look genocide jokes.

"by the same token i wouldn't expect Palestinians to hand over half their land to form a Jewish Nation because of some ancient historical ties"

thats what Palestinians Wehr trying to do , but instead of finishing things with Abass thy wait for Hamas to come along to say no.and nobody is demanding for all the refugees to return anymore as horrible as that sounds just a "fair resolution" so another excuse for Israel is gone.

"No rational person can possibly believe that Israel is remotely equivalent (let alone a "mirror image") to the regime you allude to by any objective standard."

The families of all the dead innocent civilians in Lebanon right now could believe it. Although the apologists will say they were 'guilty' by association. Even the dead Canadians.

I said that by using objective standards, there is no reasonable way you can equate Israel with the Third Reich. You haven't given me any. Rather, you resort to emotionally leading commentary and make assumptions with no basis. That dog won’t hunt, my friend.

For the record, my thoughts on the current brouhaha are as follows: I believe Israel is justified in responding to having its troops attacked and abducted by Hezbollah. However, I honestly question if Israel's current actions are a proper response and I fear they are making a terrible mistake.

As opposed to your eating up the Zionist propaganda like ice cream? You're obviously an apologist for Israel. No matter how many hundreds of innocent civilians are killed in Israeli air raids, it was worth it to protect the fatherland. They've become the mirror image of the evil that created them.

You either have no idea what Nazi Germany was like or no idea what Israel is like. Or both. I have nothing against exageration for comedic effect but please...

BTW, let's keep in mind that technically speaking, Israel has never won a war on it's own. The US always helps them. So if the little brother of the biggest kid in the neighborhood decides to act like an ass and then he wins a fight with his big brother behind him, would we really call him a winner?

The Arab nations had some big guns behind them as well. It wasn't American pilots who shot up the Egyption tanks like video game pixels in the 6 day war.

I would also point out that everytime the Arabs lose a war with Israel the world steps in and stops the Israelis from gaining too much ground. How much could they have taken from the Arabs at the end of the 6 day war? (Admitedly, it would have been hard to keep.

"I think criticizing some off the cuff comments made in casual cobversation while they were eating is a bit much. I don't think the moment is meant to call for "an incredibly sophisticated analysis.""

Yeah, it would be unfair if we were talking about someone else, but this is the President. It's representative of the way he thinks and an insight into how pathetic a leader he is:

1) He's the President of the U.S. - he's in a position to do something, but he sees it as something "they" should be working on.
2) And hey - the solution is easy - someone else talks to Syria, who talks to Hezbollah, who then stops doing that annoying shit they're doing - and it's OVER. Just like that.
3) This isn't about people's lives, their homes, vioence, long term regional stability or anything like that -- it's about annoying shit. Gee, someone might want him to pay attention.
4) He talks with his mouth full.
5) He swears at the dinner table.
6) He misuses the word "irony".

The guy's a lousy leader and a terrible role model for the children. Someone get that man a fiddle.

"BTW, let's keep in mind that technically speaking, Israel has never won a war on it's own. The US always helps them. So if the little brother of the biggest kid in the neighborhood decides to act like an ass and then he wins a fight with his big brother behind him, would we really call him a winner?"

Exactly. Then the apologists wonder why the Arabs hate the "big brother"!

It's a specious argument to begin with. Just because Israel was able to successfully steal Palestine from it's citizens by force, that doesn't make the act legally or morally justified. And the victims of Israel's crimes aren't going to simply forget about it and wander off, they're going to fight the injustice. EVERY conquerer has considered legitimate resistance to be 'terrorism'.

Actually I watch and read almost constantly and I've yet to see any balance in this story. When the MSM talks of this conflict Israel is always "defending itself". When the Palestinians do something it is always "terrorsim".

"Always"...So many obvious exceptions to choose from...here's Helen Thomas, writer for Hearst News and full-time dotty old battleaxe, at a presidential briefing: "Ari, does the President think that the Palestinians have a right to resist 35 years of brutal military occupation and suppression?"

There was the Minneapolis Star Tribune which had the policy of never using the word "terrorist"--so it was members of a "militant group" that blew up a bus of Israelis--but managed to break their own rule when the culprits were Jews--"It was midday July 22, 1946. Ovikian was eating in the basement of the King David Hotel when Zionist terrorists struck... The Brits had fortified the hotel's eight-story southern wing with barbed wire and tanks. But the terrorists sneaked in the northern end dressed as delivery people, their milk cans filled with TNT."

The same paper also had to apologize for re-writing news accounts of a Human Rights Watch report on casualties in the Jenin refugee camp to hide the fact that the group found no evidence of a "massacre".

And there are plenty more if one is willing to find them. But the idea that Jews control the USA media is one that some people are loath to give up.

As for Israel mirroring the evil it claims to fight, I'd say anytime you initiate violence against a violent opponent, that is exactly what you are doing.

Me-
"Iran, however, would be a steaming pile of sand"

lorshas-
hey look genocide jokes.

Um...that wasn't a joke. Israel has the Bomb. Many of them. If Iran actually tries to do what their nut president claims he wants to do and tries to eliminate Israel they will be destroyed. I have more reason than most to want to see this avoided, so I hope the idea that this is a "joke" is a minority one in the Middle East.

"yet I pilloried Saudi Arabians for eating up anti-U.S. propaganda served up by a government trying to cover up its own misdeeds"

HA man this makes me laugh and cry , the propaganda is pro US since forever.

Stop laughing and crying long enough to read. Google Saudi Propaganda and be amazed.

(Weirdly, the next to last listing on the first page is for the William E. Mulligan papers...not the same William E. Mulligan as your gentle poster, I assure you, since he is both famous and dead while I, conversely, am not.)

BTW, let's keep in mind that technically speaking, Israel has never won a war on it's own. The US always helps them. So if the little brother of the biggest kid in the neighborhood decides to act like an ass and then he wins a fight with his big brother behind him, would we really call him a winner?

Really? Did American soldiers actually fight side-by-side with the IDF during its wars? Getting materiel is a far cry from having "his big brother behind him". And when you consider that the so-called little brother is constantly threatened to be beaten up (if not out-and-out killed) by not one entity but a gang of folk, you have a more accurate description of the situation.

Actually I watch and read almost constantly and I've yet to see any balance in this story. When the MSM talks of this conflict Israel is always "defending itself". When the Palestinians do something it is always "terrorsim". What the heck do you call the flyovers into Gaza if not terror? Or the flyovers into Lebanon that aren't reported by the US MSM? Israel acts like a bully more often than not.

Do these flyovers usually result in bombs dropped or is it just surveilance? When a Palestian organization specificallly attacks a civilian target with the specific intent of killing as many non-combatants as possible and creating as much havoc as possible, what is it except terrorism? Yeah, Israel acts like a bully sometimes, but far more frequently than you give it credit for, it acts pretty honorably.

As for Israel mirroring the evil it claims to fight, I'd say anytime you initiate violence against a violent opponent, that is exactly what you are doing.

By this statement, are you saying that you believe that the militants that Israel fights are both violent and evil?

"BTW, let's keep in mind that technically speaking, Israel has never won a war on it's own. The US always helps them. So if the little brother of the biggest kid in the neighborhood decides to act like an ass and then he wins a fight with his big brother behind him, would we really call him a winner?"

Exactly. Then the apologists wonder why the Arabs hate the "big brother"!

There are plenty of reasons why Arabs may hate the US, but the fact that we're allies with Israel isn't the sole reason. Hell, I doubt it's the main reason.

It's a specious argument to begin with. Just because Israel was able to successfully steal Palestine from it's citizens by force, that doesn't make the act legally or morally justified. And the victims of Israel's crimes aren't going to simply forget about it and wander off, they're going to fight the injustice. EVERY conquerer has considered legitimate resistance to be 'terrorism'.

Strictly speaking, Israel didn't exist when Palastine was carved up. That was the world community's decision so blame them. And we have a difference in opinion of what exactly is "legitimate resistance" -- just because something is branded "terrorism" doesn't mean it isn't terrorism.

Out of curiousity, Mr. Maxwell, what would you consider a satisfactory solution to the Israeli/Palastinian problem? No bromides or slogans please, just your honest and realistic opinion.

"There are plenty of reasons why Arabs may hate the US, but the fact that we're allies with Israel isn't the sole reason. Hell, I doubt it's the main reason"

first Arabs hate your your government , and yes the US is
also baking every dictatorship in the region other than Syria , look for another round of violence when Mubarak Jr. becomes the Egyptian president , Egypt had the best shot for a real moderate democracy with kifaya but its gone.

"Out of curiousity, Mr. Maxwell, what would you consider a satisfactory solution to the Israeli/Palastinian problem? No bromides or slogans please, just your honest and realistic opinion"

I'm not Mr.Maxwell ,but ill tel you that their is no solution that well let the sides live haply ever after , but their are solutions to let them live on we can't stop this generation from violence but the future generations can live on with this period as a bad distant memory , this conflict keeps refreshing itself, should their ever be a resolution then people must hold on to it and wait for the generation to grow old and die out.

the US is
also baking every dictatorship in the region other than Syria

Really? Iran? Libya? And besides, I thought the problem was that we DIDN'T back the Arabs. If we limit it only to backing non-dictatorships in the Middle East...well, there's Israel and, um...

Your comments about letting this generation grow old and die out are unexpectedly poignant. I hope that isn't the case, though you may well be correct. The problem is that each generation poisons the next. What chance do we have that the next generation of Palestinians will produce a real leader when they are taught that blowing themselves and as many Jews as possible into chunks is the noblest aspiration?

Really? Iran? Libya? And besides, I thought the problem was that we DIDN'T back the Arabs. If we limit it only to backing non-dictatorships in the Middle East...well, there's Israel and, um...

Lebanon. also, haven't the Palestinians had elections?

there's also Turkey if you want to qualify that as the Middle East.

Lebanon. also, haven't the Palestinians had elections?

True but I took the claim that we supported only dictatorships to mean that we only support the bad guys. My point is that there aren't a whole lot of good guys in the region. Hamas was democratically elected but that doesn't mean they are anything other than murderous bastards--just popular murderous bastards.

Similarly, Lebanon's government is of little use to us if they are so weak that they can't keep their borders from being little more than nice places to aim missles at Jews.

"Really? Iran? Libya? And besides, I thought the problem was that we DIDN'T back the Arabs. If we limit it only to backing non-dictatorships in the Middle East...well, there's Israel and, um..."

- Libya : not in the region

- Iran : after what happened in Florida twice you have no right to complain about their democracy.

- Israel: half the population is exiled and isn't aloud to vote.

Iran : after what happened in Florida twice you have no right to complain about their democracy.

For starters, your exact statement was that the US was "baking every dictatorship in the region other than Syria". I would not consider Iran to be any kind of democracy, since the choices are limited and the power of those voted on is also limited by the ruling mullahs. If you think that the problems in Florida in 2000 (not 2004, don't know where you got that) are on par with Iran, well, we begin to see how you are so easily able to believe in an equivilance between the Palestinians and Israelis.

Libya : not in the region

Please. It's right next to Egypt. It's a member of the Arab league. It's a player in the region, albeit a minor one since Operation El Dorado Canyon.

Israel: half the population is exiled and isn't aloud to vote.

I assume you mean the Palestinians. They don't consider themselves citizens of Israel so how could they vote???

- Iran : after what happened in Florida twice you have no right to complain about their democracy.

You said you were Saudi iirc.

After what's happening in your own country, YOU have no right to speak about our democratic elections either.

It's not the swearing that unnerves me... it's the unsolicited neckrubs he gives to other world leaders.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=24262

I kind of miss the innocence of his father's presidency, when the strangest international exchange involved throwing up on the Japanese Prime Minister.

Whoa, lorshas lives in Saudi Arabia? And he's giving us crap about how we handle our democracy???

He must also be the creator of Hi and Lois, because he is making me laugh.

Actually Lorshas complained too about the lack of democracy in the arab world and how US policies backed represive regimes and dictatorships. That he is Saudi doesnt mean that he agrees with his goverment, boyd and girls. From his comments he seems far from beign wahabist.

I've had time to think about this, and read everyone else's posts again, and done some more research about the Middle East. I've come to the following conclusions:

If the Palestinians want to play the "your land was my land" game, then they have to acknowledge that at one time, albeit thousands of years ago, their land belonged to the Jews. I don't care how long ago it was, because no one has yet answered my question as to the exact number of years after which the statute of limitations kicks in. That's probably because no one can. Either every historical grievance about the land is legitimate, or they're all irrelevant.

The Jews have been among the most victimized people in history. The Holocaust showed just how vulnerable they were as a people. It's easy to understand why the Zionist movement came about, and why so many Jews thought the creation of a homeland was so important.

On the other hand, the Palestinians need and deserve a homeland. The Palestinians who lost their homes as a result of Israel's formation in 1948 weren't the people who forced the Jews out of that area thousands of years ago. Their suffering is real.

But Israel offered the Palestinians 95% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but the Palestinians rejected the offer and walked away from the negotiating table. I understand that Israel was unwilling to put Jerusalem on the table, and that angered the Palestinians. But guess what? Having their own territory and building a viable nation would go a long way toward giving them the clout they'd need to negotiate for shared control of Jerusalem.

Israel also unilaterally began withdrawing from occupied territories, and as a result was invaded by Hezbollah and Hamas. They may have been "small" invasions but they were invasions nevertheless. These were acts of war. Israel responded in kind, which was appropriate.

The bottom line is that there are Arab factions that do not wish to negotiate. They cling to the vain hope that they can push Israel into the sea. Until they let go of that fantasy, they will make no real progress and the bloodshed will continue.

Those of you who continue to offer platitudes about how Israel is creating more enemies may as well accuse me of creating more rain by defending myself with an umbrella. Israel's very existence is what drives many of its enemies. The very actions of Hezbollah and Hamas prove my point.

Oh, and lorshas, before you go on another ridiculous, paranoid rant about how the U.S. is behind every dictatorship in your region, pay attention to your region's own history. The Iranians overthrew their U.S.-backed government in the 1970s, and instead installed an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship. Iran is now completely free of ties to the U.S., and has as a result become a heavenly paradise where everyone is prosperous and happy and secure, right?

Right????

Actually Lorshas complained too about the lack of democracy in the arab world and how US policies backed represive regimes and dictatorships.

The Saudi government is just as guilty of backing other repressive regimes in the Middle East, yet he makes it sound as thought we here in the US are the ones with our heads furthest buried in the sand.

Not to mention his other comments, which give little if any thought to the fact that maybe, just maybe, the Jews have been wronged far too often too.

All the while, Hezbollah and Hamas continue to muder innocents, Jew and Muslim alike, at the behest of fanaticals and horrible regimes such as Iran.

Just today, one of Hezbollah's missiles killed two Israeli Arab boys. Yet, apparently people in the area are blaming the Israeli government.

Why? Hezbollah and Hamas are going to launch those damn attacks regardless of whether the Israeli government stands up to them or not.

I think quite a few people in that part of the world need some new perspective. :P

AS ISRAEL wages war against Hezbollah “terrorists” in Lebanon, Britain has protested about the celebration by right-wing Israelis of a Jewish “act of terrorism” against British rule 60 years ago this week.

The rightwingers, including Binyamin Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister, are commemorating the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of British rule, that killed 92 people and helped to drive the British from Palestine. They have erected a plaque outside the restored building, and are holding a two-day seminar with speeches and a tour of the hotel by one of the Jewish resistance fighters involved in the attack.

Simon McDonald, the British Ambassador in Tel Aviv, and John Jenkins, the Consul-General in Jerusalem, have written to the municipality, stating: “We do not think that it is right for an act of terrorism, which led to the loss of many lives, to be commemorated.”

In particular they demanded the removal of the plaque that pays tribute to the Irgun, the Jewish resistance branch headed by Menachem Begin, the future Prime Minister, which carried out the attack on July 22, 1946.

The plaque presents as fact the Irgun’s claim that people died because the British ignored warning calls. “For reasons known only to the British, the hotel was not evacuated,” it states.

Mr McDonald and Dr Jenkins denied that the British had been warned, adding that even if they had “this does not absolve those who planted the bomb from responsibility for the deaths”.

I see no need to put quotation marks around "terrorists" when it comes to Hezbollah. Their leader just gave a speech from his bunker where he treatened to use his missles to attack chemical factories, unleashing poison gas on civilians.

Hmmm, using poison gas to kill Jews. I'll bet the Israelis will back down from THAT threat, yessirree.

Are these guys THAT dumb or is it part of some actual strategy?

Are these guys THAT dumb or is it part of some actual strategy?

Hard to say.

Right now, I'm just trying to figure out what Mr. Maxwell's angle is.

PAD,

Did hell just freeze over? (just kidding)

Leave it to you to put a spin on Bush's words that I never thought of.

Iowa Jim

“We fought for our independence. We thought it was the right way . . . If I had to fight for Israel, I swear even now I would do anything.”

it is a pretty bad time to be celebrating the bombing of a hotel in which 92 people died.

just shows that people who are fighting for a homeland will often use any means necessary.

in fact, from a somewhat warped view of history, the existence of Israel could be seen as evidence that terrorism works.

-will meyer

Sasha: Really? Did American soldiers actually fight side-by-side with the IDF during its wars? Getting materiel is a far cry from having "his big brother behind him". And when you consider that the so-called little brother is constantly threatened to be beaten up (if not out-and-out killed) by not one entity but a gang of folk, you have a more accurate description of the situation.

Me: No, but consider that the implied threat is always there that the US will come to Israel's defense. Heck, it's been theorized in the current situation that Israel's leaders are trying to draw Syria and Iran in to the conflict so America will act on their behalf.

Sasha: Do these flyovers usually result in bombs dropped or is it just surveilance?

Me: Doesn't matter whether bombs are dropped or not. The fact remains that when a military jet fighter invades foriegn air space it's meant to be a threat. The USSR felt the same way about our U2.

Sasha: When a Palestian organization specificallly attacks a civilian target with the specific intent of killing as many non-combatants as possible and creating as much havoc as possible, what is it except terrorism? Yeah, Israel acts like a bully sometimes, but far more frequently than you give it credit for, it acts pretty honorably.

Me: Actually I see both the flyover and the attacking of civilians by Hamas in the same space. Terrorism is not a lifestyle, it's a tactic. By definition, Terrorism does not only take one form. If the idea is to kill the people in the building first, then it's just murder. But when the intent is to scare your enemy, to make them sleepless and on edge, that is terrorism. So flying a jet fighter over people's houses so that children can't even sleep is terrorism the same as bombing a mall and causing people to not want to go to malls anymore.

Sasha: By this statement, are you saying that you believe that the militants that Israel fights are both violent and evil?

Actually both the Israelis and those they are now attacking are violent. Evil however, I believe, is not a state of being. Evil is an action. We don't know what is in someone's mind or heart but we do know their actions and can infer somewhat their intent from it. When you terrorize people, you are indeed taking evil action.

I myself will add that there is a solution to this whole thing, but I'm not sure anyone in charge would ever do it. It's really quite simple and sane. Ready? Just. Stop.

Michael

gonna quote from an article by Michael Lerner here,

It's ludicrous to try to establish "blame" in the sense of who did what first. Incidents of violence on the part of Palestinians and their allies cannot be separated from the constant violence of the Occupation, the continual kidnapping by the IDF of Palestinian civilians who are held in prison camps without charges or trial for as long as six months, often enduring torture as documented by the Israeli Human Rights Organization B'Tselem.

Nor can the violence of the Occupation be separated from the misguided policies of many Palestinians who have never been willing to unequivocally acknowledge the legitimacy and right of the Jewish people to the same kind of national self-determination in the land of Palestine that Palestinians rightly demand for themselves; nor from the equally misguided fantasy that peace and prosperity will come from violence rather than from the non-violent strategies used by Gandhi, MLK Jr., and Mandela in his later years.

So flying a jet fighter over people's houses so that children can't even sleep is terrorism the same as bombing a mall and causing people to not want to go to malls anymore.

i'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that i really can't draw a direct moral equivalence between the two. acts that don't kill people will almost always be far better than acts that do kill people.

that said, the flyovers do seem to be no more than an attempt to terrorize a civilian population. this seems to me a particularly stupid tactic and not something i can condone.

-will meyer

Sasha:
'Nope. According to this CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/18/lebanon.evacuation/index.html), evacuees would have had to pay to be evacuated out of Lebanon. Apparently realizing that his approval rating could actually go lower, the Bush adminstration has waived the "fee to flee."'

Wow, reading a lot into this aren't we? Lowering approval ratings??? According to the article you linked to, this policy has been in effect since 1956. If anything, using your logic, poll numbers should go up since Bush waived this fee.

There's plenty of stuff to slam Bush and the administration for, but changing a bad policy should not be one of them.

At about 4:00 a.m. on July 12, an Israeli air force plane bombed a three-story building in the Sheikh Radwan neighborhood in Gaza city. The bomb caused the building to collapse and killed Nabil and Salwah Abu Selmiyeh , who lived in the building that was bombed, and seven of their children: Nasrallah, age 4; Aya, age 7; Yihya, age 9; Ayman, age 12; Huda, age 14; Sumayah, age 16; and Basma, age 17. Another son, 'Awad, age 19, was moderately injured. In addition, another 40 people who lived in the adjacent buildings were injured.

According the IDF Spokesperson's statement, the house that was shelled "served as a hideout for senior activist in the Hamas military wing, including Muhammad Deif who was in the building at the time of the attack. At the time, those present were planning the continued military activity of Hamas." According to media reports, the father of the family, Nabil Abu Salmiya, who was killed, was a lecturer at the Islamic University and a Hamas activist. However, the IDF statement does not mention Nabil or Salwah Abu Selmiyeh by name, nor any of their seven children killed in the bombing. As in similar cases in the past, the military has not provided evidence or additional details to explain or justify the killing of innocent civilians.

Considering the location of the building in the heart of a crowded neighborhood, the fact that the building itself housed a family of ten, and the time chosen for the attack - in the early hours of the morning - those who planned the bombing should have known that widespread harm to civilians was inevitable.

The principle of proportionality, a central pillar of international humanitarian law to which Israel is obligated, prohibits conducting an attack, even against a legitimate military target, if it is known that the attack will cause harm to civilians that is excessive compared to the anticipated military advantage. Israel bears the burden of proof that a particular attack was expected to achieve a military advantage significant enough to justify harming civilians. This burden of proof also requires proof that there was no reasonable alternative to the attack. Violation of the principle of proportionality is defined as a war crime, and therefore carries individual criminal liability for those responsible.

"You said you were Saudi iirc.

After what's happening in your own country, YOU have no right to speak about our democratic elections either"

"Whoa, lorshas lives in Saudi Arabia? And he's giving us crap about how we handle our democracy???"

do i have to say that dictatorships are not elected

And Mr.Myers the problem with the deal was that it was all or nothing , their would be no More negotiations

and why do you keep talking about the clam for the land , the Palestinians now just want the part allocated to them and move on , i don't deny that Hamas want all but you also have to admit their are Israeli parties that want all , and that both of them have always looked to destroy negotiations.

"Oh, and lorshas, before you go on another ridiculous, paranoid rant about how the U.S. is behind every dictatorship in your region, pay attention to your region's own history. The Iranians overthrew their U.S.-backed government in the 1970s"

Whats to be paranoid you admitted the US is backing dictatorships.

and do a Little more wikies the fundamentalists cam after a period not with the overthrow.

on the subject of Iran their is a great graphic novel bot I forgot what the name is.

Lorshas: and why do you keep talking about the clam for the land , the Palestinians now just want the part allocated to them and move on , i don't deny that Hamas want all but you also have to admit their are Israeli parties that want all , and that both of them have always looked to destroy negotiations.

I could be wrong but I don't think I am when I say that Hamas and Al Quaeda are to the Middle East as the KKK and Aryan Brotherhood are to the US. In other words, the extreme elements do not neccesarily reflect the will of the majority.

There is always the argument that the Palestinians elected Hamas and the Lebanese elected Hezzbollah to posts in government but then again, look who runs the majority in our congress, presidency and Supreme Court right now.

Michael

Bill Myers:

"If the Palestinians want to play the "your land was my land" game, then they have to acknowledge that at one time, albeit thousands of years ago, their land belonged to the Jews. I don't care how long ago it was, because no one has yet answered my question as to the exact number of years after which the statute of limitations kicks in"

There is one difference: The Jews that were kicked out of their land by Adriano are long dead, while there are still plenty of palestinians alive that were kicked out by Israel. If you want to see a limitation kicking in, thats a good point to start.

>What the heck do you call the flyovers into Gaza if not terror?

Ummm ... military operations carried out by military aircraft with military markings which the population can be warned against before it happens?

Rather different from a civilian carrying a concealed bomb into a cafe, wouldn't you say?

>let's keep in mind that technically speaking, Israel has never won a war on it's own. The US always helps them.

"The Big Lie". There has been no hard evidence of this in real life. Not for the Six Day War at any rate. It was something concocted by the Arab propaganda bureaus because they couldn't accept that Israel had whipped them all on its own. Consider: the majority of the damage was caused by the Israeli Air Force, and at least a third of that - the best third, too - was comprised of French Mirage III aircraft. The rest were mostly Skyhawks. The F4s and F15s didn't show up until later conflicts.

>EVERY conquerer has considered legitimate resistance to be 'terrorism'.

And I can call a shark a begonia. Doesn't make it so. In WW II, French, Dutch, Norwegian and other resistance groups unceasingly hit German military targets. Not once, to the best of my knowledge, did they ever deliberately target a busload of civilians. Or go into Germany to shoot up German kids. There IS a difference.