| Author | Message | ||
     Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 656 Registered: 2-2003 |
Gordon, I agree with your statement: which is why I've said from the beginning that the Israeli Government's decision to destroy the Lebanese infrastructure would turn moderate Lebanese against Israel and increase Hezbollah's influence. A cease-fire is more in Israel's interest than in Hezbollah's because the longer the bombing continues the more that Hezbollah is seen as "the resistance" by moderates as well as extremists in Lebanon and the Arab world. A cease-fire initiated by the US and Israel would put in motion a process supported by the whole world -- including moderates in Lebanon and throughout the Middle East -- that would include implementation of UN Resolution 1559 to eliminate Hezbollah as an armed force. A worldwide effort to eliminate Hezbollah's military organization has a much better chance to succeed than a military campaign by Israel which is destroying Lebanese society and increasing Hezbollah's power and influence. The US should encourage Israel to choose the international option that has a real chance to not only stop the Hezbollah missiles but ultimately eliminate Hezbollah as an armed force. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2607 Registered: 3-2003 |
"We know that the likes of Hezbollah use homes, schools, mosques, etc for operations and storage." Y-Net (the online extension of Yedioth Ahronoth) reports that Hizballah fighters were firing at Israeli troops from inside a mosque (yesterday, I think). The IDF was contemplating whether to bomb it. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 595 Registered: 3-2005 |
ESL, Isn't it obvious that one of the reasons you don't hear outrage about Hezbollah's rockets is because the damage to the people and infrastructure being wreaked by Israel's firepower is wildly outpacing the damage being done by rockets aimed at Israel? Can't you see that? Also can't you see that for years and years Americans have been hearing a whitewashed Israeli version of history, which when contradicted by fact, has been met by shrieks of "anti-Semitism!!!" with the deliberate intent to prevent a logical process of identifying exactly what is in America's national interest in the region. History didn't start this morning. The context of the present debate is the outgrowth of an attempt to derail legitimate debate for quite some time -- only this time, Israel's critics are not going to be intimidated. They are going insist on calling attention to the problems Israel has created in the region, which increasingly pose problems for Americans. I don't know how the parties are going to get to the peace table. But I do know that it is in the interest of all Americans to redress the imbalance that has previously characterized the debate, to recognize the value of Arab life as well as Israeli life and to be on the side of a negotiated peace agreement that removes the main source of chaos in the region -- Israel's efforts to prevent the creation of a viable Palestinian state -- and the threat of engulfing the entire region in war. | ||
| Glock 17 Citizen Username: Glock17 Post Number: 1614 Registered: 7-2005  |
Dave, I love how noone has commented on your quote and statement. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 1808 Registered: 9-2004  |
Mr. Ramon also raised the possibility of an expanded air assault, saying "all those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah.ďż˝" That is the most RIDICULOUS statement! Here are reasons why some of the innocent civilians cannot leave south Lebanon: 1. All those still in south Lebanon can't get out because of bombed roads. 2. Driving out of war-torn south Lebanon, civilians find themselves targets. 3. Many civilians remain, unable to afford the trip or too afraid to go. (Price gouging has driven the cost of taxis up to $500 for the 80-mile ride to Beirut.) 4. The roads are pitted from explosives, and gasoline has become scarce. Is it fair to LABEL these poor civilians who cannont escape terrorist?  | ||
| Glock 17 Citizen Username: Glock17 Post Number: 1616 Registered: 7-2005 |
Obviously the Israelis think it is. Can anyone say "Final Solution"? Trap everyone in southern Lebanon through a quick destruction of their infrastructure....then kill them all. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 657 Registered: 2-2003 |
Eats, Hezbollah admits that it is targeting civilians with its missiles (to the degree that it has any control over where the missiles land) which is one of the many reasons why it has no moral standing. I think the reason you hear more criticism of IDF bombing of civilian targets is that most of these critics believe the bombings contradict the strong moral values upon which Israel is founded. Justice Minister Ramon appears to be an exception. For my part, I've tried to emphasize the damage that the IDF bombings are doing to Israel's security because they are strengthening the very forces that they are intended to destroy. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 596 Registered: 3-2005 |
 | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3548 Registered: 9-2001  |
Kathleen: I actually agree with the underlying premise of your argument that Israel is wreaking greater damage in Lebanon than Hezbollah can visit on Israel, but in your bending over backwards to address this you ignore seeing the whole picture. Your analysis would be more balanced if you also registered the fact that Palestinians and many Arabs are totally committed to the destruction of Israel, and, in fact, many are committed to the killing of Jews simply for their being Jewish. I am not defending Israel, but I disagree with you that we have been fed a whitewashed version of history that only benefits Israel. It is a plain and amply-documented fact that Hamas, Hezbollah, and many many others in the region refuse to accept the legitimacy of Israel, and are openly committed to its destruction. How can you advocate that Israel sit down and negotiate with people who take this stand? Let the Palestinians say that they want a real two state solution, not one that involves the destruction of the State of Israel and a guaranteed right of return (which would destroy it just as surely), and then let the US force Israel to the bargaining table or else forsake it. | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3549 Registered: 9-2001 |
Glock: Using "Final Solution" may be cute to you, but it is like saying that an African American is a slave owner; or that a Cambodian is acting like a Khmer genocidist--it is a morally repugnant and gratuitously nasty statement that ensures that no one on the other side will listen to what you say. If that is what you want to achieve, then so be it. But you can likely make your point more effectively if you would care for anyone to listen or be swayed by you. | ||
| Illuminated Radish Citizen Username: Umoja Post Number: 43 Registered: 6-2006 |
Shoots: I don't think most people complain about Hezbollah and Hamas because they are terrorist. They are the 'bad guys,' people realized decades ago that they weren't good. Maybe with the United States, hopefully, becoming more critical of Israeli millitary policies, the Arab world will realize that finally after over half a century, that someone in power is really listening. | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 3550 Registered: 9-2001 |
Radish: The Arab world (whatever that is) could care a rat's rosy rear end that someone is listening to them. First, they will not believe it (with some justification). Second, people in power sure are listening--and manipulating the Arab street to cynically remain in power. Third, I am not sure who you think realized decades ago that they are not good--they are supported overtly and covertly by Arab nations; they are now the heroes of the Arab street (but not of the autocrats ruling Arab nations); and I sure do not hear Putin or Chirac castigating them the way they castigate Israel. Why hold Israel to a higher standard and accept Hamas and Hezbollah attacks on Israeli civilians and a stated desire to push Israel into the sea? | ||
| frannyfree Citizen Username: Frannyfree Post Number: 210 Registered: 1-2004 |
This entire war is about getting rid of Israel. Israel will not go calmly and sweetly into the ocean. If Israel loses ONE war, she will no longer exist. The lessons of history tell us that the new Nazis are Islamofascists. Can you even imagine a world in which they win? | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 658 Registered: 2-2003 |
Fanny, Hezbollah and Hamas cannot militarily challenge Israel's existence. But if moderate regimes (meaning moderate toward Israel) like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are toppled or pushed to the extreme, Israel could face a real potential challenge to its existence, even given its nuclear arsenal. An ongoing Israeli Government policy of destroying Lebanon and Gaza, coupled with an ongoing ground war against Hezbollah guerrillas, could create a climate where one or more of these moderate regimes could succumb to extremism. Israel has another option that would strengthen the moderate Arab states and involve virtually the entire world in a process to disarm Hezbollah. That option is agreeing to a cease-fire and working toward implementation of UN Resolution 1559, as recommended by most of the countries in Rome yesterday. It's an option that would strengthen Israel's security, in contrast to the continued bombing and ground war, that will only weaken Israel's security. | ||
| frannyfree Citizen Username: Frannyfree Post Number: 212 Registered: 1-2004 |
A ceace fire only strengthens the enemy and gives them a chance to rearm. Does anyone think that Hesbollah will disarm? They are terrorists! They are armed by Iran and will rearm and add soldiers given the opportunity. As they have done in the past. When your distruction is the aim..how do you compromise? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1730 Registered: 10-2004  |
maybe this war is not about destroying Israel, but is more about the PNAC and their vision of the new world order. PNAC members are not only members of the USA. There are many who share neocon beliefs that are in power in Israel. Perhaps this is all part of the grand strategy of war in the middle east presented in planning papers of the PNAC. Otherwise ask yourselves why now? Those missiles of Hezbollah were annoyances. Kidnapping of 2 soldiers = full fledged war? I dont see it. I think we are seeing a grand strategy being played out to the absolute misery of the poor souls who are caught up in the middle. | ||
| Gordon Agress Citizen Username: Odd Post Number: 476 Registered: 8-2004 |
"Never put an innocent at risk" is a fine starting point, but eventually you have to deal with those who would use this rule to endanger innocents by shooting at them from the cover of innocents. Morality becomes a lot more complicated when your adversaries see decency chiefly as a tool to be used against you. Which isn't to say that you abandon it, just that it is more complicated than we would like. Of course, those adversaries won't admit their game -- the clearer it is, the more readily decent people will do something about it. They will both hide and justify what they do, and make it sound complicated, and refer past injustices. They can get away with this crap only if they convince their civilians to acquiesce, and their victims to bind themselves to a particular set of rules that amount to a suicide pact. But at the end of the day, they are just pusillanimous weasels, hoping that no one notices they are shooting at children while hiding behind children. So, no, Kathleen, I don't see any responsibility on Israel's behalf to negotiate with Hezbollah or Hamas, though perhaps they may find that strategically useful. And I don't think the "context" changes the analysis of murderers who hide behind children, or the morality of how you respond to them. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 316 Registered: 1-2006 |
Jul 26, 2006 Lebanon: Déjŕ Vu All Over Again by Srdja Trifkovic As Secretary of State Rice continued her round of meetings in the Middle East, Israeli troops and the Hezbollah fought a fierce battle at Bint J’bail in south Lebanon and at least 40 rockets were fired at northern Israel on Tuesday morning, killing a teenage girl and wounding three people in the Israeli Arab town of Maghar. Dr. Rice, after meeting separately with Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, declared the United States wants an “urgent and enduring” peace where problems are solved without war. “It is time for a new Middle East,” she declared, “it is time to say to those that don’t want a different kind of Middle East that we will prevail. They will not.” The problem in Lebanon is that for the second time in a generation those who do not subscribe to Dr. Rice’s platitudes hold sway. But who exactly is doing what to whom, and why? The following is a transcript of Srdja Trifkovic’s interview on the situation in Lebanon, broadcast last Monday (July 24) on Issues, Etc., with The Rev. Todd Wilken on KFUO (St. Louis, MO). The Rev. Wilken is an ordained minister in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. His first question to Dr. Trifkovic—a regular guest on his program—concerned the viability of Lebanon as a polity in the aftermath of the latest round of violence. TRIFKOVIC: The country of “Lebanon” is no more. Within Lebanon we used to have a Christian community, a Druze community a Sunni Muslim and a Shia Muslim community co-existing in an uneasy harmony before 1975. When the civil war started—and it was ignited at that time by the forces external to Lebanon, particularly the PLO—this precarious balance collapsed. After the halting recovery of the late 1990s and the early 2000s one had the impression that we were back at square one, that Lebanon was capable of overcoming the ghosts of the past and becoming once again the commercial and entrepreneurial center of the Middle East. Once again, however, there were external forces that wanted to use Lebanon as their turf, as a playing field for their interests that had nothing to do with the interests of the Lebanese. That’s where we come to the Hezbollah. Hezbollah is not the PLO, it’s no Hamas either—it is not an indigenous Palestinian movement that seeks to remove Israel from the occupied territories. It is a Shi’ite sectarian movement that has the objective of pursuing the interests of the theocracy in Teheran that seeks to create a Shi’ite domain that will extend from Iran across the Fertile Crescent, across the Euphrates and the Tigris, into Syria and Lebanon, all the way to the Mediterranean Sea. Hezbollah is not a home-grown, spontaneously developed “Lebanese” movement. It gets its weaponry, its supplies and its funds from Iran. Even its rockets contain the same explosives that the British Army has detected in the ordnance used against their troops in Basra, in the Shi’ite south of Iraq. The only mystery in this sad story is why are the Israelis being so indiscriminate in their response. Two decades ago they were capable and skillful in separating the Druze and Sunni and Shia Muslims from the Christians. In southern Lebanon they had allies like Major Haddad controlling the border and the area to the Litani river, thus preventing attacks on Israel proper. Current attacks by the Israeli Defense Force on anything that moves in Lebanon are generating support for the Hezbollah not only among Muslims—including those who are not Shi’ites—but also among Lebanon’s Christians. Once the rockets start falling and the infrastructure is targeted, you don’t blame the force that has inserted itself into your daily life, you blame those who press the trigger that releases the missiles. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q: What is the goal of the current operation from the Israeli side? TRIFKOVIC: Admittedly Israel has the right to defend itself, but I am puzzled by the way it goes round doing it. In Lebanon you have a multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-denominational mosaic of different communities and different interests. You need to decide which one party to draw to your camp, and how to focus on another that you want to defeat. What Israel seems to be doing right now is to turn every segment of the Lebanese opinion against itself. It is simply not rational. Yes, a few soldiers have been killed, a couple of them were abducted, and indeed this was an aggressive act by the Hezbollah. To react by effectively blockading the entire country, by targeting its only international airport, by turning every Lebanese—Druze, Shiite, Sunni and Christian, Maronite as well as Orthodox—into potential Israeli target, doesn’t make sense. I am not saying this just for the sake of moral condemnation. If you want to play geopolitics, you need to determine within Lebanon who is your friend, who is your foe, and who are the neutrals. You need to dose your response in the way that will be perceived by the recipients of the message in terms of reward or punishment. The Israeli Defense Force should re-learn the lesson of the 1980s. Back then they were perfectly capable of knowing who were their friends in Lebanon and who were their foes. Right now they are turning everyone in Lebanon into enemies. Q: How would you comment the US diplomatic reaction? TRIFKOVIC: For the time being the US line is that we don’t need a ceasefire for as long as the Hezbollah—which the US regards as a terrorist organization—remains in place, and its infrastructure remain intact. The problem is that you cannot dismantle Hezbollah by air strikes. Yes, you can hit a headquarters, you can kill a local leader or two, but you’ll also kill many civilians in the process. This is inevitable because these people deliberately insert themselves into the centers of civilian population, just as the Bosnian Muslims deliberately inserted their mortars and artillery pieces into the heart of Sarajevo, so that the Serbian response would be taken as the proof that we were dealing with genocidal and unreasonable people. The Israelis have to decide what is their military objective. Right now what we have is an all-round response to any real or perceived provocation or threat that hits everything that moves. On the one hand the Israelis say to the Lebanese, evacuate from the chronically unstable areas such as Tyre and Sidon. On the other hand, as soon as they see the vehicles moving along the winding road to the north, they launch missiles and the local hospitals have to deal with the dead and the wounded. It doesn’t make sense. The Israelis need to differentiate, within Lebanon: who are their friends, who are their foes, and who are the neutrals who may bed wooed to their side? Right now it is clear that many Lebanese Shiites in the south are the enemy. The Sunnis are only potential enemies, and their attitude will largely depend on what you do with Syria. If we persist in treating Syria as a part of “the Axis of Evil,” Bashir Assad—the president who inherited the mantle from his father—will not go along with any peaceful solution. It would make sense for him to follow the line of “the worse—the better.” But he is not an Islamic fundamentalist. He is a pragmatist who is simply waiting for an offer, for a plum juicy enough that would make him say “OK, I’ll give up on the Hezbollah, I’ll cut my links to them.” If he were to do so, the Iranians would be hard-pressed to re-supply their clients. Syria is not interested in geopolitical designs, it is primarily interested in gaining foreign approval, the recognition of the legitimacy of its current regime. Bashir Assad, a doctor who was trained in London, does not share the messianic, millenarian outlook of the Hezbollah leadership or of the Iranian president, Ahmadinejad. He is simply going along with the trend because he feels that in this admittedly unpleasant company he has the opportunity to pursue his primary objective, which is personal security and the guarantee of an unhindered, self-perpetuating personal rule in Damascus. If and when Israel and Washington are prepared to tell him, “OK, Bashir, you can die in bed forty years hence, for as long as you cut off you links to the Hezbollah, for as long as you lease the Golan heights to Israel on a 99-year basis without necessarily recognizing the finality of the occupation,” I believe that he may be amenable to a meaningful dialogue. It has not been tried yet. […] Israel hopes that by getting Syria and Iran more deeply involved, it will get the United States involved too, to the point where it cannot retreat without losing face. It is indeed in Israel’s interest to have a regime change both in Teheran and in Damascus. It is not a matter of conspiracy theories, it is not an issue that belongs to the fringes of the mainstream discourse, it is a fact of life. Israel would like the United States to do in Teheran and in Damascus what it has done in Baghdad. Israel does not have the wherewithal to pull it off, however, and right now Israel is squeamish about causing rifts even with Damascus. In the Golan Heights, the area that Israel occupied from Syria in 1967 and has held ever since, things have been remarkably peaceful for decades. There are no skirmishes, no grenade launchings, no Kassam rocket firings—nothing. It’s one of the most peaceful boundaries in the Middle East. Hezbollah started the latest bout of violence in order to remove the attention from Iran, from its nuclear program that had been hitting the headlines throughout the month of June. Even the West Europeans, often willing to give Iran the benefit of the doubt, were losing patience. They were leaning to the US position that the Iranian nuclear program does not look all that peaceful, that it has all the ingredients, including enrichment, that may fundamentally change the strategic equation in the Middle East. We don’t need another nuclear power in the region, and even the Iranians, in their moments of diplomatic sanity, repeat the mantra that they do not intend to go that way. But if electricity generation was their only motive, then enrichment to the point of producing weapons-grade plutonium doesn’t make sense. So, encouraging Hezbollah, which is inspired, supplied and indoctrinated by the Iranian Shi’ite ideology, to start attacking Israeli targets in the second week of July, is not all that surprising if you look at it in the context of the International Atomic Energy Commission’s probe into the Iranian program. For as long as the Iranians, through their Hezbollah proxies, remain active in Lebanon and remain capable of causing major international crises, they can hope that their goal of developing a nuclear device will remain on the back burner, less visible to the world. | ||
| Eric Wertheim Citizen Username: Bub Post Number: 223 Registered: 1-2005 |
Many surprises: 1 Hezbollah genuinely surprsied by massive Israeli response. 2 Israel surprised by Hezbollah toughness, preparation, and staying power. 3 The relative ineffectiveness of Hezbollah's massive rocket arsenal. It takes 100 rockets to hurt someone, and they seem incapable of using them against the IDF on their side of the border. 4 The initial backlash against Hezbollah by other Lebanese, which turned to anti-Israel sentiment as the extent of the damage and humanitarian crisis set in. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2608 Registered: 3-2003 |
1. Henry Siegman is an •••. Honeslty, no one but leftist ideologues takes him seriously. 2. The stratement "Hezbollah and Hamas cannot militarily challenge Israel's existence" could only be made by a psychotic. 3. Wetrtheim is on target again, although I think his second assertion is debatable. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2609 Registered: 3-2003 |
"Two decades ago [the Israelis] were capable and skillful in separating the Druze and Sunni and Shia Muslims from the Christians." Please, 3ringale. Two decades ago a more brutal Ariel Sharon was leading the IDF and Christians had not yet given up the ghost and fled Lebanon for the west. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2614 Registered: 3-2003 |
Hezbollah was using UN post as 'shield' | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 659 Registered: 2-2003 |
J Crohn, Please provide a rational proof for your assertion that
| ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 660 Registered: 2-2003 |
Fanny, A cease-fire is a necessary prelude to an international effort to implement UN Resolution 1559 under which Hezbollah will be disarmed. Continued bombing of Lebanon will not disarm Hezbollah. To the contrary, it will increase Hezbollah's numbers, influence and power among all sectors of Lebanese society and continue to degrade and undermine the Lebanese Government, which must be fully functional if 1559 is to be implemented. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 662 Registered: 2-2003 |
New York Times July 28, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/world/middleeast/28arabs.html?hp&ex=1154145600 &en=18302b8ca276fb0d&ei=5059&partner=AOL | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12263 Registered: 5-2001 |
What the heck is going on with Israel? It appears that they lack the will to send troops into Lebanon to deal with Hezbollah, but are relying on an American style air campaign to destroy their military might. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 1809 Registered: 9-2004 |
Wetrtheim is on target again, although I think his second assertion is debatable. How is it debatable? Seems Israel was surprised by Hezbollah fire power. Ferocity of Hezbollah comes as a surprise THE full extent of Hezbollah’s resistance to Israeli ground troops in Lebanon emerged yesterday as returning soldiers and senior commanders admitted they were taken by surprise by the Shia group’s ferocity. As they munched watermelon yesterday, sweating Israeli soldiers were visibly shocked by the stiff opposition they had encountered, describing their Hezbollah opponents as a “guerrilla army” with landmines and anti-tank missiles capable of crippling a Merkavah battle tank. “It was really scary. Most of our armoured personnel carriers have holes,” a paramedic told The Times after recovering three wounded tank soldiers. “It’s a very hard situation. We were in Lebanon before but it wasn’t like this for a long time.” A tank commander said: “It’s a real war.” from Times online | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 1810 Registered: 9-2004 |
I found this story on another website: Hezbollah arrests two Israeli soldiers The Lebanese Hezbollah movement announced Wednesday the arrest of two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon. Lebanese police said that the two soldiers were arrested as they entered the town of Aitaa al-Chaab inside the Lebanese border. Israeli aircraft were active in the air over southern Lebanon, police said, with jets bombing roads leading to the market town of Nabatiyeh, 60 kilometers south of Beirut. http://english.bna.bh/?ID=47348 here is a map to show where the soldiers were arrested, captured or kidnapped?  Okay, in the Western world these soldiers were kidnapped. According to the Arab world they were arrested. Hezbollah used the word "captured". I guess it comes down on who's spinning the story. I don't know what to believe anymore. | ||
| Scully Citizen Username: Scully Post Number: 838 Registered: 8-2005 |
Well, it appears true (no matter who is spinning) that Lebanon (through Hezbollah) continues to bomb away at Israel daily and Israel continues to bomb back. There's gotta be an answer to this... | ||
| Scully Citizen Username: Scully Post Number: 840 Registered: 8-2005 |
Oh yeah, this'll help cool things down... 'BEIRUT, Lebanon Two days after Hezbollah's leader vowed a new phase in the fighting, officials are reporting rocket attacks reaching deeper into Israel than ever before.' | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4575 Registered: 12-2001  |
As far as I can tell, the war is going in favor of Hezbollah, so I don't see any incentive for them to stop fighting. Militarily, Hezbollah has already won. They are fighting tenaciously against the vastly superior IDF and that is the criteria for victory in that part of the world. And, they are hitting back at Israel with rockets. Diplomatically, the advantage seems to be with the enemies of Israel at the moment. While some interesting diplomatic opportunities are opening up, it remains to be seen if we are clever enough to seize those opportunities. Hezbollah depends on the Syrian lifeline. If we can make it worth Syria's while to cut that lifeline, we will have made great progress. So far, Bush seems to like the threat of force to do this, but it isn't working. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 1814 Registered: 9-2004 |
sounds like the US is pissed-off at Israel… US 'outrage' over Israeli claims The US state department has dismissed as "outrageous" a suggestion by Israel that it has been authorised by the world to continue bombing Lebanon. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5223940.stm The US is sparing no efforts to bring a durable and lasting end to this conflict," said spokesman Adam Ereli. Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon made the suggestion after powers meeting in Rome refrained from demanding an immediate ceasefire. UK PM Tony Blair has arrived in Washington for talks on the crisis. His meeting with US President George W Bush comes amid growing pressure for the UK and US to join calls for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. Israel has carried out dozens of fresh strikes on Lebanon. Lebanese officials said at least 12 people had been killed. Meanwhile at least 50 Hezbollah rockets have landed on northern Israel, hitting towns including Nazareth, Kiryat Shemona and Safed. Seven people have been injured. Hezbollah said it had fired a new long-range rocket, called the Khaibar-1, into northern Israel. The militant group said the rocket landed south of the city of Haifa, the deepest strike inside Israel so far. Israeli police have confirmed that a previously unknown rocket carrying up to 100kg of explosives had struck an area near the town of Afula. | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 3109 Registered: 12-2001  |
I think this whole thing is a mess. Regardless of what Israel has a right to do, or what it is morally permitted to do to defend itself, I think Israel may not have successfully acted in its own best interests in this matter. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4576 Registered: 12-2001 |
Quite right Themp. I can't remember 1973 clearly. I was in high school. I am sure that I assumed, as did most people, that the IDF would crush the Syrian and Egyptian armies, business as usual. I don't remember the Lebanon operation of 1982 all that clearly. But at that time, the world was still operating user the Cold War framework. This time it is different and it seems like Israel has done very poorly in the arena of world opinion. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12266 Registered: 5-2001 |
In 1973 the most popular joke was, "How many gears does an Egyptian tank have?" Answer, " Four, one forward and three in reverse".  I had just graduated from college in 1967 when that war began. If effected one of my friends to the point he went to Israel and joined the IDF. He eventually rose to the rank of Colonel and commanded a reserve tank regiment in Lebanon. He also became a reform Rabbi (which I understand doesn't have any official status in Israel), which I always considered a rather unusual dual career. I thought "solider/priests" went out with the middle ages. I think the total dismantling of the infrastructure in Lebanon was a mistake on the part of Israel. I doubt that it slowed down resupply of Hezbollah from Syria to any great degree and angered much of the world, including myself. Hezbollah gave the IDF a bloody nose. While the vastly superior IDF eventually took the two border towns, the cost of the battles have caused the Israelis to scale back their war goals to clearing a two mile strip of the border. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 597 Registered: 3-2005 |
ESL, Isreal is going to have to negotiate with its enemies if it wants to live there in peace. If not today, then next month, or next year, or 10 years from now. They are not in a position to wipe out the Arabs, and every day more and more Arabs hate them for reasons that have nothing to do with anti-Semitism or the Koran, so whether they like it or not, eventually the Israelis are going to have to deal. That's reality, not being unfair to Israel. Israel never should and never will sign any ultimate peace agreement or trade land for peace that does not include an explicit recognition of its right to exist and the rights of Israelis to live securely within their own borders. Nothing -- and I mean nothing -- gives Israel a license to violate other people's human rights and commit war crimes, and I don't want it done on my nickel. As for the right of return, I'm prepared to go with whatever the Palesntians and Jews are willing to accept in thet regard. I'm only going to say this once more: My overriding concern is not how Israelis and Palestinians work things out -- violently or non-violently. My concern is that AMERICA clarify its position on democracy to the world and to the Arabs and the Israelis. As of today you cannot blame many people of the region for believing America is lying through its teeth when it says it believes in democracy and will embrace that path for the Arab world. We are giving cause to the Arab world to hate us and to turn away from democracy in favor of violent solutions. This behavior from the Bush Administration is not in your interests or my interests or the interests of any American citizen. A weakened America is not in Israel's interests either but can I make this point any plainer -- If something that is not in Israel's interest is nonetheless in the interest of Americans, I expect the American government to act in the interest of American citizens, not Israel. Agreed? At this particular junction, both the American government and the Israeli government seem determined to act against their own intersts and each other's interests. I think it's obvious they are MORONS and the sooner their respective citizenry gets rid of them and charts a new course, the safer we will be -- and so will a great many other people who are suffering beyond my ability to describe it. It's sickening. | ||
| kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 598 Registered: 3-2005 |
By the way, you need to have a subscription to read it, but The Economist -- which is hardly the handiwork of leftist ideologues -- has an excellent analysis of the situation in its editorial, and they are calling for an immediate ceasefire and peace negotiations. I highly recommend people pick it up and read it. If someone can get it online, perhaps they will post it here. It's very good. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro  Post Number: 3660 Registered: 5-2004  |
Given the various constituencies in the US, it is not always clear what is in America's best interests because no two people have the same set of priorities. One person might believe in complete isolationism as the only way to truly protect the US. Others might believe that fully embracing globalism is the only way. Many others are somewhere in between. Some may believe we have to project democracy wherever and whenever it makes sense others believe we must be more pragmatic, only nurturing democracy when the leaders are likely to be pro-US. World Peace is most likely in everyone's best interest. Barring that likelihood any time soon, what's the next most preferred status? Possibly tangentially related... has anyone read The Plot Against America? | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 1815 Registered: 9-2004 |
This crisis is starting to backfire on the Israelis. Even though the Saudi’s criticized Hezbollah, they have made it clear that it holds Israel responsible for the conflict. Saudis Blame Israel In an indirect reference to Hizballah, the cabinet said the international community's shortsighted policies in supporting Israel had resulted in "some elements and movements" taking "their own decisions." Israel had "exploited [those decisions] in the most horrendous manner to launch a terrible war against Lebanon and imprison the entire Palestinian people." The apparent shift in the Saudi stance followed criticism of the position taken earlier by the kingdom. Many Arabs view Nasrallah as a hero for standing up to Israel, and portraits of the black-turbaned leader of "the resistance" feature prominently in protests across the Middle East. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/20060 7/INT20060719b.html Also this is a serious issue involving China. International Divisions Deepen Over Lebanon July 28, 2006 (CNSNews.com) - Divisions in the international community over the Israeli-Hizballah conflict are widening, as the United States finds itself increasingly under fire for supporting Israel. China hinted that the U.S. refusal to subscribe to a Security Council statement accusing Israel of deliberately targeting U.N. peacekeepers could cost the council Beijing's cooperation in other major current disputes, including the Iranian nuclear issue. China and fellow veto-wielding permanent council member Russia have long obstructed efforts by the U.S. and its allies to take firm steps against Iran -- as well as against North Korea for its nuclear weapons development and missile tests, and against Sudan for the carnage in Darfur. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/20060 7/INT20060728a.html | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3661 Registered: 5-2004 |
"Saudis Blame Israel" A shocker of a headline. Next thing you know, there'll be a headline that says "Sky is Blue!" Or "Arabs and Jews Not Getting Along" I'm not sure I understand why you highlighted that last line. They're already obstructing our efforts. Are you saying because of that statement, that we should abandon an ally to appease a government that is already making things difficult for us? and... CNS? Really? |
